User Profile: The Third Archon

The Third Archon

Member Since: November 02, 2010

Comments

123 To page: Go
  • October 21, 2014 at 4:43pm

    But do you assume that the liberals who unfriended conservatives aren’t doing so for the same reasons you unfriended liberals, and if so on what basis?

    Responses (2) +
  • [-4] October 21, 2014 at 4:40pm

    LOL–self-important much? XD

    Responses (2) +
  • October 21, 2014 at 4:39pm

    “Compared to the Huffington Post, which was better known but less trusted, or BuzzFeed, which was only trusted by 7 percent of the respondents who knew of the website, TheBlaze seems to be doing pretty well.”
    Well…if you can call being virtually unknown DESPITE your claims to size “doing pretty well”–and THAT being the basis for why almost no one trusted, distrusted, OR had a mix of the two, the Blaze–then yeah, I guess.

    Don’t set that bar for yourself TOO high now Blaze, LOL! XD

  • [5] October 21, 2014 at 4:12pm

    I really appreciate the comments on this story–they reveal that while undoubtedly well-intentioned, this man makes a mistake in his approach. Instead of rejecting the very ideology that allows, and is responsible for, the majority of Christians (although perhaps that’s not true anymore) believing his sexuality is inherently immoral (or at least, acting upon his sexuality is immoral) he legitimizes it by attempting to resuscitate the very same theology that they draw upon to legitimize and rationalize their stigmatization of homosexuality. The correct answer is to reject the amoral (to say nothing of factually baseless) ideology of religion, and its natural and inevitable consequence of justifying ANY conclusion one wants to reach. Either one serves the god of truth or the god of Christianity–one CANNOT serve BOTH. “No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other.” Matthew 6:24 (NIV). Even the Bible get’s it right sometimes—it would be more surprising if it NEVER did as that would be quite the feat even if was one’s intent. Throw enough **** at a wall and some of it’s BOUND to stick.

    On an unrelated though interesting note, the verse from which that quote is drawn is situated within the infamous “Sermon on the Mount” and is near some of the more Marxist sayings attributed to Jesus, and in fact ENDS with the particularly Marxist line: “You cannot serve both God and money.”

    Responses (2) +
  • October 21, 2014 at 4:09pm

    *through should have been throw

    Although the wrong homophone probably didn’t affect the clarity of the message given the context.

  • [1] October 21, 2014 at 4:06pm

    , the majority of Christians (although perhaps that’s not true anymore) believing his sexuality is inherently immoral (or at least, that when he acts upon his sexuality he is engaged in immoral acts) he legitimizes it by attempting to resuscitate the very same theology that they draw upon to legitimize and rationalize their stigmatization of homosexuality. The correct answer is to reject the amoral (to say nothing of factually baseless) ideology of religion, and its natural and inevitable consequence of justifying ANY conclusion one wants to reach. Either one serves the god of truth or the god of Christianity–one CANNOT serve BOTH. “No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other.” Matthew 6:24 (NIV). Regardless of the truth and value of the religion(s) which are based upon it, the Bible does have some wise things to say–of course, one would expect that, particularly in a volume of its density and diversity. Even if one were throwing out ideas at random, one would expect at least some to be good–through enough **** at a wall, and some of it’s BOUND to stick.

    On an unrelated though interesting note, the verse from which that quote is drawn is situated within the infamous “Sermon on the Mount” and is near some of the more Marxist sayings attributed to Jesus, and in fact ENDS with the particularly Marxist line: “You cannot serve both God and money.”

    Responses (1) +
  • October 21, 2014 at 3:46pm

    *but should have been “he,” however I think even with this defect my point was clear.

  • October 21, 2014 at 3:44pm

    I find it very revealing that while the author accuses the government of wanton disregard of the Constitution, which is probably not inaccurate, but cites no actual specific EXAMPLES of what he considers such–probably because that would reveal that all the WORST ongoing constitutional violations by the government (which in fact ALREADY are and HAVE resulted in the some of the very same horrors perpetuated by “foreign governments”–to give a single excellent example, do you know which country imprisons the largest nominal number AND proportion of its population? I’ll give you a hint–it’s NOT Iran, Saudi Arabia, Russia, China, North Korea, Cuba (LOL–as if), any country south of our border, any African country, or any country that still purports to be “Communist”) are things he either wasn’t referring to, or that his ideology in fact SUPPORTS AND IS PRIMARILY RESPONSIBLE FOR.

    Responses (1) +
  • October 21, 2014 at 3:39pm

    The outrage is that it is a patently obvious attempt to do an end-run-around the constitutionally protected rights of women to lawfully access abortion services if they desire–the feigned concern for women’s health would already be suspect coming from those who authored the bill, but it is nakedly revealed for what it is in the utter lack of provision for any SUPPORT for the same organizations they ALLEGEDLY want to “help operate safely” to actually MEET their newly stipulated criteria for operating a lawful abortion clinic.

  • [3] October 21, 2014 at 2:25pm

    I really appreciate the comments on this story–they reveal that while undoubtedly well-intentioned, this man makes a mistake in his approach. Instead of rejecting the very ideology that allows, and is responsible for

    Responses (2) +
  • October 21, 2014 at 12:20pm

    “If history nature isn’t considered. Then we are no better than ISIS. So please consider that when making judgment.”
    I’m not exactly sure where you were going with the ISIS comparison, but I think there’s a LONG WAY between prohibiting display of purely religious symbols and images in public schools, and ISIS’ perverse fascist ideology. Indeed, if anything TOLERATING establishments of religion puts us closer to the pro-theocratic ideology of ISIS, albeit under a name more familiar and comfortable to most “westerners.”

    MatthewG
    “Archon, it’s so wonderful that you have no problem with the sign on private property. Thank the Lord! We sure avoided a big ado by placating you!”
    You’re welcome—glad I could make you happy.

    debkk9

    “Even how they now can’t have bake sales to raise money or birthday parties with cake”
    That has more to do with health and safety regulations (which I don’t agree with applied to conduct of that scale—I think when we are talking about small-scale entrepreneurship, particularly by minors, the most we should do is require a “buyer beware—not subject to most state regulations” warning” and any problems, which will likely be few, can be more than handled by tort and contract law) than PC. And again, religious symbols on PRIVATE property are NOT the problem (at least from a legal perspective).

  • October 21, 2014 at 12:19pm

    “But my view is basically this. If the object, building/structure can be historical in nature. And just like laws when it comes to renovation of historical homes, structures, locations, etc. Then it should be allowed. No matter the case. It doesn’t matter what the religious orientation, or person, or political belief.”
    And I simply disagree with the wisdom, morality, or the logic of “grandfathering” in ADMITTEDLY otherwise violating behavior or policies. Taking that logic to its extreme, families of humans would still be the property of certain other families, even if no NEW slaves were taken, bought, or sold. I don’t know if I’d agree to that logic as applied to “historic” structures (at the very least, I would demand a very high bar to justify retaining something for “history’s sake” alone, little better than a fallacious appeal to tradition), and I CERTAINLY don’t agree with it as applied to public school policy (in this case specifically on the display of a patently sectarian image).

    “Especially since people, business or other owners can be punished legally for historical structures.”
    Only if they did not modify them when they had the opportunity—and as you point out, in the status quo, they often can be exempted from that too if they can prove their structure is indeed “historic.”

  • October 21, 2014 at 12:18pm

    “…Because if you lose property rights. Then you are no longer safe…”
    Yes and no—the ends which property (and the protection of rights thereto) serves (or at least is ostensibly supposed to serve) ought be protected, far more than they are in fact. As it stands, “property rights” often actually interfere with this goal, for their enforceability is all too contingent upon how much “property rights” the law will legally recognize you have. In other words, justice in our system is directly correlated (and many will ADMIT as much) to ability to pay, as if “justice” were a commodity to be bought and sold. In such a system, “property rights” as you envision them cannot exist, because no minimum equality of respect and protection of those rights exists.

  • October 21, 2014 at 12:18pm

    “…some liberal or Democrats, etc. Will try and change the cities law to reduce the size, or the distance from the road, etc.”
    1. That has nothing to do with the legal validity of the display at issue, which cannot be contingent upon speculations about future actions.
    2. If that ever happens (and I doubt it ever will even be attempted, much less succeed), courts will strike it down, and (whether courts strike it down or not) I will be side-by-side with theists defending their inalienable right to freedom of expression (which ALL should enjoy, whether religious in nature or not), and their freedom to practice.

    “While they try and get the LGBT flag or Mother Earth chanting flown or performed in the school.”
    Yeah, I don’t see a problem with either of those or how they establish a religion (although perhaps the second one might, depending on whether you have a specific chant in mind—I don’t know what you are referencing if that is the case, so I just assumed some kind of general pro-ecological mantra).

    “Oh, and not allow the U.S. Flag flown or shown during Cinco de Mayo.”
    The whole “flags” thing really doesn’t move me. I think that’s silly and unnecessary, but I also don’t care if they do it.

  • [-1] October 21, 2014 at 12:15pm

    “You really should actually read the Constitution”
    LOL—you’re saying that to the WRONG person, and given you comments it is patently obvious that YOU are the only one who needs to go back and actually read the Constitution.
    “The Constitution ALLOWED states already practicing slavery to maintain their “trade” for a period of twenty years.”
    Oh wow, so you’re even CONTRADICTING yourself in the VERY SAME comment—how did you ask “where in the Constitution does it defend the slave trade” when you KNEW about this provision?! Good to know THAT’S what we’re dealing with here.
    “Originally the time limit was twelve but the slave states wouldn’t agree to it. The terminology used in those sections is also indicative of contempt for the practice. Read it for once.”
    Are you SERIOUSLY rationalizing the Constitution’s acceptance and perpetuation of the slave trade? Seriously?! Do you actually BELIEVE the crap you say, or do you just feel OBLIGATED to say SOMETHING to defend the absurd positions you claim to take? Hey, here’s an idea of what language that was ACTUALLY ******* CONTEMPOUS OF SLAVERY would look like: “slavery is a MORAL ABOMINATION and is hereby and forever more ILLEGAL. Any individuals caught attempting to force other humans into involuntary servitude or aid others in doing the same shall NOT have the support of the law, shall NOT have any property interest in other human beings recognized, and SHALL receive the due penalty for their perversion.”

  • [-1] October 21, 2014 at 12:15pm

    “Please point to the place in the Constitution of the United States that DEFENDS the slave trade.”
    Hmm, how about for starters the fugitive slave clause (Art. IV, Sec. 2, Cl. 3), the provision that slaves shall count as 3/5ths of a person for the purposes of representation with “their franchise” to be exercised by their “owners” (Art. I, Sec. 2, Cl. 3), or the prohibition against limitation of the slave trade until after a certain date (Art. I, Sec. 9, Cl. 1)? Hardly a “laisseze-faire” approach to the issue of slavery (NOT that such an approach would be moral in the face of an abomination like slavery—it would be no different than watching as the Jews were marched to the ovens and doing nothing, not even things of minimal risk, to frustrate the wickedness of their oppressors).

    “Please point to a single place in the Constitution that mentions any human being, be they free or “bound”, as being a slave, property, or disposable.”
    I’ll give you that–being the moral titans that our founders were, they DID manage (in a move of extraordinary deftness of draftsmanship and linguistics) to legislate ABOUT slaves while bravely avoiding using the TERM “slave” (see for example the facially innocuous reference to “all other persons” in the 3/5ths clause). Perhaps they thought CALLING them “slaves” would comprise their claims that “all men were created equal and endowed with certain inalienable rights.”

  • October 21, 2014 at 9:12am

    Well we’ll just have to agree to disagree–clearly the school didn’t feel they had a strong enough constitutional to argument to stand by it.

  • October 21, 2014 at 9:10am

    @aleycat
    You asked the same question above and I answered it.

    As for the whole “judicial activism” debate, I find it nonsensical–conservatives only ever make that charge when the interpretation results in a substantive outcome they disagree with. When liberals usually make the same charge, its usually for the same reasons, however I rarely see liberals making that charge, PROBABLY because they realize that the very FACT that we NEED courts means there are unresolved ambiguities of legal application which must be resolved and are also mature enough to realize that MERELY because the substantive result came out a way they don’t like doesn’t mean the decision-maker was incompetent and illegitimate (it MAY mean that, but that would require independent additional showings, not MERELY “I disagree with the outcome/I would have decided it different”).

  • [1] October 21, 2014 at 9:05am

    @Al J Zira
    As per your request, the incorporation doctrine cases regarding the religious provisions of the 1st Amendment:

    Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947)
    Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940).

    See also a related issue (though not dealing specifically with religious subject matter in this case, equally applicable thereunto) involving “reverse” incorporation of the 14th Amendment against the federal government:

    Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 (1954).

    formentingerror knows what I’m talking about.

  • October 21, 2014 at 8:58am

    “You will see the original display or action was a moment to a individual.”
    Yeah so what? The display itself is clearly religious in nature, purely an endorsement of Christianity and the Christian messiah in a public school, and nothing else. I don’t care who put it there or why. And YES, I’d ALSO disagree with the pretentious and offensive display of Christian symbolism to represent the sacrifices of our soldiers, many non-Christian (and ALL of whom fought to defend arguably the 1ST secular country, embodying the proper and only long-term workable division of respect for private expression and religious practice while remaining neutral and unified in the exercise of PUBLIC authority), who should not be dishonored with partisan divisive symbolism. It’s ALSO important to distinguish between what I see as two VERY different things–a MONUMENT meant to commemorate a group of soldiers or soldiers writ large as a group VERSUS a SINGLE soldiers PRIVATE tombstone (or grave marker, or whatever you want to call it). The latter, whether in a nominally “public” cemetery or not, I see as effectively a “private plot” among a series of similar private plots subdivided within public land. A soldier’s own private grave marker should embody a religious symbol if that soldier or their family deem appropriate–it is ultimately THAT solider’s wishes which should be honored either way. MONUMENTS, purporting to represent a whole class of soldiers, are ENTIRELY different.

123 To page: Go