Concerns Over Religious Freedom

[Teallaura]

I said I had drawn a conclusion from the stats. I did not say I had looked at only the stats. The statistics by themselves mean nothing except in relation to the questions to which they apply.

I don't think either of us has anywhere further to go on this - we seem to basically agree about the essential (to me) point that the stats alone cannot support conclusions about responses to key questions. The rest I vote we chalk up to talking past one another - for the most part anyway.

Yes. See earlier explanation of why.Ok. I probably should have checked your intent rather that biting your head off. Sorry 'bout that.

Roy

Fair enough.

[Starlight]

I am no longer the Democrat I was before Christian persecution judicial tyranny unconstitutionally put Kim Davis in prison for five days.

It was a judge appointed by Bush W who put Davis in prison. Democrats objected to that judge's appointment on the grounds that he wasn't sufficiently qualified. He was the son of a former Republican Senator though, so Bush W was probably doing a favor to a friend. So I'm confused about how you can blame Democrats for Davis going to jail. They had nothing whatsoever to do with it.

I dislike the current SCOTUS far more than he does.

Well you say that, but actually I dislike them pretty strongly.

Yeah, what about him, other than before completing eight years in office he would be 83 years old! He's already older than I am, and believe me it makes a difference. It's been years since I was hired for a full-time job.

Sanders or Biden probably make more sense as single-term presidents due to their age. I would like to see Sanders take Warren as his VP (they are close friends and he is her mentor, so the choice would make sense), and then her to be President in 2020.

We had the best Democratic majority in Congress we're going to get for a long time back in 2009-2010;

Well IIRC, the Democrats had a 4-month block that they received rather suddenly and unexpectedly (I think it was caused by a Republican switching colors mid-term IIRC) during which they had a one-vote majority sufficient to get through any legislation they wanted. And that majority ended suddenly and unexpectedly (I can't remember if it was someone dying, or an unexpected loss in a by-election). That's not really a huge time-frame to pass all their hopes and dreams. They rushed Obamacare through that window though IIRC, but they were forced to water that down because a one-vote majority meant they were constrained by what the single most conservative Democrat was willing to do. Any attempts to tackle corruption would obviously be constrained by how the single most corrupt Democrat was willing to vote (assuming not a single Republican could be talked into voting against corruption, which sadly seems to usually be the situation).

And the Citizens United decision in 2010 postdated the Democrats losing their one-vote majority. When they tried to respond to Citzens United with the DISCLOSE act, it failed by one vote in the Senate along party lines with 100% of Democrats voting for it and 100% of Republicans against it. When they tried to pass a constitutional amendment overturning Citizens United, it failed in the Senate with 100% of Democrats and Independents voting yes and 100% of Republicans voting no. (I think the Democrats have tried to pass this every single year in at least 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015 - Bernie Sanders keeps reintroducing it regularly)

Their consistent 100% votes in favor of the anti-corruption measures and the Republicans consistent 100% votes against them suggests otherwise to me. Overturning Citizens United is a commonly espoused policy among Democrats. It seems pretty clear that the decision helps Republicans more than Democrats, and hence I can easily believe that even those Democrats who don't mind a bit of corruption when it's sending money their way oppose it (especially as Citizens United doesn't really send money to the candidates personally, it sends money to the Super-PACs, so it doesn't make the congressmen themselves rich, it just means the Republicans need to grovel at the feet of the nearest billionaire, and the Democrats need to wring their hands and ask themselves why more billionaires aren't in favor of higher taxes on billionaires).

[firstfloor]

Christians have traditionally thought that they are the group most representative of the society and therefore they see a diminishing of religious faith in the society as an attack on them personally. All that is happening is that secular voices are becoming louder but this is not the same as curtailment of religious freedom. In fact, a religiously diverse society would require much greater freedom than a theocracy or one in which there was one dominant faith.

[One Bad Pig]

Christians have traditionally thought that they are the group most representative of the society

If Christians make up the largest group within the society, then they ARE the group most representative of the society.

and therefore they see a diminishing of religious faith in the society as an attack on them personally.

Non sequitur.

All that is happening is that secular voices are becoming louder but this is not the same as curtailment of religious freedom.

Of course they're not the same. The problem is that both are happening.

In fact, a religiously diverse society would require much greater freedom than a theocracy or one in which there was one dominant faith.

I don't think "require" means what you think it means.