Forum Post: twenty four states
Posted 11 years ago on Nov. 29, 2012, 7:56 a.m. EST by bensdad
(8977)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
are now completely controlled by the republiclan party
both houses plus the governor
can you imagine what they will do?
consider Rick Scott's moves
abortion laws
VOTER SUPRESSION
emergency manager laws
I'm not sure what OWS can DO about this,
but we had better get our act together
To pull a quote from the great Rush Limbaugh, maybe they prefer working hard and achieving their own to success to "Santa Clause"
Isn't the real problem the fact that voters continue to put all those Repubs in office? How do you get all of those rightwing sheeple who are watching FuxNews to change their voting habits? They are buying what Fux and the R politicians are selling. So how do you make the product distasteful to them? They like the product, and that's why they keep voting them in.
PS -- This is the real problem. Unless you can change this demographic it is hopeless.
ABSOLUTLY TRUE one dent in the Rs armor - If Reid forces them to stand up and actuall spew their BS on the floor of the senate when they filibuster [ I would like to get rid of it completely]
however - just to make you feel worse - 24 states are now completely controlled by the Rs - THAT IS REALLY SCARY
The R's also made an extra effort to grab statehouses (with CU money) in 2010 for redistricting purposes. Meanwhile dems were sleeping & used very little cu money, and therefore lost badly.
Tide WILL turn, if we stay active!
Repubs
Seriously - I don't get it
with all of the crap the Rs hit Obama with, he still treats them honorably
with all of the abuse of the filibuster, Reid wants just a mild tweak - I'd get rid of it completely - and let the Rs howl
Don't give the rabid dog a treat
I'm with you. But Dems always compromise. Very frustrating. They need to grow a bigger set.
I think you will probably find that in many of those states, God is front and center of the party. It's difficult - impossible - to separate God from the poor, white or black. And so they vote Republican. This is the reason which enabled the religious right... that granted them unspoken approbation, a pathway that allowed then to move so much closer to the core.
Republicans just perversely use God in politics because they have nothing of substance to offer the masses. So they created a demographic for themselves. The Jesus Freaks. That consistently vote against their own economic self interest in order to vote for a 'higher power'.
There's no need for the poor or anyone else to separate from God. But I think God needs to separate himself from the Republican Party.
Article Five: We hereby acknowledge that the First Amendment's clause on religion only bars the government from establishing or favoring an official religion, or discriminating against particular religion(s). The First Amendment does not, we acknowledge, give any particular religion, no matter how demographically dominant, the right to impose their beliefs on those who do not share them. Nor does the First Amendment allow any religion to impose its beliefs in public schools or enshrined in government policy. : http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-gops-surrender-document/
Well, sure you might be right. I'm just saying that I know God figures prominently in their local politics. On an almost Southern Baptist level.
Clearly a problem. How come God talks to Republican candidates all the time. Particularly during Republican primary season. I really think God should just stay out of it. And be a little more non-partisan.
I'm not judging, I'm just relating my observational experience. Which also explains to some extent the rise to power of the Christian right in the party of Big Business.
The are other locales where we get a dissimilar sampling. Gloucester, MA for example is democrat territory and yet many are religious - people don't go to sea in ships and leave their Gods at home.
I'm sure the Dem party has all of these things finely honed but I'm not a party, I'm just a casual observer and the question for me was, how did this - the far right - happen?
Most Dems rightly leave God out of politics. Most Dems believe in the principle of separation of church and state. They take Him out to 'sea' as you say, to the grocery store, where ever. But they don't believe in integrating Him in politics or legislation.
The right wing wants God right in there in legislation, to do the job that their church can't.
"The proper role of religion is to appeal to the conscience of the individual, not the coercive power of the state. " Sen. Edward Kennedy
'how did this - the far right - happen?' - Republican's 'created' it. For votes. They didn't have any real policy to offer the average person. I mean, tax cuts for the wealthy, that does not really enthuse and excite the average person enough to get to the polls. So they created this demographic, promise them things like overturning Roe. Dangle it like a carrot on a stick. They couldn't care less about Roe most of them - the pols I mean. It's just a good reliable voting base for them.
Returning prayer to public education has also been a biggie because they see it as a cure all for our present dystopia. And there is no doubt, for a society that defines itself as "civilized" and "peaceful," we suffer a rather extreme dystopia. And so I've had this discussion many times with conservatives; the conversation is always the same: "You can't do that." "Well, why not?" "Because: Separation of church and state." And then I do what everybody else does and I reach way out there for the Constitution but the Constitution does not say separation of church and state; it says that Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or impeding its free exercise.
Franklin very explicitly states that the Constitution was written very simply, intended to be accessible to even the common man. There is very little legal terminology; there is no doubt his statements regarding its dis-ambiguity were truthful.
The reality is that if we uphold the Constitution we can't allow Congress to deny religion in public education, nor can we permit the state to deny, if it is favored by the district. And yet people who desire a less Christian world will do just that.
Setting party differences aside, because I abhor all political parties, we can't continue to run this Constitution over and expect to call on it as our defense in the future.
It was Jefferson that used the phrase 'separation of church and state'. That there should be a wall between the two. That's how he decribed the principle underlying the First Amend.
By most all historical accounts, the Founding Fathers were deeply religious. And yet, they thought it more important that the country not be a theocratic state. Surely they could have created a theocratic nation state if they wanted to. The First Amend could have said 'Congress shall make all laws in accordance with Judeo-Christian principles'. They didn't do that.
Influence for the 'separation' principle came from Locke. Who was pretty darn clear and explicit, that one should have nothing to do with the other. Locke believed that intermingling the two would in fact damage the purity of both.
Madison drafted the Amendment. He also wrote of and used the term 'separation of church and state'. Perhaps they believed the language in the Amendment was clear enough. If not, we only need to look back at other writings. Rather than make stuff up. Or aimlessly wonder what their intent was. Their other writings tell us.
The writings of Jefferson that used the 'separation' phrase has been used by the Supreme Court to clarify and uphold the First Amendment.
So yes we can deny religion in public school. And it has nothing to do with desiring a 'less Christian' world. It's the exact opposite. It's about maintaining the 'purity' of both religion and the Constitution. If anyone is trying to run rough shod over the Consitution it's the right wing theocrats.
I agree with you up to a point; separation of church and state, though, predates Locke to Wycliffe; Wycliffe wrote extensively on this. And Wycliffe served to shape much of Separatist and Non Separatist belief.
In MA Bay, in the process of early negotiation, they managed to secure the right to govern themselves. But the Colony of Virginia did not; the Church of England was mandated as the state religion and all contributed to this church regardless of membership or belief. Jefferson's separation is not the separation of Wycliffe who sought to preserve uncorrupted both church and state; Jefferson's separation is an economic concern in defiance of that English mandate.
While the Colony of MA Bay was Puritan by design, the Colony of Virginia, at the time of the Rev, was Puritan by tradition - Anglican congregations, for example, were choosing their own ministers in defiance of the Church of England - they were "Congregationalist."
The point is this: regardless of how Jefferson presents it, the Constitution does not state it. And the Constitution was intended as-is devoid of ambiguity. We are reaching to the Constitution on this particular matter to favor our belief over that of others, but the fact of the matter is, it is not there. In fact, what I see is this: Congress "shall make no law... impeding the free exercise of."
So who is the freedom fighter here? Certainly, it is not us.
MA Bay also firmly believed in separation of church and state; the polity's support of the church as theocratic does not equate to ecclesiocracy - they were separate entities. And by the 1740s, many were actually telling the minister to butt out of local concerns and affairs. At this point the church begins to retreat somewhat. Even so, it's only been very recently in MA Bay that they have relinquished the desire for religious acculturation in their public schools to the whim of those more secular.
It is us - those who prefer education as secular - that are riding roughshod on this particular issue. And it's wrong. It's wrong to deny people the right of a more religious community, especially in light of increasing dystopia, which itself lends increasingly to the lack of national self confidence.
Interesting. But...
It is not there either, that the government should 'support' religion. The Constitution doesn't say that the government shall support all religion equally. Which would have easily solved the problem of the Church of England. Plus the Establishment Clause already takes care of the Church of England issue. So I totally disagree with you about Jefferson's intent, that it was a reaction to the Church of England. It was more than that.
The Constitution doesn't say that it will support all religions equally. Or even that it will support religion at all. It says nothing about supporting religion. Only that no laws inhibit the free exercise. Which implies, since the state is not Constitutionally authorized to 'support' religion, that it be done separate from the state.
'Free exercise' means 'free exercise'. Not 'compelling' or 'supporting' students in prayer. The state is not allowed to deny prayer in school. If a kid wants to say Grace before eating lunch in the cafeteria he's free to do it. But the state has no authority for which to provide active support of it.
Schools have a purpose. Church has a purpose. If each one does what it is meant to do, I fail to see a problem.
I'm going to concede on the first paragraph; you're right it was more than that, I'm only saying that Jefferson's motivation is not the same as that of Wycliffe or the Puritan. And there's more to it, too - the political ladder in Virginia began with the vestry; politics was first filtered through England's mandated Anglican church, and Jefferson very possibly found this unnecessary, too.
Your second paragraph is a reiteration of the first, covered under the Establishment clause. But, you know, in France they do support religion; in fact, they support ALL religion - there are Protestant schools, Catholic schools, Jewish schools, Muslim schools, etc. And you can imagine the nightmare as a result of this failure to commonly educate and acculturate. But just as the Constitution says it shall make no law respecting an establishment; it simultaneously commands that there shall be no law whatsoever. The Constitution cannot and does not permit the Federal polity to deny the exercise of religion to the state, or any of its public schools.
On the third paragraph, the term "free exercise" was never intended to apply to children; under then existing law children were under the government of their parents. If the parents deemed that the child was compelled, and in most cases they did, then the child was compelled. You are suggesting that the child as the actual attendee here has choice; they did not, and they do not. So I would suggest that "free exercise" as the choice to refuse to exercise is inapplicable here.
On the last paragraph, we are not just talking about schools, we are talking about public education, the public school. And as several of these forefathers noted, the primary purpose and intent of public education following the Rev was acculturation. It is acculturation that I am concerned with; all of the wrong of our present dystopia seriously needs to be addressed. This was never intended as a world in which everyone and anyone does whatever the hell they please but that's exactly what's occurring, and we suffer the dire consequence. No one, for example, should be of the belief that they can illegally possess a weapon and then execute complete strangers for no reason whatsoever in the street but that's exactly what is occurring. It occurs because these people believe their actions are permitted; we put cuffs on them and then escort them very politely away to hang out with their friends in a place where all of life's necessities will be freely provided. They're no longer forced to endure four deaths as those evil of Old England; today they're not even beaten, let alone very humanely hanged; these people, ultimately, end laughing at you. And that's the truth.
We've take away the fear of God; we've taken away concepts of right and wrong; we've taken away the fear of any consequence whatsoever and there are only but one or two tools available to us to right this disease; we need to use them to acculturate.
And I think we should begin by acculturating our teachers, don't you? And many people feel this way, sooo... if you want a secular school, go for it, but don't deny religion in schools to those who desire it.
'The Constitution cannot and does not permit the Federal polity to deny the exercise of religion to the state, or any of its public schools' - This has already been tried and adjudicated. They got into trouble with the Establishment Clause. As soon as the state/public school use their right of 'free exercise' for prayer in school, it doesn't matter if it is a result of parental governance over the child or not, it compromises the Establishment Clause. Which is binding on the states. See Engel v Vitale, among others. When the religous right lost those battles they turned their attention to teaching of creationism in public school I think.
'don't deny religion in schools to those who desire it' - it's not denied. It's up to the individual. Not a role for the 'state'. It's the job of a parent. Tell your kid to say Grace before lunch. Problem solved. They can even read the Bible in school as a personal literature choice.
'today they're not even beaten, let alone very humanely hanged' Whoa! You're suggesting that we revert back to the days of the old wild west? I don't think things we're all sunshine and roses back then when there were 'humane' hangings. Have you checked your sanity lately?
'We've take away the fear of God' - Holy hell are you crazy? You mean like the fear of God during slavery? When people pointed to the Bible as justification for slavery. You mean like the fear of God as it relates to women voting? People were afraid of women voting. Because God said I am but a mere inferior being and wouldn't even exist if it weren't for Adam's rib. So how on earth should a woman have the right to vote? You mean like the fear of God during the civil rights era? People tried to use God for justification to deny 'civil rights' under the Constitution. Somehow I don't think fear of God or religion is going to solve our problems. People have and will try to 'use' God in all sorts of crazy ways according to their own 'interpretation'. That's a problem not a solution. When people can't use logic or facts to support their position, there's bound to be a passage in the Bible somewhere that they can use. And this is the kind of shit you think we need more of?
I think our dystopia is a result of too much individualism, rampant run amok capitalism and corporatisim, and too little caring of our shared community and shared goals and interests. The Ayn Rand Mental Illness. If each person pursues their own individual self interest that the community and society will necessarily benefit. The corporation is the conduit to that. Because most people don't want to shoot their dinner each night like you do.
The greed is good ethos that took hold in the 80s. Gordon Gekko was a fictional character that was supposed to be the villain. Instead, society made him the hero. Because they were told 'government is the problem'. And the 'corporation' is the solution. The relentless pursuit of profit as the ultimate and only goal. No matter the price that would be paid by other 'individuals' that would necessarily be left on the side of the road. With little social responsibility. Culminating in the Baby Boomers destroying the financial system and causing the most epic recession since the Great Depression. How well this has worked out for the 'corporation'. This is now the United States of the Corporation.
Democracy has been replaced with kleptocracy/plutocracy. The corporations rule us now. People know this, on some level. Some people recognize this more consiously than others. Others just know they're running faster on the hamster wheel and getting further behind. Hello dystopia.
The plutocrat or kleptocrat has no fear of the people. The people are dependent on the plutocrat for their livlihood, such as it is. So they swallow their medicine like the good little 'individualist' they are told is necessary for a 'just' and 'free' society, and run faster on their corporate hamster wheel. Then vote to give more tax breaks to the 'wealthy, so-called, job creators. Because they've been told it will 'trickle down'. Of course there's dystopia.
The Baby Boomers in charge. Who knew nothing of the Great Depression. Forgetting those lessons. Who had the benefit of the greatest public school system in the world. Who partipated in the highest period of increasing college education rates, with relatively affordable tuition. And then participated in mostly uninterrupted economic growth save for a few blips. And they tell us they did this all on their own. Sure they did. But they didn't cause the economic crisis. That of course was the government. Even though they are the government. They're the ones pulling the strings for the past 40 years. Now their vast numbers causing a demographic problem for Medicare and Social Security. Talk about fucking things up on so many levels. And how they hate on the younger generation. Who are just too lazy and slothful to find a job to pay for the Boomers Medicare and Social Security. It must be all the younger generations fault. Nevermind they we're just born when the groundwork for this latest mess was being laid.
Quite frankly, I think the best thing will be for when the Republican Baby Boomers just die off. Or at least - stop voting. For God's sake just stop inflicting their crappy neo liberal, Ayn Randian values and policies on society.
'acculturating our teachers' - really not even sure what you mean by that.
I think some of the above is a little skewed... and I'm not trying to be critical or berate or belittle here - I don't want religion in public schools, either - but...
I find this an interesting statement since we are providing various forms of social education to children for this very reason - the parents are not doing their jobs and so the school has chosen to assume this role; the Left very vociferously recognizes this deficiency and, in fact, has wholeheartedly embraced this role of parent in education.
Not all all... in medieval times, depending on the severity of the crime, one could be sentenced to die to as many as four separate and rather grotesque deaths. And many were. The least offensive of these, and the best one could possibly hope for, was hanging. On the streets of NY last week, we had one African American, with an illegal weapon, first execute an Hispanic cop and then in an effort to flee with a car-jacked vehicle, an African American driver. He executed these two people for absolutely no reason whatsoever and the arresting officers did not even hand him a beating. When I say these violent criminals - animals - who suffer this "dystopia" are laughing at you, at me, our criminal justice system, I mean that literally... we have grown far too tolerant; we have legitimized all forms of victimization and so these crimes occur repeatedly hundreds of times each and every day in America.
Well sure, that's a distinct possibility but sane or otherwise my opinion is this: Good should be the higher calling; the desire to do good should trump the desire to do evil... For centuries the fear of God's wrath was quite effective for millions of Roman Catholics, but even if we were unsuccessful at reconstituting the Catholic "Holy Hell," then at least some would be introduced to the humbling of ego. If in the above scenario Jesus had entered his head for even a millisecond, those two murders would not have occurred. And as I write this another African has just thrown a stranger off a subway platform to his death, for no reason. This is my version of "dystopia." It has nothing to do with your economic concerns.
The Baby Boomers knew everything of the depression because they heard it continuously from both their parents and their grandparents. That's a fact. But remember too that this was the first generation of leisure born of American prosperity; it was also the first generation that did not say prayer in school. Truth. And this is where my dystopia begins. Whether you like it or not, it's a fact.
Our teachers today are the worst our society has heretofore ever seen; so many today are arrested for despicable behavior that it literally boggles the mind; these are "educated" people? If fear of the law will not humble them then we must find other means, and I think we should reintroduce them to the fear of God, which, quite frankly, has never really required any firm belief whatsoever.
The modern American dystopia grows sicker and sicker with each and every passing moment; in 1945 Magda Goebbels executed all six of her children because she could not imagine them raised in a world that was not national socialist; in the future, we too will be executing our children because cannot imagine them raised in this world.
True. We are at a crucial point in American politics. The battle is for the hearts and minds of the Indies. If the Conse(r)vatives succeed, then it is game over. However, if we can win them over we might have a chance to change things. But, realistically, it will be one hell of a tough, uphill battle. I don't know how/why conservatism predominates in this country...this in spite of rational arguments that would tend to favor the opposite. I suspect a lot of it has to do with the Christian Right. Remove that, and you might see a shift to the Left.
There will never be an immediate means of preventing half the population from being religious and/or racist. The parties aren't the problem, the people voting for them are. People don't believe in liberty beyond the democratic liberty to restrict the liberties of any demographic minority they disagree with. Take, for example, Prohibition, which didn't really even have the support of the majority but was nevertheless about a group of people imposing their political dominance to restrict the decisions of what other people did in their own lives. The support of the current drug laws are no different as well as vices such as prostitution or gambling or even making it illegal to have more than a single spouse. What people choose and freely consent to in their own personal lives are not matters of legislation in a free society. Yet people, democrat and republican, oppose the personal liberties of others whenever they are in disagreement with them and don't even support their own freedom.
Case in point, there are 24 states controlled by republicans but there are also 24 states that have ballot initiative. That means there are 26 states without ballot initiative. Twenty-six states in which the people of the United States are not free to determine the laws of their own states AND IT'S NOT A PROBLEM!!! Where's the uproar?! Where's the demand for democracy in the majority of the United States??? Nowhere. Though some may desire it, the vast majority obviously aren't concerned and couldn't care less. If the majority state populations are unconcerned with democracy at the state level, how much more concerned can the majority of Americans be with democracy throughout the nation?
America can never be a free country because Americans will always oppose the freedoms of those they disagree with. Even when 'right' should prevail for the interests of liberty, Americans will never care enough to demand liberty and justice for all while taking upon themselves the responsibilities of democracy. Something as simple as an affidavit http://occupywallst.org/forum/freeda-template/ to improve the lives of everyone, both democrat and republican, will be too much of a responsibility for voters who can't see beyond their own immediate interests.
That is a very well reasoned, truthful, and intelligently presented argument. But (surprise) people will argue against it with you. Humans really suck don't they?
I think it is mainly because republicans use fear so effectively.
Fear of immigrants, of minorities, of womens rights, of LGBT people, of anti christian positions, of muslims, of unions, gun rights And so much more.
Repubs know that fearful people are naturally & understandably more conservative. So even if there are no anti gun laws, or no threat to christianity in America, no threat from unions, minorities, LGBT people, they create thefear to get more votes.
This strategy is running out of steam. Fewer and fewer people believe it. More & more groups are targeted as those to fear that repubs are left with only "angry old white men" (as Sen Lyndsey Graham (R) says) in their base.
Repubs know this and made an extra effort to suppress the votes of these targeted groups and failed.
Time heals all wounds.
And I find it laughably absurd that the Christian Right in this country hypocritically stands behind the anti-tax jihad R party while completely ignoring one of the most famous quotes Jesus ever made:
"Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's" (Matt 22:21)
This, of course, in reference to a question raised by the Jews of the time as to whether or not they should pay taxes to Rome.
But this has further implications in my mind, as I consider it the height of hypocrisy that the Christian Right entered politics in the first place, as anyone professing spirituality should be running like hell from anything as worldly and filthy dirty as politics. But they decided to "bed down with the devil" and thus revealed to the whole world their hypocritical mentality...
...which Jesus hated..."Scribes, Pharisees, Hypocrites"
repubs stoke fear of "losing traditional American values" by claiming abortion, gay marriage, evolution & stem cell research are somehow threats.
It's a dishonest tactic. And repubs have ignored the foundational tenet of helping the poor when they push cutting the safety net/earned benefits of the elderly.
Since monsters never die, suffer guilt or learn lessons, we stand a chance of seeing another RepubliCon Senate; and not having a filibuster to stop them from privatizing everything and declaring the US a theocratic plutocracy would be a very bad thing.
This election, we dodged a deadly bullet (a very dirty bomb), but it's a new beginning for cleaning up a whole shit load of carnage left by Cons and still wreaking havoc in the poor 24.
They need to sign this pledge: http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-gops-surrender-document/
The filibuster can ALWAYS be changed on the first day of EACH Senate term.
Dems should end it completely on 1/1/2013
You can bet that if the Rs ever got 51 seats, they would end it completely
I hope you're right!
They could also change the rules! They have a history of that!!
LBJ had one filibuster!! That was before the GOP devolved into a Cult!!
How do Cons win?
Voter suppression tactics/election fraud, in the name of the ruse, voter fraud!
Gerrymandering!
1% owned MSM!
RepubliCon propaganda network, Fox Lies!
24/7/365/all cities RW Hate and Lie radio!
Progressive Radio snuffed and replaced with sports talk from coast to liberal coast!
And the abject absence of compunction for lies, deceit and the following: http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-gops-surrender-document/
That's how!
Here in Michigan, the voters took away Snyder's EM laws.
In retaliation, he wants to profitize our schools.
http://www.eclectablog.com/2012/11/michigan-republicans-move-to-privatize-public-education-under-the-guise-of-reform.html
Most of my attempts to get posters around here to concentrate on events happening in the States have been drowned out by choruses of ......
Look!
Over there!
Hillary said something.
Or flailing arms, knee jerk comments on Benghazi.
I'm afraid this is the tip of the iceberg
the Rs in these states will do as much damage as they can for 24 months
I would assume that the NEA is working on this
It's ALEC legislation and it's just been proposed.
Surprisingly, I found the most up to date reports in Louisiana.
They already know how bad it is.
http://louisianavoice.com/2012/11/29/michigan-latest-to-attempt-implementation-of-alec-inspired-school-reform-identical-to-louisianas-even-cloning-the-rsd/
The problem with this country stupid people dedicated to vote