Community >> View Post
Post By
bd2999

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 14,494
In Reply To
Sumidor

Member Since: Sat Feb 25, 2017
Posts: 115
Subj: Re: Pence Stands With Traitorous Trump!
Posted: Tue Aug 22, 2017 at 02:31:10 pm EDT (Viewed 135 times)
Reply Subj: Re: Pence Stands With Traitorous Trump!
Posted: Mon Aug 21, 2017 at 10:27:04 pm EDT (Viewed 142 times)


I wrote alot but the main point is you seem to brush a ton off as policy difference. And thus no stance can be made other than opinion. I take some issue with that if one is ignoring the data available while doing it.

Two people can have policy differences and one person can be totally and utterly wrong. It does not make their points of view on the same field. Particularly in areas where data is available.


    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:

          Quote:
          He's one of the fake Christians who want to install Sharia Law in the United States, establishing an "official" religion here.

          Quote:

            Quote:
            I wonder how people will react when it becomes illegal to worship God in THEIR way, if that ever comes to pass...

        Quote:

          Quote:
          Rather than name calling ("anti-gay racist moron", "responsible for aids", "evil"), is there any *policy* you would like to discuss?

          Quote:

            Quote:
            Let's start with this....What do you have to demonstrate that Pence wants to install an official religion, and make all other religions illegal?

      Quote:

        Quote:
        This later point is something of a straw man argument. It would require something akin to finding a letter where that is writen out. I have seen others make that claim as the only way to be sure that somebody is racist. If that is our standard than few would be guilty of much of anything.


You are correct on the points below, I am having formatting issues and that may have helped me miss part of what he said.


    Quote:
    It's not a straw man argument at all. I was directly questioning Gernot's statement. He said that Pence wants to establish an official religion, and that Pence will make it illegal for people to worship God in their way. I asked him him for evidence to support his claim.



    Quote:
    Had Gernot stated that Mike Pence allows his religion to guide his governing polices too much, then that would have been a fair opinion to share. But he didn't say that. And if he had provided examples as you have done, then he and I might have had a discussion, but he didn't do that.



    Quote:
    I challenged him on his blunt falsehood. In no way did I make a straw man argument.


      Quote:
      Having lived in Indiana for some time it was always clear that Pence is a very religious man and very much a religious conservative.

      Quote:

        Quote:
        I am not sure he wants Christianity to be a state religion per se but he wants his view of Christianity to be what guides policy.

        Quote:

          Quote:
          In 2002 he went to the House floor and asked that science textbooks promote creationism but casting doubt on Evolution.



    Quote:
    I know next to nothing about Mike Pence. If this is true, then I disagree with him regarding teaching creationism in public schools.


I could provide links to this one and most of the others easily. Pence, in this regard, and in others was always skeptical of science that got in the way of some things.

For instance, a non-religious one, he was big that second smoke had no link to cancer. And had various other views not supported by science (condom safety).


    Quote:

      Quote:
      RFRA. A law that was not really needed but was pretty vague in wording to allow people to potentially say hateful things at gay people etc. This was a major issue in Indiana. They put a patch on it but it was a minor fix at best. It had no purpose other than to make sure that the right to dehumanize another person was ok. For whatever reason, dislike of homosexuality has become the core Christian value in some part of the country.



    Quote:
    A law allowing people to say hateful things? Similar to the first amendment? I don't see why it would be needed, as it seems redundant, but I agree with the peoples' right to *say* anything they please.


Than you misunderstand the law and the history behind it. Probably because I did a poor job. However, the history of the thing is tied to the First Amendment.

In the early 90's the SCOTUS made a decision that changed the way religious freedom was viewed in the US. As a response Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The Free Exercise clause was seen earlier on as ensuring people were not unduly burdened by a law based on religious faith. A somewhat nebulous standard in my view but this was changed some into the 80's but particularly in the early 90's.

Stolen from Wikipedia. Check out the RFRA page for this and others.

"The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment states that Congress shall not pass laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion. In the 1960s, the Supreme Court interpreted this as banning laws that burdened a person's exercise of religion (e.g. Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963); Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972)). But in the 1980s the Court began to allow legislation that incidentally prohibited religiously mandatory activities as long as the ban was "generally applicable" to all citizens. Also, the American Indian Religious Freedom Act, intended to protect the freedoms of tribal religions, was lacking enforcement. This led to the key cases leading up to the RFRA, which were Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association, 485 U.S. 439 (1988), and Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990). In Lyng, the Court was unfavorable to sacred land rights. Members of the Yurok, Tolowa and Karok tribes tried to use the First Amendment to prevent a road from being built by the U.S. Forest Service through sacred land. The land that the road would go through consisted of gathering sites for natural resources used in ceremonies and praying sites. The Supreme Court ruled that this was not an adequate legal burden because the government was not coercing or punishing them for their religious beliefs.[8] In Smith the Court upheld the state of Oregon's refusal to give unemployment benefits to two Native Americans fired from their jobs at a rehab clinic after testing positive for mescaline, the main psychoactive compound in the peyote cactus, which they used in a religious ceremony. Peyote use has been a common practice in Native American tribes for centuries. It was integrated with Christianity into what is now known as the Native American Church.[9]

The Smith decision outraged the public. Many groups came together. Both liberal (like the American Civil Liberties Union) and conservative groups (like the Traditional Values Coalition) as well as other groups such as the Christian Legal Society, the American Jewish Congress, the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, and the National Association of Evangelicals joined forces to support RFRA, which would reinstate the Sherbert Test, overturning laws if they burden a religion.[10] The act, which was Congress's reaction to the Lyng and Smith cases, passed the House unanimously and the Senate 97 to 3 and was signed by U.S. President Bill Clinton."

The goal of this law was to establish what was the interpretation before those views. Depending on the group there are back and forths about what burden is and what is too much etc. But that was the reason for it. Many states passed a similar law to have on the books around the same period.

Indiana passed the first version in 2015 (about 10 years later than most other states). A few states jumped in afterwords. This law was based on the Hobby Lobby case and basically reads (from wiki)

"As signed into law, Indiana SB 101 stipulates that "a governmental entity may not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion... [unless it] (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest." The bill defines a "person" to include any individual, organization, or "a partnership, a limited liability company, a corporation, a company, a firm, a society, a joint-stock company, an unincorporated association" or another entity driven by religious belief that can sue and be sued, "regardless of whether the entity is organized and operated for profit or nonprofit purposes."[20] A "person," as defined by the bill, would be permitted to cite violation of this law as a defense in legal proceedings. While the bill explicitly states that no government entity need be involved in the legal proceeding to invoke such a defense, it also states that "the governmental entity has an unconditional right to intervene in order to respond to the person's invocation of this chapter."

As read many viewed this as giving some business the right to refuse service to homosexuals in this case, but potentially other groups so long as they had some sort of deeply held religious belief in it. And the recourse was limited.

This view was supported by many in the state house that supported the view

"Indiana, unlike neighboring Illinois, does not have a state-wide anti-discrimination ordinance, and the majority of the state does not have local ordinances against discrimination against LGBT people. When a reporter asked Speaker of the House Brian Bosma whether it would be against the law for a business to put up a “no gays allowed” sign, he stated that "it would depend" on whether the business was in "a community that had a human rights ordinance."

There are others, you will see a few more on the wiki page and I could pull some more out. Many of groups that helped support the bill were very religiously conservative and supported the bill as a method to protect florists or whomever to refuse service to those whom they disagreed etc.

Given Pence's history of being fairly anti-homosexual in terms of the law (and his statements that this was non discriminatory) it is hard to argue the reason for this. This was during the homosexual marriage stuff too. It was in many ways something of a backlash of sorts.

It had to be amended because of backlash to some degree.

This is not the issue of one person saying hateful things to another person. The argument and allowance in the law as originally stated would be for discrimination outright against individuals with whom a given company disagreed. That was the backlash. Not free speech per se. It was more using religion as an excuse to exclude people under the law protected by religion.

You may not have an issue with that, I do not know, but it is similar to many race based situations too. So it is questionable at best. It was not a limit on speech. I will add that speech is limited in the US. It is just under specific situations.

And in various formats there is nothing to legally prevent a given forum from preventing speech. The First Amendment merely refers to the government. If we want to argue about academic discussions than maybe not but care has to be given with those too. As having a debate on opinion is fine but we must remember that in terms of hate speech talked about in such a way, nothing good usually comes from it. As those spreading it have minimal interest in having much discourse. And legitimizing it has perils all its own.


    Quote:

      Quote:
      In the ongoing HIV/AIDs epidemic in the state he had to be dragged along to open needle exchanges. When he did do it, it was underfunded and staffed. The State Health secretary was pretty mad at him. As it likely made it worse. His reasons for this were shared by many pasturs and the like that these people did it to themselves and basically brought it on themselves. He did not say that, but he was doing everything that those folks were recommending until backlash was high enough.



    Quote:
    The *policy* of not using taxpayer money to fund criminal activity may be something you disagree with. Not forcing people who stay clean of drugs to pay for needles of drug addicts may be something you disagree with. That the needle program might make drug use look like less of a problem when the government is helping people get supplies may be a point of view that you disagree with. But calling someone evil for having this opinion is not what I thought this board was about.


I am going to try to not be insulted. I never called the man evil. Gernot did. So please get off accusation wagon.

Let us go through the facts shall we. Since you have a strong opinion about them but they appear based on ideology that is similar.

1. There is a drug epidemic in Indiana and parts of the midwest. Particularly the Southern parts of Indiana.

2. Drug use in these areas has many causes among them are poverty etc.

3. The sharing of needles with drug use has resulted in a boom in HIV/AIDs cases into the population.

4. The later leads to increase in other forms of transmission like unsafe sex etc. as there are more cases around.

5. The state of Indiana public health department and the CDC recommended the use of funds to set up needle exchanges as a first method of stemming the spread of disease.

6. As part of this exchange individuals would be offered treatment to help fight addiction etc.

7. Even this does not cure the state of that region or the causes that led to addictions. Medicine can only do so much.

Pence in this case had to have pretty intense battles with physician groups and the health department before using state funds to help these people. It is a public health emergency, meaning danger to the public. He ignored it. Many local health departments were swamped until a very watered down funding scheme was passed.

Money was stated as a reason at times, but it is pretty callous for anybody to use the argument that state funds should not help people. Why have the CDC or public health departments if they are not looking out for public health?

The only argument ever really made by Pence that I heard was money.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/08/us/politics/mike-pence-needle-exchanges-indiana.html?mcubz=3

The article does a fairly good job of covering the whole thing, but if the health department is making recommendations and the Gov is not helping than it is not a good situation. Why have them?

Now he did give in, but this is not good governance. Does not matter his reasons. The policy was and has been debated but the data so far is that the exchanges do help and do not increase drug use. So, limited downside. And little state funds were used to help, meaning local areas were still cash strapped dealing with this.

Keep in mind, that the Gov. looked very indifferent during this whole thing. He may not be. It sounds like he was talking to people but his comments to the public were that not much was going to be done. Make an argument about tax money but when we are talking about people's lives and probably increased tax money going to life time treatment. Is it cheaper to stop it or curb it or to tread new cases?

Economically the case is weak too. The article does not mention some of the other steps but some of those were ham handed too. As condoms and such are more hot topic than they should be at times in Indiana. Or parts of it.


    Quote:
    When we differ with someone on policy we should discuss the demerits of the opposing view, and the merits of ours.


Cool, how about not judging me for calling a man evil when I never did. I can tell you how he came off because I was there. I did not say evil.

The issue I have with you bringing this up in this way and how you always do is by your views here you are sort of wanting to open the door to all view points. Why? To what end? Shouldn't those with the knowledge in the matter have the biggest say in the first place?

Not all opinions are created equal. Not all views are created equal. Which often seems to be what people mean when they want a debate on an issue. It is like we should ignore everything said or done to this point and remake the wheel every decade or so instead of building on the work to that point.


    Quote:
    For example...a husband who shoots drugs might contract aids and then infect his innocent wife who is not aware of his drug habit. That is, I think a powerful argument in favor of the needle program. If Pence has a different point of view, maybe it means he disagrees about the weights of what good vs. harm the needle program has on society. It doesn't make him evil.


I never said as much or that there was not potential merky areas. Only that the data and recommendations were clear. He had to be fought a fair bit by folks with expertise to give even a little.

Pence was worried that it increased or potentially supported drug use. A hypothesis that has been tested in other places. It does not. It reduces the public health issue and does not result in an upsurge in drug use.

Please stop putting words in my mouth.

Now I did say that some in the religious community were very much of the mind that the people brought this on themselves. Some that were fairly near Pence. Pence never outright said this that I have heard. At least not as Gov. The fact that he was ignoring public health experts for quite a while with what they recommended was the best method to address the problem. That is not a good look. People have called him cruel and evil for it. I have not personally made a judgement on him for being good or evil. He was doing what he thought was right. That does not mean he was right though. I think he was horribly wrong.


    Quote:


      Quote:
      In the past he has blocked federal funding to help combat HIV unless statements about gay sex were not included. The big bug a boo among some religious conservatives. Ignoring that this disease can be passed on with any sex.



    Quote:
    I don't understand what statements regarding gay sex could not be included. So I can't comment further.


He was big on pushing the myth of homosexual intercourse being the cause of HIV/AIDs. It was pushing the importance of that in particular over other forms of intercourse. Basically reliving some of the past battles in the 80's when it was associated with homosexuals only, incorrectly.

They should be included, but there is not much of a need to put them front and center either as a matter of policy. Making statements about unsafe sex is key. Pence would always make sure that homosexuality was prominent.


    Quote:

      Quote:
      He has been against homosexuals in the military

    Many politicians have on both side of the aisle. It doesn't make someone evil. And it doesn't prevent someone from practicing religion their way.
      Quote:

        Quote:
        He has been against condoms because they were a poor defense against STDs and is a massive supporter of abstinence only education.



    Quote:
    Again, a policy difference. By saying he's against condoms, I'm assuming you mean he's against making tax payers pay for condoms for other people. You don't mean he wants to make condoms illegal. How government spends taxpayer money is something intelligent people can have different opinions about. It doesn't mean one side is "responsible for aids". Vilifying people who disagree with you is not necessary when you are able to coherently, and logically express your own opinion and provide support for how you arrived at that opinion.


Not what I said at all. Nor do I like your tone much. You are acting like I am making this stuff up besides mentioning over and over again that you were not there and do not have much experience with it.

Pence was arguing that condoms are not effective and should not be used as a method of prevention. This has nothing to do with if the state should provide contraceptions or whatever else.

He is very much pro abstinence because of his Biblical based views. He has said as much. This is fine for him as a person. It ignores the public health benefits of condoms and others to the population as a whole. Saying that they do not work or are crappy is spreading misinformation.

It is lying. If he said he does not agree with sex before marriage that is a fair enough position. Saying something does not work when it is not so is misinformation.


    Quote:

      Quote:

      So, while I am unaware that he has specifically said that Christianity should be the state religion. It is pretty clear that he puts his faith above the personal rights of any group that gets in his way.



    Quote:
    That's not clear. It's clear he has a number of policy differences to what you would prefer, and maybe even to what I would prefer. It in no way means he wants to establish an official religion. It in no way means people can't worship their religion however they please. And it doesn't make him evil.


Never called him evil. So, stop condescending to me. My point is he has every view (plus some I did not go into) of those that want state religions. He has never explicitly said it. So, it is a bit too far but most of his views are based more on faith or arguments from morality as opposed to much data.


    Quote:

      Quote:
      “I’m a Christian, a conservative and a Republican, in that order,”

      Quote:

        Quote:
        There is nothing illegal or wrong with being guided by faith. Many are and it helps guide their views. However, they also tend to be the most rigid holders to their views because in their minds it came from God.

        Quote:

          Quote:
          And that alone is concerning enough or should be. Anybody thinking they have a mandate to basically tell everybody they should live the life by the morality of a specific faith is a problem.



    Quote:
    I don't believe it's the government's job to enforce morality.


Neither do, but many do. If you do not see that than I am not sure what I can do to help.


    Quote:

      Quote:
      I mean there are many in religious right circles that would be just fine running the US under a version of Christian law. Yet fewer freak out about that than the falw Shiara law scares.

      Quote:

        Quote:



    Quote:
    I'm not sure what Christian law means, but that's fine, it's not the point of my original post in this thread. The point is how a discussion should be conducted on this board. I'm fairly new here, but I don't believe we should vilify people, call them names, or spread falsehoods. I do believe we should discuss differences in opinion with civility.


To be fair, you are guilty of the same things as you are accusing others of here. I do not like how Gernot worded things but you are often as guilty at spreading falsehood as any of the others on the board.

Nor is everything he said totally false, but under explored and stated in ways that I do not agree with. That said, Pence has a history of doing things a very certain way that is often guided by his faith and that often comes down against those that would seem to be disadvantaged.

Some would make a case against that, but that Pence has been a huge liar about a great many things is not even in question at this point.

Arguments for academic freedom involving creationism, safety of second hand smoke, condoms being ineffective and various other things. This is not hard to prove at all.

At some point somebody has to call an egg an egg. Everybody makes mistakes but when one has a history of resisting evidence for various reasons not based on much evidence than at what point are they dismissed by the logic you are expounding?

I do not agree with what Gernot said or more to the point how he said it. But you just said above you have no issue with freedom of speech and what all opinions out there. Unproductive speech is still speech. I find it worthless but by the standards you often want to employ it still counts.






Look Raist bunnies...