Coreece

From your article: "Later Wednesday afternoon, Williamson alluded to her comment's reference to prayer and accused critics on "the overly secularized Left" of ostracizing those who think prayer helps during natural disasters. "I was born and raised in Texas so I've seen it," she tweeted. "Millions of people today are praying that Dorian turn away from land, and treating those people with mockery or condescension because they believe it could help is part of how the overly secularized Left has lost lots of voters."

argumentum ad ignorantiam, expelliramus!

From your article: In order to solve the mass shooting crisis in the US, Combs said the public needs to better understand the nature of the problem. "There isn't one problem, there isn't one thing that's going to fix this, but I wish we could have honest conversation with each other about all the facets that go into this," he said.

deleted

https://cafo.org/2019/06/14/wall-street-journal-christians-are-pro-life-after-birth-too/ https://www.wsj.com/articles/christians-are-pro-life-after-birth-too-11560465692

Abortion rates per 1,000 live births in the US. By the raw numbers, we're already there! Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware So no, we're not there. Not even close, for either issue.

Looks like you cannot even get that straight. Xiaflex

Vagira?

Please don't bring the Fresh Prince of Bel-Air into this, we're having a serious discussion. But he was from west Philadelphia, born and raised.

Ahhh, you got me. Good one guy. Well now that we're all equally entrenched, it's time for a night cap.

Because that's not what we're talking about. I'm asking you to back up your claim with legal documentation citing that anti-abortion legislation is solely based on religious faith. And one of the issues is that even if there is a legitimate legal basis to ban abortion in one way or another, the high courts wouldn't even get a chance to hear it because you'd just throw it out and begin impeachment proceedings. You're the one responsible for the strength and accuracy of your arguments. You failed miserably to make it over the first oxer that you assembled for yourself and fell face first into the mud, perhaps you'll try harder on the rest - the burden is all yours bud, good luck!

I just re-read to be sure, but yeah. I specifically called out lawmakers (not lobbyists) who enact legislation based solely on their religious beliefs. Who said anything about lobbyists enacting legislation? And you didn't say enact, you said submit/propose - and you still haven't shown how abortion is based solely on religious beliefs, so good luck with your treachery impeachments. I wouldn't even know where to begin. As I said, why would I possibly want to go through all the details of that with you when it has already been so agonizing just to get you to focus and answer simple questions about inconsistencies with the first issue listed in your gish-gallop that you're still trying to weasel your way out of. And I've already told you that I support the separation of Church and State. Just because I disagree with you on one issue doesn't mean that I necessarily disagree with you on everything else, or that my level of disagreement/knowledge on those issues is even worth having to hash it out with someone as evasive as you've shown to be in this thread. As for impeaching people for proposing legislation that might be unconstitutional, I'll just simply disagree - let the courts handle it.

You were talking about impeaching people in office that propose legislation on behalf or their constituents. We call them representatives, which is why I specifically used that term. I mean, do you even remember what your initial argument even was? I'm not talking about your criticism of religion. I'm talking about your apparent double standard and ignorance of how legal arguments for anti-abortion legislation are actually justified. You said that they're solely justified by religious faith and that no one can even attempt to justify it on secular terms. I demonstrated how you were dead wrong. So I'll ask again: It's OK for representatives of people in groups like Secular Pro-Life to propose anti-abortion legislation based on secular justifications but representatives for religious groups using similar justifications should be charged with treachery and subsequently impeached? Why would I possibly want to go through all that with you when it has already been this agonizing just to get you to focus and answer simple questions about inconsistencies with the first issue in your gish-gallop that you're still trying to weasel out of. And I've already told you that I support the separation of Church and State. Just because I disagree with you on one issue doesn't mean that I necessarily disagree with you on everything else, or that my level of disagreement/knowledge on those issues is even worth having to hash it out with someone as evasive as you. As for impeaching people for proposing legislation that might be unconstitutional, I'll just simply disagree - let the courts handle it.

Tho I was baptized as Catholic, I didn't come from a particularity religious household like yours which might help explain our varying perspectives on the issue. Prior to identifying with protestant Christianity in my late 20s I held a rather contemptuous view of religion that didn't offer much peace. You were trying to pigeonhole me based on your narrow-minded view of evangelicals and people in northern Michigan in an attempt to divert from having to address the inconsistency of your hyperbolic bullshit. Ok, you said "to avoid upsetting their invisible unicorns." I thought I was making it easier for you by defining it more broadly. Doesn't really matter tho since you have about the same odds of finding either one being cited as the sole justification against abortion. So based on what you've said so far, we're still stuck at the point where it would be OK for representatives of people in groups like Secular Pro-Life to propose anti-abortion legislation based on secular justification, but representatives for religious groups using a similar justification should be charged with Treachery and banished from the chambers of Congress! Or should the representatives of SPL be impeached as well for holding their nose and allowing Christians into their group? . . .and then you expect to be taken seriously about how you're so discriminated against? Please, If I don't vote for you, it's not because you're an atheist, it's because of your inability to focus and recognize bigoted shit like this.

Secular Pro-Life seems to think they can. And remember this is more about how people justify their objection to abortion in the first place. Secular Pro-Life's justifications against abortion is practically the same stuff you hear coming from religious groups, and clearly it's not justified solely on religious faith, if at all. You're going to provide legal documentation of proposed laws citing "the appeasement of deities" as justification against abortion? Sez the guy that makes dumb ass assumptions about where I'm from and who I hang out with rather than staying on point. As for the rest of your post, it's all over the place. But that part about how you're so discriminated against was precious, flame on. . .

Raised in the middle of Detroit City for the first half of my life. After college I lived all over the country from Pittsburgh, to Chicago, to Clearwater, FL, to Santa Clarita, CA where I worked in Hollywood with almost every major film studio in the country - no atheist/agnostics there, right? And still plenty of atheist/agnostics up here, but maybe they're all just bluffing since many of them, except the two right across the street from me are all people I play poker with - not the most trustworthy guys if you know what I mean. Not that I particularly label my faith as such, but maybe you just have a shallow view of evangelicals - which is understandable considering all the animosity that seems to have build up toward your parents while growing up in Petoskey. I actually dated a preacher's daughter from Petoskey when we were at MSU, and I've heard plenty of unpleasant stories from others that were raised in similar religious households like yours. But I can't really relate since I was baptized as Catholic and didn't come from a very religious home. So I don't know, maybe I just get along with these atheists because they never really displayed that " crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth." It's really hard not to think of that quote when reading some of your posts here. So there you go, surely they justify the moral objection to abortion with reasons other than religious faith. It's interesting because this was one of the wedge issues mentioned in the documentary used to garner votes, but just because religious people support it more than atheists doesn't mean that the sole justification is by some exclusive religious tenet/belief - that's just absurd. And nevermind that you're starting to move the goal post. First it was "justified by religious faith" now it's "a religion based issue." No mental gymnastics needed. You said "policies and legislation that cannot be justified but for religious faith." Clearly there are other justifications for it, therefore it does not fit your qualifier for treachery/impeachment.

I'm trying to understand what you're talking about. Your statement seemed a bit peculiar to me. One of the problems tho is that you said "If you submit policies and legislation that cannot be justified but for religious faith," but ideas about things like abortion aren't necessarily justified just by faith. I know plenty of atheists/agnostics that are against abortion and they don't need religion to justify that belief. Even a lot of christian just file it under murder - no religion necessary. I agree, I don't want religion in government and I don't want government in my religion - it's a conflict of interest and that's when corruption sets in.

Is there any documentation on this idea of "Treachery against the United States Constitution" and the process by which one can be removed from office? I'm really not inclined to argue with you about all these various social issues, but what you describe here seems to have more to do with wedge politics and groups like the federalist society that hold much more influence than the group portrayed in this documentary. And for the most part, this documentary wasn't even really about all these social issues, but rather how religion was used to gain access to various government institutions and world leaders.

Apparently you're not familiar with the concept of accepting something with - or without - reservations. I wouldn't say that having these particular reservations/questions would serve as a deal breaker. I mean damn dude, here I thought you really wanted to discuss specific gun restrictions - I should've known you weren't being sincere, my bad.

Surely there's a middle man in there somewhere. And yet it still isn't. Do you think it's more likely to become a reality now than any other time in our past? I felt the documentary failed to make it's case against this particular group and the level of influence they actually have. But what stuck out to me was how people like Mark Siljander and Newt Ginrich admittedly were so eager to take power that spirituality became a "side anecdote" to the process in how they "plotted and planned" to take control of the house with a series of wedge issues to mobilize Christians and deliberately divide the country - and this was before Siljander was even associated with this so called "family." And while that might not be anything new, when you consider how this type of mindset plays out in groups like the federalist society, you get a better idea of what's actually influencing today's political climate. Is that hyperbole, or are you suggesting an amendment to terms found in Article 3, Section 3 on what constitutes treason? And if anyone wanted to implement a moral tenet of sharia law that violated the constitution, it would be struck down as well - and it wouldn't really matter if Islam was used to justify the proposed moral law or not.

Well they all have been shown effective by themselves, but they're more effective when combined. Correct, tho I did have some reservations about them that I expressed earlier. I briefly mentioned tighter restrictions involving cases of domestic violence even before an actual conviction - perhaps a temporary hold on purchases as a condition of the bond. I'd also likely support a similar hold in cases where a PPO is granted, but only at the discretion of a judge after reviewing the details of the case in depth and following a reasonable set of guidelines. I'm under the impression that many people may be unaware or at least underestimate the level of domestic violence in this country - and again, on top of that there are huge disparities in segregated, poverty stricken areas. And it's not just to protect women either. I'm not sure if you saw the stat or not, but of all kids killed in mass shootings, 86% were due to incidents of domestic/family violence. We've already discussed an assault weapons bans, and I'm not really inclined to go through that again right now. If there are any other evidence based restrictions, it'd be nice if some of the more vocal gun control advocates here chimed in to provide some specific insight for once.

And video games. Don't forget video games. Quiet in the peanut gallery! Right, just ignore everything I posted about effective gun control, what else is new. You asked a question and got a reasonable response, but as usual you just ignore it and hardly ever offer anything elaborate or at least provide some type of meaningful counter argument - just more squawking.

I've already provided examples of both prevention programs and gun restrictions that have shown to be effective in reducing gun crime, so I'm not sure why you continue to talk past me. And I've given you an example of how to limit both - and so far gun homicide is down significantly this year in that particular location. Crime in the suburbs and rural areas is obviously widespread and not as isolated as inner city violence, nor is it as easy to identify at risk individuals, so addressing that can be a bit more challenging and will most likely entail far-reaching aforementioned gun control restrictions that will also help inner cities as well. But in the meantime, the prevention programs that I'm talking about will help reduce the disparity between white and black homicides and help close the gap of violence between segregated areas within the city - and that's important to me from both a societal and personal perspective.

So we're back to using absolute numbers and Chicago bashing. I get it John, the long history in this forum for giving you shit about Chicago has run it's course and is getting a bit old. But there is still a lot of research/data about Chicago gun violence that helps us understand the problem not only in Chicago, but cities across the country, just as successful programs in Oakland are now being implemented in similar cities. The 8-10,000 guns confiscated per year is part of an ATF special task force designed specifically for Chicago, but it can help in other cities as well. My only reservation about it however is that it tends to increase arrest rates, so it doesn't address the problem of disproportionate levels of incarceration and the long term effects that go along with it. Ya right, sez the guy who's gun control arguments are as predictable as a ring-neck parrot's vocabulary: Squawk, Squawk! Easy gun access, squawk! Conservatives, squawk! Penile inadequacy, squawk! Rambo delusion, squawk! Ban Garlic, squawk, squawk!" Did I miss anything?

One of the best things we have going for us there is the ATF that confiscates something like 8-10,000 guns a year in Chicago alone. And that might not seem like a lot considering the sheer numbers, but if Oakland is representative of other cities with similar problems, then only 0.2% of the population is at risk of committing firearm homicide to begin with, so now those 8-10,000 confiscated firearms represents about 2 less guns that are now out of the reach of practically every high risk individual. And then on top of that, these prevention programs identify that 0.2% (which is a very manageable number) and offers to them an opportunity with every resource afforded to them - and it works. It's not. The guy in the Forbes article that I posted earlier sums it up quite nicely: "If Chicago's crime epidemic is to be resolved, policymakers and the general public must move beyond simplistic responses that only address symptoms, and not root causes. A purported "culture of violence" among minorities, or even a long and tarnished history of police brutality by Chicago police officers, can't be viewed as singular reasons for today's tragedies. What the city is experiencing today was essentially built into its community fabric."