❝❝You're making unjustified assumptions.

Is the climate crisis a thing? To some (like most pagans), yes. To others like (not conservative) me, no. It's an article of faith, not far removed from monotheism or forgiveness of sin. The issue is that because of the alarmism, those who believe in the climate crisis don't tolerate dissent because of the "urgency" of the problem.

At their best, American Christian conservatives are extremely community minded. A child lost in the woods? They are there looking. Death in the family? Somebody is bringing meals by. The problem is who they identify as being part of the community. Something that is not helped by some like pagans setting themselves outside the acknowledged community.

Most claims of conservative racism are because the conservatives involved didn't see any reason to grant special privilege when people already had rights recognized by law. It doesn't help when conservatives are routinely accused of white supremacy simply for being the wrong skin color regardless of their words and actions. There is a vast difference between not supporting the claims of groups like BLM and being racist. Because conservatives (and libertarians too) see rights as individual and not collective, the idea of identity politics is repugnant. You have rights because you are human, not because you are Hispanic, female, wore a pink hat in a march, or consider yourself non-binary.

What's more, the idea that only "whites" can be racist because of something that was done in their great-great-great grandparents time just doesn't fly. Racism comes in all colors. I've seen casual racism my entire life. I've also seen most people reach out for no other reason than someone else needed help.

Finally, judging people by label is a mistake. The label has no inherent vice or virtue. It's the individual who makes the label mean something through their words and actions, not the other way around. Power from victimhood depends on the pity of others and will make you less than you are.

---

Here are some of the demands for privilege I've seen during my life.

The idea that one skin color and one skin color alone can decide what is and is not racism. I still know people who try to convince me that a "black" minister saying "Hymietown" is not racist.

The idea that inner-city poverty is a more important than reservation poverty.

The idea that a person whose family came from Nigeria two generations ago has a claim on the success of a person whose family came from China five generations ago.

The idea that skin color should trump evidence in a crime.

And as long as we keep qualifying the legal definition of who is and is not allowed to marry, that problem will not go away. Previously I've pointed out in discussions on this site that somehow in the call for marriage equality poly marriage wasn't even a consideration. That selectivity is a consequence of defining rights by group instead of individual.

---

Pardon, but the bit about how some threw poly people under the bus should be stressed. Because the "struggle" wasn't about marriage in whatever form it could take between consenting adults, it was about "gay marriage."

It wasn't about rights. It was about privilege for some taken at the expense of others.

No, there wasn't a "polyamorous community" fighting to be recognized. I had some LGBT activists tell me emphatically that poly people didn't deserve marriage because they hadn't fought for it.

That is where my issue is. I'm perfectly willing to fight for equal rights. But I hear demands for "black" rights, Hispanic rights, women's rights, gay rights, and for all I know rights for people with ingrown toenails. Not to mention Christian rights, pagan rights, Muslim rights, atheist rights, and pastafarian rights. That doesn't even count the constant efforts of government to define government powers as rights (police rights, Congress has the right…). It seems that everyone wants to carve out their own piece but no one is willing to help carve out a piece for any group but theirs. Especially if they don't agree with other groups.

It's not about rights. It's about privilege for some taken at the expense of others.

Oh, and by the way, "white" cis males are guilty for all the troubles in the world. Especially when they don't abase themselves to the demands of self-identified victims-of-the-week. No matter what they personally have done or said, "white" cis males are undeniably and collectively guilty. Or so I am told. Again and again and again.

How that is not racist is beyond me.

Meanwhile "people of color" tell me that they are fighting for the rights of the victimized. And they are. But not if those victims live almost invisibly and don't advance certain causes. And definitely not if those victims have different politics. If there is an oil pipeline that gets TV coverage, the "champions" are all over it. But every day poverty on Amerindian reservations, well, that just isn't important enough.

So tell me, when is it reasonable when some victims are deliberately overlooked? Maybe it's not about rights. Maybe it's about privilege.

Human rights are the only ones worth fighting for. Maybe we should worry about the rights we share instead of a place in the pecking order. It's not a right unless the other has it too.

---

“I still wouldn't characterize them as privileges.”

I know. That's what's so frustrating. Human rights get moved to the back seat, then to the bicycle with a flat tire thirteen rows back.❞❞

Tags: maxims ∙ unjustified ∙ assumption ∙ climate crisis ∙ article of faith ∙ American ∙ Amerindians ∙ reservation ∙ Christian ∙ conservatives ∙ community ∙ racism ∙ privilege ∙ rights ∙ label ∙ marriage ∙ gay marriage ∙ polyamory ∙ people of color ∙ victims ∙ overlook ∙ human rights

I'd argue that the writing was on the wall when marriage was legally defined and moved away from being a religious rite to being a secular right.

Tags: marriage ∙ religion ∙ secular ∙ Bookworm ∙ permissible ∙ mala in se ∙ mala prohibita ∙ damage ∙ undesirables ∙ interracial marriages ∙ force of law ∙ Constitution ∙ man ∙ woman ∙ English common law ∙ Bible ∙ 20th Century ∙ Emperor Nero ∙ Mesopotamia ∙ China ∙ John Boswell ∙ Orthodox Church ∙ Native Americas ∙ third gender ∙ two-spirit ∙ mating ∙ pairbond ∙ raising a family ∙ Divine ∙ Old Testament ∙ biological ∙ monogamy ∙ permissible ∙ choice ∙ privilege ∙ right to vote ∙ Christian

Headlines that don't merit their own entry

Do Half of All Marriages Really End in Divorce?

NATO to Deploy 45,000 Troops Near Russian Border—Calling it a “Defensive” Move

China confirms detention of former Interpol chief Meng Hongwei

U.S. not invited to Canada’s upcoming trade meeting — only ‘like minded’ nations allowed

How the mushroom dream of a ‘long-haired hippie’ could help save the world’s bees

ACLU's Opposition to Kavanaugh Sounds Its Death Knell

BOMBSHELL: audit of global warming data finds it riddled with errors

Politico: 'After Failing to Stop Kavanaugh, Dems Wonder If It's Time to Be More Ruthless'

Former Google boss launches scathing Silicon Valley attack urging tech giants to end the delusion that it's making the world a better place

Trump Isn’t a Self-Made Man. His Wealth Is the Product of Years of Government Subsidies.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: 'Eliminate' Electoral College, It 'Undermines' Democracy

IPCC Report Reaches Dire Conclusions Based on Models that Overstate Rate of Warming

The Democrats' Complaints About the Senate Being Undemocratic Are Pure Whining and Excuse-Making: Here's Why

Tags: marriage ∙ divorce ∙ NATO ∙ Russia ∙ troops ∙ China ∙ Interpol ∙ Meng Hongwei ∙ Canada ∙ trade ∙ mushroom ∙ bees ∙ ACLU ∙ Brett Kavanaugh ∙ global warming ∙ Democrats ∙ Silicon Valley ∙ tech giants ∙ Donald Trump ∙ subsidies ∙ Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ∙ electoral college ∙ Al Gore ∙ Hillary Clinton ∙ IPCC ∙ Senate

❝❝WH, you are way off base with your opinion about Islam having no Constitution protections. Religion is between you and the Divine and no one else.

That being said, *ahem*





It may be a religion, but if it relies on force, any and all opposition is justified. And if someone chooses to walk away, that's their right.

If your religion depends on force, you're doing it wrong.

---

That's not your place to decide. And Story was wrong.

If you start excluding religions from protection, sooner or later someone else is going to exclude yours. No other nation has America's pluralism. It's what threatens all monotheistic Islam. Religious choice is exactly that, choice,

On the other hand, we must insist on an even playing ground. Islam gets no special treatment and no special protections.

I'd be perfectly happy seeing a law that required anyone, regardless of faith, who participated in an honor killing or female genital mutilation to be executed, wrapped in pigskin, boiled with pig dung, and buried under a pig farm. Of course, the pigs might object…

---

Religion is a hot button topic for me, if for no other reason than I have had Christians use theirs against me, and tell me in no uncertain terms that any religion except Christianity should not be allowed. I'm related to some of those people.

Story himself specifically excluded Judaism. Which is interesting considering (among other things) the history of the Newport, Rhode Island Hebrew Congregation.

Here's what both you and Story are completely overlooking. The English Civil War was relatively recent. No proto-American wanted another church telling their church what to do. But that is minor. No, the big thing is that for the very first time (that we know of) in the history of Western Civilization, the defining document did not say that government power derived from the Divine. Except for the date, there is no mention of any god in the Constitution.

The SCT made a mistake with the Mormon ruling. It wouldn't be the first or last time that the Court goofed. Kelo v. New London comes to mind, as does Pace v. Alabama. There is nothing in the Constitution that gives the Federal government authority over marriage, and certainly nothing that gives it authority over religion. Under the Tenth (and yes, I know politicos love to ignore the Tenth), that means the no power, period.

Most importantly, there were many things that did not exist in 1791. Radio, automobiles, telegraph, and baseball come to mind. There were many things that were unknown in 1791. No American had seen the Mariana Trench, the Grand Canyon, Mount McKinley, or a coyote.

---

Story was commenting well after the fact, he was not a signatory to either the DOI or Constitution. The fact that he excluded Judaism reflects on him and not the Founders. Jews may have been a minority faith, but they were a well established faith.

Using law to force the rules of your religion was wrong then and it is wrong now. I'm sure you'd object if Muslim prayer calls were enforced in American law, or if Kosher dietary restrictions were part of the legal system. Almost all of the mala prohibita laws have a religious basis. It's no secret that I believe most of the problems in American society are because of too much government and mala prohibita laws. If your religion says no shopping on Sunday or no selling liquor, that's up to you. Using the law to restrict other's choices based on your religion, well, that doesn't say much for your faith.

Start respecting the "commonalities of Christianity" and you're going to fast approach respecting the commonalities of faith. The Ethic of Reciprocity or "Golden Rule" is the keystone of Western Civilization. It is arguably the single most important and universal basis for human advancement and is the basis for all true liberty. But it did not begin with Judaism or Christianity.

Once you eliminate specific mentions of any god, pluralism between sects pretty much leads to pluralism between religions. It may have been an accident. I suspect some of those Deists took a hand, or pen as it were.

I can't stress that enough. That simple idea takes religion and religious choice out of the public sphere and puts it back into individual behavior where it belongs. The teachings of a faith should matter only to the individual, not to the state. I don't want a Congresscritter demanding that I observe the Christian sabbath, any more than you want another Congresscritter demanding that you participate in ritual sex with same sex partners under the next full moon. And no, I don't do that.

Because that sets up the next bit. Radical Islam demands that the state require and prohibit according to the interpretation of the imams. The state becomes an extension of Islam. There is no provision for other faiths except in very subservient ways. The state becomes religion.

The ideas of liberty expressed in the Constitution reflect the universal ideals well beyond "Judeo-Christianity." Parts of it originated with the ancient Greeks and the Roman Republic as you've pointed out. It's a good idea because it works and not because of it's origins.

When the Founders wanted to limit freedom, be it slavery, restricting the vote to male landowners, or originally not enumerating human rights, it was wrong and it failed miserably. There was no way the Founders could foresee what would follow. We celebrate the universality, the protection of liberty from government and those who would abuse government power.

❝We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.❞

---

It's not your place to decide if you require others to sacrifice their freedom for yours. And as a citizen of this country, that's something I will defend fight against.

Constitutional America was not founded as a Christian nation. Nations are not Christian, individuals are. Yes, even the nations with established churches. Just as one very obvious example, nations can't participate in the Christian rite of communion. If a "Christian nation" goes to war, does that mean that Jeshua ben Joseph signed the marching orders?

Story may have been closer chronologically, but that doesn't mean he was right. I've already told you the biggest piece of evidence. The Constitution clearly states that political power comes from the people and not the Divine. This was unheard of, as far as we know it had never happened before.

Protecting rights means protecting people from the whims of the majority. You don't stop having freedom of speech because your city voted for "free speech" zones.

As I explained to WH above, radical Islam means that the state becomes an extension of Islam. Pluralism is pretty much the only thing that can resist that and not become tyranny.

Radical Islam is depending on special privileges and protections not granted to others. They can't do it on a level playing field.

Since the practices I mentioned are exclusive to the more radical versions of Islam, then the rest of us don't have to fear that punishment, do we?

---

Story was still wrong on this. Veritas. No one person, no one group has all the answers. I distrust anyone who says that they do. I refer back to the source document. The Constitution remains one of the clearest pieces of English ever put to paper. There are reasons why the Founders, some of the best educated people of their time, deliberately chose not to include the Christian Deity in the Constitution. It's not because of their faith. It's not because they were not pious. It's because they didn't trust men when they claimed to speak for the Divine.

❝Religion can not be allowed the coercive power of the state and the state can not be allowed the moral justification of faith.❞ That's one of mine.

I'm not advocating paganism and especially not my version. I am saying that your religion does not govern my behavior. Just as mine does not govern yours.

Our nation was founded on principles that transcended Christianity. Some of them predate Christianity. The Founders were wise enough to know that they didn't know everything. The Enlightenment thinkers did not spontaneously create their philosophy, they drew heavily on history. There's no need to label these ideas as Christian or Hottentotten, it's enough that some very wise men found ways to pass along truths that worked. Civilization rises from wisdom after disaster. You're arguing over the labels so "your side" can take credit. Yes, Christian people (as opposed to Christianity) have done some wonderful things. And Christians have done some terrible things with huge costs to humanity. ❝The vice or virtue is not in the label, it's in the individual.❞ Labels borrow merit, although they do get blamed.

I didn't say the EoR was universal, I said it was the keystone of Western Civilization. Our best law and principles rest on the simple idea that we're fair to others because we expect them to be fair to us.

I've said it before, ❝Christianity is not the source of all that is good and righteous in our society.❞ Christians are better and nicer when they aren't the only game around. “One path among many” means Christians usually pay attention to what others say. It means Christians have to defend what they say and do without hiding behind scripture or a "higher truth."

Our law should not be defined in terms of A religion. Certainly not if everyone doesn't share that religion.

We should celebrate the ideas, not the labels.❞❞

Tags: faith ∙ religion ∙ Constitution ∙ force ∙ force of law ∙ Joseph Story ∙ Founders ∙ Christianity ∙ islam ∙ Christians ∙ pluralism ∙ Judaism ∙ Judeo-Christian ∙ English Civil War ∙ Western Civilization ∙ Divine ∙ Supreme Court ∙ Kelo v. New London ∙ Pace v. Alabama ∙ marriage ∙ mala prohibita ∙ Golden Rule ∙ Tenth Amendment ∙ Muslim prayer calls ∙ Ethic of Reciprocity ∙ public sphere ∙ individual ∙ behavior ∙ kosher

Tags: memes ∙ rain water ∙ fishing ∙ ownership ∙ property ∙ business ∙ rennovate ∙ home ∙ vehicle ∙ marriage ∙ hunt ∙ weapons ∙ cut hair ∙ sell ∙ lemonade ∙ food ∙ grow a garden ∙ protest

Headlines that don't merit their own entry

Tags: gun control ∙ Facebook ∙ 2nd Amendment ∙ vote ∙ social justice ∙ oppress ∙ exploit ∙ Alabama ∙ marriage ∙ food ∙ Democrats ∙ DACA ∙ Obamacare ∙ diversity ∙ Tenth Amendment ∙ Google ∙ Twitter ∙ internet ∙ Donald Trump ∙ goverment ∙ victim disarmament ∙ Oscars ∙ armed guards ∙ universal basic income

❝❝We need to find things we share rather than using faith to define the morality of our society. We can agree to outlaw theft and vandalism, we can't agree on marriage. We can agree that people shouldn't drive under the influence, we can't agree to ban all intoxicants. We can agree that people should be free to make their own choices, we can't agree which choices should be eliminated.❞❞
     — NeoWayland, United We Stand - Dragging religion into politics

Tags: maxims ∙ choice ∙ sharing ∙ theft ∙ vandalism ∙ marriage ∙ under the influence ∙ intoxicants ∙ choice

I think the age of consent is the best rule anyone has come up with so far.

But let's not kid ourselves.

The whole post WWII extended childhood thing is an artificial American invention.

The biology disagrees.

Before we start talking about the morality, we need to acknowledge that.

If we insist that kids wait until 18, 19, 25, or 37 we need a good reason.

---

Sometimes the kids do know. Most of the time in fact, if they know they will be held responsible for it.

Sometimes the adults don't know, no matter what the age. Any one going to a bar to hook up isn't being rational.

Sometimes the experience of making mistakes and having to deal with the consequences are the things that make us wise.

---

I know that for you, marriage and sex should be (ahem) wedded at the hip. I don't think it's a universal one size fits all solution though.

I do like your condition of marriage though.

---

I wouldn't call it loosening. I would call it changing.

I'd also say that it's necessary. Some of the social mores of the last two centuries needed to be dropped. For example, child labor under terrible conditions and for terrible pay used to be the norm.

The rules that work, we should keep. But you can't do change without testing all the rules constantly.

Tags: age of consent ∙ extended childhood ∙ marriage ∙ sex ∙ Crux Files

Headlines that don't merit their own entry

Tags: marriage ∙ Christians ∙ legal ∙ state ∙ church ∙ registered ∙ license ∙ religion ∙ mixed race ∙ mixed faith ∙ freedom ∙ fundamentalist

Tags: freedom ∙ press ∙ politicos ∙ protect citizens ∙ marriage ∙ approval ∙ medicine ∙ medical devices ∙ government power ∙ Congress ∙ Public Laws ∙ 2016 ∙ Barack Obama ∙ regulations ∙ Federal Register ∙ More Government ∙ personal responsibility? ∙ ☆

Why does Cruz assume that the only worthy values are Christian ones?

Tags: Christianity ∙ religion ∙ public square ∙ moral justification ∙ common ground ∙ coercive power ∙ worthy values ∙ marriage ∙ religious freedom ∙ Biblical values ∙ liberty

Stars above and Earth below, it’s the Faith Triumphant all over again!

Tags: live & let live ∙ Faith Triumphant ∙ marriage

We’re so conditioned to expect the government to “save us” that we overlook government oppressing us.

Tags: Imperious Leader ∙ marriage ∙ SCOTUS ∙ not your friend ∙ oppress ∙ conditioned

We ceded our right to choose our morality to government functionaries.

Tags: marriage

Marriage licenses exist so that the licenses can be denied.

Tags: marriage ∙ Utah ∙ American Civil War ∙ alternative marriage ∙ parity test