Misogynist barbarians in Alabama impose forced pregnancy law

[Magnus McGinty]

Are you sure you didn’t misread my post?

I think I ended up agreeing with it.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

A very big IF. Can you show any real-world examples of huge religious blocs that genuinely respect the rights of those who don't share their beliefs?

Or even the rights of those forced to share their beliefs.

 

[8ball]

A very big IF. Can you show any real-world examples of huge religious blocs that genuinely respect the rights of those who don't share their beliefs?

Yes, it’s a fair point. I was being hypothetical and struggling to think of examples when I posted it.

I suspect there are some examples
and we’re both running into availability bias, but the point still holds hypothetically.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

I suppose secularism could be considered a belief and perhaps even a religious one.

 

[Dogsauce]

It’s degenerating into a bitter fight to ensure the other side gets nothing, including things the ‘winning’ side doesn’t want for themselves. It’s spite-based politics.

I saw some Twitter type describe it today as in recent times the democrats having treated politics like a game of chess, but the Republicans have treated it like a war.

 

[Dogsauce]

Anyhow, the Supreme Court now seems to be the equivalent of the conservative clerics in Iran which stifle liberty and progress because God. Tyrannical bullshit.

 

[8ball]

Anyhow, the Supreme Court now seems to be the equivalent of the conservative clerics in Iran which stifle liberty and progress because God. Tyrannical bullshit.

Was reading earlier about general approval and respect for the Supreme Court having been on the wane for some time.
Hard to see this feeding into any change in behaviour in the short term, though.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I suppose secularism could be considered a belief and perhaps even a religious one.

Not really. You can be a religious person, even a very religious person, and also support the idea of a secular state.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

The far right and the fanatical mullahs. Two sides of the same coin.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

Not really. You can be a religious person, even a very religious person, and also support the idea of a secular state.

What about an atheist person. Do they always support secularism was my point.

 

[David Clapson]

I hope some rich Dems will pitch in with funding for travel for pregnant women between red and blue states.

 

[8ball]

What about an atheist person. Do they always support secularism was my point.

Not in Soviet Russia, certainly.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

Not in Soviet Russia, certainly.

So there has to be a level of religious acceptance for it to be a belief.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

I hope some rich Dems will pitch in with funding for travel for pregnant women between red and blue states.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

What about an atheist person. Do they always support secularism was my point.

Well an atheist is unlikely to support a religious state.

I guess it would depend on how you define secular, or what kind of secularism you want. Is a state that outlaws religious belief secular? That's a bit of semantic argument I would say, and not particularly relevant if your version of secularism doesn't do that.

And here again, you can be aggressively atheist in that you think religious beliefs are not only wrong but also destructive and a bad thing, and still support the idea of a secular state that allows (stronger: guarantees) freedom of religion.

 

[8ball]

So there has to be a level of religious acceptance for it to be a belief.

I’m just talking about secularism in the sense of religion being separate from Governmental power, and Governmental power not interfering in religious matters beyond ensuring the right to religious freedom.

I think that’s a political principle rather than a religious belief.

There are some forms of secularism that vary from this a bit, though, such as in France. Or as in the hypocritical “pretend secularism” that is intensifying in the US right now.

 

[spring-peeper]

 

[frogwoman]

I don’t understand why the democrats can't do more to stop this?

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

View attachment 328852

Her husband had to votes and control of Congress to have codified Roe v. Wade into law. He didn't.

 

[spring-peeper]

Her husband had to votes and control of Congress to have codified Roe v. Wade into law. He didn't.

I was not familiar with the term codified. From google, I get the impression it means make one law out of several -> ????

Couldn't the one law also be overturned?

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

I was not familiar with the term codified. From google, I get the impression it means make one law out of several -> ????

Couldn't the one law also be overturned?

"Codified" means that he could have passed a law that made Roe v. Wade a regular law, not just as a right within the constitution.

 

[frogwoman]

Her husband had to votes and control of Congress to have codified Roe v. Wade into law. He didn't.

I don’t understand why he couldn't have done this tbh. Was it something to do with Garland etc not being confirmed?

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

I don’t understand why he couldn't have done this tbh. Was it something to do with Garland etc not being confirmed?

I think he's said that he had other legislative priorities (like Obamacare) that he thought was more important at the time.

 

[frogwoman]

I think he's said that he had other legislative priorities (like Obamacare) that he thought was more important at the time.

Seems a pretty big priority though?

 

[David Clapson]

I don't think anyone could have foreseen that the pussy-grabber would have the chance to appoint 3 judges.

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

Seems a pretty big priority though?

Yes, it was big. I wouldn't be surprised if that goes now too, though.

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

I don't think anyone could have foreseen that the pussy-grabber would have the chance to appoint 3 judges.

It was foreseen. People were screaming for Justice Ginsberg to retire so he could appoint someone younger to the court. As much respect as I have for her, its tarnished her legacy to not have stepped aside.

 

[David Clapson]

Maybe a lot of people couldn't imagine that he'd be elected and have the chance to leave such a lasting legacy. I still find it hard to believe, even though it happened.

 

[8ball]

Seems a pretty big priority though?

I think it was back in the time where the idea of something like, for example, Donald Trump becoming President, sounded like something from either a fever dream or The Simpsons.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Maybe a lot of people couldn't imagine that he'd be elected and have the chance to leave such a lasting legacy. I still find it hard to believe, even though it happened.

Republicans prepared for it, though. It hasn't happened by chance because Trump stumbled into the White House. The concerted effort to fill the courts with fascists conservatives has been going on for decades and is reaping its rewards now. The Republicans know that democracy is against them, so they cultivate undemocratic means to achieve their aims.