See! It's not unconstitutional! We are giving people an opt out! Sure they have to put it in writing that they aΜΆrΜΆeΜΆnΜΆ'ΜΆtΜΆ ΜΆoΜΆnΜΆeΜΆ ΜΆoΜΆfΜΆ ΜΆuΜΆsΜΆ don't want to participate! We promise we won't use that data to populate the camps.
That is totally different. You see, agitators for religous facism is not at all agitators for religious freedom. One of them wanna take away the freedom to choose what prayers others have to use, and that's not freedom for them. You understand it now, right?
It is ridiculous, but he is no doubt aware that in his home state of Florida, any ballot measure has to be reviewed by the state supreme court for constitutionality.
Ballot measures in South Dakota are required to be reviewed by the state Secretary of State so the measure can be described in neutral language to the voters. Good luck with that.
Most of whom were appointed by Deathsantis and are rabid forced-birthers. Onhe of whom's wife wrote the "don't say gay" law. and I believe, the 6 week abortion ban.
Tim Walz said βmind your own damn business β. He is doing this there because the Florida state constitution forces all ballot measures to be reviewed by the state supreme court.
This has been a bugbear for me for longer than I care to think. We CONSTANTLY hear from the putative representatives of one deity or another, but NEVER FROM THE DEITY ITSELF.
The reason why is left as an exercise for the student. π
Not too long ago someone commented (on a local newspaperβs site) βit is writtenβ and then cited the bible. I replied with βit is writtenβ and made a sensible comment in a bibleish tone. Sure enough, he took the bait and challenged me to cite where it was written. I referred him to my comment where it βwas writtenβ.
Here's another fun conundrum for you: This guy is working hard to take away as much free will as possible, something that his holy book claims was given to humanity by his god. Truly extraordinary nonsense there.
The idea you can force people to pray to a particular God is as delusional as thinking gets. His plan is absurdly unconstitutional. I have no idea what he thinks he would be accomplishing should he get this past the courts. How many prayers, do you suppose, were offered up during the Holocaust, and to what effect? Far right Christians are fighting a rear-guard action trying to accomplish through the legislatures and courts what they have failed to achieve from their pulpits. They are not only doomed to lose that fight, if anything things like this will only hasten the demise of Christianity. People do not like having religion forced on them.
And Hellinger doesn't. Wow and eureka! Now I see!!! He is a woman actually, Hell being that sweet little place in the middle of Norway, and Inger being a girls name here.
Conversion. People will consider more seriously/look more favorably on some idea if a recognized authority says it. So having your teacher lead a prayer to God is going to result in some additional kids believing in God.
I see what you're saying, but anecdotally, depends on the teacher. The god-bothered teachers in my school were invariably the biggest idiots, with a tendency to bully kids. If anything those folk turned kids *off* religion (and contributed to the post-graduation brain drain in my religion-haunted home region).
They are control freaks, and they believe they have a mandate from the almighty. They want everybody to live and behave a certain way that falls into their narrow rigid vision of How Things Ought To Be. Think Archie Bunker and The Church Lady on steroids. They want to run people's lives because they think they have the right to. Obviously, all those other people have no idea how to behave properly, because they keep offending the freaks' prudish, high-strung sensibilities. They have always wanted to control other people but now they believe their gawd and their orange messiah have officially licensed them to do so.
One, he thinks it will be easier in SD than Florida to get the numbers he needs because SDβs threshold is smaller. What he doesnβt realize is that the population is also smaller and more sparsely dispersed, so it will be much more difficult to reach.
Two, the crime rates across the country and overall is dropping. His statement about crime is just a red herring, let alone a giant lie. Where does he get the idea that children will behave (not commit crimes) because they are aware of god? The knowledge of god never stopped clergy from committing crimes, why would children be better than priests?
Three, if a blatantly unconstitutional amendment has to be treated seriously by the system, what is stopping other blatantly illegal ideas from being presented as reasonable? Why doesnβt he just introduce an amendment that brings slavery back? Or make it legal to literally eat the rich? Or make embezzling the state legal? There has to be a mechanism to just trash these types of suggestions. Iβve seen situations where mentally unstable people have utilized the government to present insanity as laws, I mean, go to any small town city council meeting and see what some folks want to happen. Or the clerkβs office to see how a dingbat with a grudge treats the folks working there, intentionally overwhelming the staff with open records requests so there is no way they can keep up within the regulations, and then sue because of it. If it is unconstitutional on its face, as this is breaking three different clauses of just the first amendment, it shouldnβt even be allowed to move past the first step.
Four, while it may be true this SCROTUS will likely jump at the opportunity to rescind the first amendment, that doesnβt mean we should be allowing shit like this to be considered. This is a clear violation that ought to be addressed at the lowest levels. Not automatically assumed the highest level will allow it because we all know the SCROTUS is hopelessly corrupt. If heβs not willing to accept the automatic rejection this deserves, make him work for the SCROTUS eyes, make him pay the lawyer and court fees to lose time after time after time. Donβt just give in.
Five, this is much a free speech violation as it is a religious freedom violation. Forced speech isnβt free. Forced religion isnβt free. And despite his delusion, making children recite by rote some nonsense words doesnβt make them true believers.
Regarding your Point Three, I have held for a while that the second one irrationality is successfully introduced to a system, whether it's a human being or a society or whatever, there is almost no limit to the number of subsequent irrationalities which may follow. It's the foot-in-the-door syndrome.
Iβm really surprised that a non resident has the legal standing to do this in SD. Itβs not even carpet bagging. Itβs like De Santis is trying to govern SD but as the governor of Florida. π€·ββοΈ
Point Two needs to be blasted from the rooftops. We need to disabuse people of the notion that religion makes you a better person, and your point about the clergy is, to me, the kill shot.
"There has to be a mechanism to just trash these types of suggestions."
The mechanism is the number of signatures needed before lawmakers will look at it. California famously (infamously?) has a low number of signatures required compared to it's population, so they get a lot of crazy. Most states, however, have a difficult to reach threshold. I am not sure if SD is in the California position or if they have a sufficiently high threshold that this just won't go anywhere.
In some states, the mechanism is that private citizens are not allowed to bring referenda type motions at all. You must convince an elected legislator to bring your idea to the floor.
But any mechanism where some expert evaluates a measure and just trashes it because they think the content is unconstitutional on it's face is a bad mechanism, because then what is considered 'unconstitutional' becomes up for political grabs. Imagine if SD had a we-don't-have-to-bother-with-this-one evaluator like you want...and that person was a Trumper.
Then letβs introduce an amendment that states as soon as someone makes over $100,000,000 they must submit themselves to a slaughterhouse for consumption.
Itβs just as unconstitutional as forcing children to pray as this one is. Like I said, it will be mentally unstable folks with an ax to grind grinding the government to a halt trying to manage all the nonsense.
Yeah, it can be abused, but then the courts should get involved. Theyβre gonna be involved anyway. The issue should be addressed as early as possible, not wait for peopleβs rights to be trampled or state resources to be wasted.
You could submit that. And you likely wouldn't get the signatures. That's how such craziness gets defeated. Then when it passes, someone sues, the courts put an immediate stay in place, and that's the *second* check on it.
The US government has traditionally been very leery of prior restraint on political rights (i.e. shutting down speech or political advocacy *before* it turns into illegal action), because that so very easily slides into repression of unpopular political views.
But okay, for sake of argument, let's say we create the mechanism you want. SD now has a Legal Vetoer In Chief, who reviews all citizen proposals before they can be voted on and simply trashcans the ones they deem unconstitutional. Bang: no unnecessary referenda, no unnecessary votes in the legislature. Fast and simple. But now please answer my previous post's last question: how do you stop that person from being an arch-conservative? How do you stop that person wielding that veto power to veto whatever they want? How do you stop them from shutting down what you consider good requests while letting through what you consider to be bad requests?
IMO, this 'expert vetoer' or 'prior constitutional reviewer' idea is a face-eating leopard, and you have not thought about what happens when it decides to turn around and eat YOUR face instead of the other guy's (or gal's).
Thereβs the redress in court for that. I did address this. Sorry, but we canβt eat people according to standard federal law, but if you think we should prove that it is not unconstitutional and I will consider this rule.
The face eating leopards are already ignoring the will of the people when ballot measures are meeting the requirements, and being passed by a majority of the electorate.
Maybe we donβt have a person stating this or that isnβt constitutional, but more clearly defined requirements that do eliminate the trash before anyone has to take nonsensical measures seriously. Maybe require folks who introduce these things to defend them to a board when they initially present them. Make them explain how it is not unconstitutional to make people say what you want them to say daily. Not have to fight them in federal court after folks are forced into speech they donβt believe.
Looking at the situation the way you do is a losing proposition for whatβs right. The face eating leopards are eating our faces the way the system is working now, but then they can eat our faces any other way as well. Suggesting a possible solution to minimize the damage is the only sensible approach. Good proposals will be able to defend themselves and bad wonβt, and making this happen at the lowest possible level will minimize damage. Because weβve got Ten Commandments posters going up in schools while the Christian nationalists play footsie in the courts. Because someone like Dershowitz lies about the constitutionality of the proposal to the masses that donβt think for themselves.
It is an imperfect system, it will remain an imperfect system, but we can still try to improve it.
I think your idea in the third paragraph about having people defend their proposals to a board has merit. An open public board meeting, with pros and cons and constitutional problems explained in plain language, broadcast and livestreamed for transparency, I think that would go a long way to stopping a lot of cray-cray.
Robust public education in civics would help too, but I guess ya can't have everything.
I think 'presenting to the board' is what we already have at the local level. When people present some idea to a school board, that's what they are doing. So that proposal won't eliminate locally-considered bad ideas any earlier or faster than we do now, because it's the process we already use. The cranks can still come to the board meetings and waste everyone's time with their five minute "bring prayer back in school" presentations, and school boards dominated by conservatives will still think they are constitutional and go down that path and cost their taxpayers a lot of money in lost court cases.
For state-level proposals, your board is just another face-eating leopard. Again, let's walk through what happens. The SD legislature has a supermajority of republicans. So they create a constitutional review board consisting of Ken Ham, David Barton, and Samuel Alito. With that in place, guess which ideas go forward for vote and guess which don't. How do you stop your board idea from becoming that?
The reason local governments run all ideas through the same process is exactly this. Yes, "working the process" on a 'Jesus prayer' idea or a 'creationism is too science' idea wastes some time and money. But faster "expert decides" processes are more corruptible. You, we, the people have to stop searching for 'good king' solutions. Not only do they not exist because the populace doesn't agree on what makes a king good, but they are inherently inimical do democratic processes. The solution to bad legislative proposals is not Put A Sole Authority In Charge That I Would Like.
Not necessarily a "local" board, as in, at the community level. For state-wide ballot initiatives, I believe Val had in mind a state board, or maybe even a regional board in very large states, that could convene whenever someone or some organization wanted to get a statewide referendum on a ballot (correct me if I am in error, Val).
This extra requirement alone would hopefully mean that an obviously unconstitutional amendment effort would not get off the ground. Board members would be required to have expertise in that particular state's Constitution; there could be other requirements to ensure fairness, such as an equal number of Republicans, Democrats, and Independents. And all proceedings would be livestreamed and broadcast to the public.
Anybody who wanted to could still bring any initiative proposal they desired, but if that proposal didn't pass constitutional muster, it could not go any further. and why said proposal did not qualify would be explained in plain language.
In the interest of saving the state time, money and resources down the road, I think Val's idea is a step in the right direction.
As to the fourth point, the Alliance Defending Freedom or its ilk will take the case pro bono. They live for this nonsense. Jay Sekulo follows in the same circles as Christian nationalists.
I suppose I could ask, "What part of: 'Congress shall make no law, respecting an establishment of religion,' Hellinger doesnt' understand," but I doubt he'd care. It's pretty clear that his sole intention was to find a state where slipping such a statute through a state legislature would be easy-peasy, whereupon his foot (and precedent) are in the door and others can carry that torch from that point. The hell of it is that, in a state like South Dakota, he MIGHT just get away with it.
And we're off to the races again with State / Church arguments which should have been settled law 100 years ago, and yet aren't, because obsessives like this guy can't bear the thought of religion NOT being in public schools.
I defy anyone to find data that proves more religiosity reduces crime. What you will find is that countries that are more religious are more violent, more crime ridden, less tolerant, less educated, more violence against women and groups who donβt subscribe to their views on religion, more violence against LGBTQ+, more autocratic and authoritarian and utterly dismal on human rights. This list is not an entirety of negatives. The data is also easily accessible from the google. The slow demise of affiliated is no accident. Itβs what happens in civilised society that realises religion is a poison, a cancer and that excision cannot happen fast enough.
No. They donβt. The US seems to be following the same pattern of becoming less religious, that is shown in data from Europe. Slower, but still consistent. Iβm thinking the data that shows the believers are on the downward trend, for years now (even if it is a trickle a year) are in an existential crisis over the idea that belief in a deity, theirs in particular (because itβs always about their version of religion, or god), is creating this existential crisis that produces whack jobs. Itβs not going to get better as the non-affiliated, or plain old non-believers, continue to increase, itβs going to get whackier, and worse. Imho.
Exactly, more religion does not solve crime. I was thinking about this several months ago to use in discussions with various people who claim we need more religion to reduce crime.
The US has the most prisoner incarcerations in the world, more than China. The US has fluctuating between 1.8 - 2 million prisoners in our system in 2023. 65% of them identify as Christians. That is 1,170,000 inmates who committed various crimes that landed them in prison who all believe in Jesus Christ. Meanwhile only half percent are atheist / agnostic.
Religion, church, god, jesus christ, muhammad, moses, etc solve NOTHING.
Anyone want to try getting a law passed to force prayer to the Almighty Spaghetti Monster, or Odin, Zeus, Athena, Inanna? Same thing, same exact thing.
Iβm being exposed to new gods and goddesses!! Pardon my ignorance, but I had never heard of Deliria before. I searched the google and found her on Krapopolis. Going to watch as soon as I get my pizza! π π
It's taken me a while since I first read this piece, but now I'm genuinely pissed off. I would give a lot to get in Hellinger's face and say, bluntly, "NO. You DON'T get to force your religion on others. Not kids, not adults, not ANYONE, and you don't get the government to do your dirty work for you.
"You have the right to your beliefs and to pray all you want. You DO NOT have the right to coerce everyone else to agree with your beliefs."
Totally. I mean, "Have mercy on us?!?" Just WHEN has Yahweh EVER had genuine, unaffected and unconditional mercy on ANYONE? Human beings have shown more mercy than that biblical fuck ever did.
Because nothing tells people just how much you care quite like trying to get legislation passed in another state, I guess?
Maybe I'm just tired and grumpy today. Maybe I didn't get enough sleep. Maybe my hormones are making me miserable. I'm at the point where I have zero patience left with the people just like this guy, who cannot mind their own business and think they must dictate to everyone else how to live their lives. I feel these people need reminding that they do not, in point of fact, own all of humanity, and are not responsible for the actions of others; therefore they should sit the **** down and shut the **** up before someone gets angry about it.
As of this post, nobody has been appointed Supreme Dictator of the United States. This noisy minority might want a dictatorship, but they're the only ones who do and they're assuming they'll be the ones in charge. History says that never goes well, and the people who put the dictator in charge are usually the ones that pay for it first.
Looking at the requirements for a ballot measure in North Dakota reveals that the voting population would be about 875,000 voters. The 17,000 number is for an 'initiated statute'. A constitutional amendment would require about 35,000 voter signatures. But this quick research revealed an even more interesting fact: North Dakota has NO voter registration! That's right. A deep red state requires only that you have valid ID and have lived in the state for 30 days prior to election to vote. While in the other 49 states Republicans are throwing up roadblocks to registration and purging voter roles. Imagine if California decided to do away with voter registration? How much would Faux News freak out about that?
For sure, we don't want a repeat of Cakeshop. Stay neutral, lest the courts find in favor of the idiot because you weren't.
I was in that government position once (not about gay rights or religion though). My boss told me the same thing. I.e. yes, these people are crazy and their idea for how to spend government money is a nonstarter. But you send them through the proper evaluation process just like any reasonable idea, you apply the same rules, and you let the process eliminate them. Because if you don't, they sue and very likely win the government resources/hiring/benefit we both agree they don't deserve.
Some day, millions or billions of years in the future, god is going to look up from whatever he's doing and say "Wait, was I supposed to be doing something?"
π»ππππππππ ππππ πβπ‘ ππ’π π‘ π€πππ‘ ππ£πππ¦πππ π‘π ππππ¦. π»π π€πππ‘π π‘π πππππ π‘βππ π‘π ππ ππ‘. π΄ππ βπ ππ£ππ π€πππ‘π π‘π π βππ£π π‘βπ πππ‘ππππ π€ππππ πππ€π π‘βπππ π‘βππππ‘π . π»π π€πππ‘π ππ£πππ¦ πππ π‘π ππππππ€πππππ βππ πΊππ πππ πππ πππ πππππ¦. π΄ππ π‘βππ βπ π€πππ‘π π‘π ππ’π‘ π’π ππ πππ π‘ππππ πππ ππ£πππ¦πππ π€βπ πππ¦ π€πππ‘ π‘π πππ‘ ππ’π‘βππ‘βπ πππ‘ ππππ’πβ π‘βππ‘ π‘βππ¦ πππβπ‘ πππ‘ π€πππ‘ π‘π ππππ‘ππππππ‘π ππ π‘βππ‘ π‘βππ¦ πππβπ‘ ππ ππ π‘πππππ§ππ πππ π‘βππ‘ πππππ πππ; βπβπ πππππ ππππ π‘βππ ππ’π‘ ππ‘ ππ π€πππ‘πππ.
See! It's not unconstitutional! We are giving people an opt out! Sure they have to put it in writing that they aΜΆrΜΆeΜΆnΜΆ'ΜΆtΜΆ ΜΆoΜΆnΜΆeΜΆ ΜΆoΜΆfΜΆ ΜΆuΜΆsΜΆ don't want to participate! We promise we won't use that data to populate the camps.
As an Orthodox Jew, doesnβt he pray daily thanking his god that he isnβt a gentile, a slave, or a woman?
And how do you think I'll be able to sleep at night when you gave me a daytime nightmare. Thank you so much.
(edited to fix typo).
How a non-resident is even allowed to submit a petition to modify the Constitution of another state ?
What happened to "outsiders should mind their business " we heard so often about the FFRF ?
That only applies to us evil satanic atheists. The bible ain't the only thing they cherry pick.
That's right. They pick the cherries, and make ππ‘βπππ pick the cotton.
To quote Governor Walz,"Mind your own damn business!"
Religious zealots can't even consider minding their own business when they need EVERYONE to be and act like they do. They're OBSESSED.
ππ’ π¬π©π‘π’ "out of state agitators" that they trot out every time the FFRF shows up.
That is totally different. You see, agitators for religous facism is not at all agitators for religious freedom. One of them wanna take away the freedom to choose what prayers others have to use, and that's not freedom for them. You understand it now, right?
Just how Satanael intended humans to be feed and cared for. Make humans bend to Godβs will. Where there is a whip there is a way.
It is ridiculous, but he is no doubt aware that in his home state of Florida, any ballot measure has to be reviewed by the state supreme court for constitutionality.
Ballot measures in South Dakota are required to be reviewed by the state Secretary of State so the measure can be described in neutral language to the voters. Good luck with that.
Not familiar with SD Secretary of State. If it's a GOP MAGAt, yeah, good luck.
Which is why I was surprised the abortion and weed amendments made unto the ballot.
Most of whom were appointed by Deathsantis and are rabid forced-birthers. Onhe of whom's wife wrote the "don't say gay" law. and I believe, the 6 week abortion ban.
Now that's what I call a "fair and balanced court" /s
Probably why he went to South Dakota, even though Florida's State Supreme Court isn't exactly what I would call "neutral" anymore, not by a long shot.
Review shamoo our culture has entered into the Power Game Zone. In that citizens will be forced to comply if the fanatics have the power to legislate.
Tim Walz said βmind your own damn business β. He is doing this there because the Florida state constitution forces all ballot measures to be reviewed by the state supreme court.
I question the almightyness of a god that needs a bozo from Florida to shill for him in South Dakota.
This has been a bugbear for me for longer than I care to think. We CONSTANTLY hear from the putative representatives of one deity or another, but NEVER FROM THE DEITY ITSELF.
The reason why is left as an exercise for the student. π
When someone says, "God told me," or, "Jesus told me," the only proper response is YOU LYING SACK OF SHIT!
Not too long ago someone commented (on a local newspaperβs site) βit is writtenβ and then cited the bible. I replied with βit is writtenβ and made a sensible comment in a bibleish tone. Sure enough, he took the bait and challenged me to cite where it was written. I referred him to my comment where it βwas writtenβ.
LOL, checkmate, bible-thumper!
Well done! Nice laugh to start the day. :)
Here's another fun conundrum for you: This guy is working hard to take away as much free will as possible, something that his holy book claims was given to humanity by his god. Truly extraordinary nonsense there.
The idea you can force people to pray to a particular God is as delusional as thinking gets. His plan is absurdly unconstitutional. I have no idea what he thinks he would be accomplishing should he get this past the courts. How many prayers, do you suppose, were offered up during the Holocaust, and to what effect? Far right Christians are fighting a rear-guard action trying to accomplish through the legislatures and courts what they have failed to achieve from their pulpits. They are not only doomed to lose that fight, if anything things like this will only hasten the demise of Christianity. People do not like having religion forced on them.
You would think a Jew would know better.
You'd think.
And Hellinger doesn't. Wow and eureka! Now I see!!! He is a woman actually, Hell being that sweet little place in the middle of Norway, and Inger being a girls name here.
Now I wonder why hide that she is a woman? What is wrong with that? I think I do fine as a woman. What is he afraid of?
This is Dawkinsβ secondary meme - that it is good (and required) to believe. It is all part of their fever dream to have a theofascist dictatorship.
He's obviouslyy one of those bad right-wing Jews, like that horrible Raichick hatemonger.
πΌ βππ£π ππ ππππ π€βππ‘ βπ π‘βππππ βπ π€ππ’ππ ππ πππππππππ βπππ π βππ’ππ βπ πππ‘ π‘βππ πππ π‘ π‘βπ πππ’ππ‘π
Conversion. People will consider more seriously/look more favorably on some idea if a recognized authority says it. So having your teacher lead a prayer to God is going to result in some additional kids believing in God.
π€’
Copy that.
I see what you're saying, but anecdotally, depends on the teacher. The god-bothered teachers in my school were invariably the biggest idiots, with a tendency to bully kids. If anything those folk turned kids *off* religion (and contributed to the post-graduation brain drain in my religion-haunted home region).
"religion-haunted" is a very evocative turn-of-phrase. I salute you!
Those poor kids. They will be haunted by fear the rest of their lives.
Humans and elephants resist domestication.
What a bunch of bullshit!! This Christofacist shit is nosy, bossy, people trying to enforce their will on others. I swear I'll never understand it!!
There is nothing to understand. They are wannabe dictators.
Agreed
He's not a Christian. He's an Orthodox Jew.
Well wtaf????
Extreme religionists are all alike; honestly doean't matter which flavor of nonsense they espouse. The ends are the same.
And a religious person that love to se other people suffer and in pain.
They are control freaks, and they believe they have a mandate from the almighty. They want everybody to live and behave a certain way that falls into their narrow rigid vision of How Things Ought To Be. Think Archie Bunker and The Church Lady on steroids. They want to run people's lives because they think they have the right to. Obviously, all those other people have no idea how to behave properly, because they keep offending the freaks' prudish, high-strung sensibilities. They have always wanted to control other people but now they believe their gawd and their orange messiah have officially licensed them to do so.
One, he thinks it will be easier in SD than Florida to get the numbers he needs because SDβs threshold is smaller. What he doesnβt realize is that the population is also smaller and more sparsely dispersed, so it will be much more difficult to reach.
Two, the crime rates across the country and overall is dropping. His statement about crime is just a red herring, let alone a giant lie. Where does he get the idea that children will behave (not commit crimes) because they are aware of god? The knowledge of god never stopped clergy from committing crimes, why would children be better than priests?
Three, if a blatantly unconstitutional amendment has to be treated seriously by the system, what is stopping other blatantly illegal ideas from being presented as reasonable? Why doesnβt he just introduce an amendment that brings slavery back? Or make it legal to literally eat the rich? Or make embezzling the state legal? There has to be a mechanism to just trash these types of suggestions. Iβve seen situations where mentally unstable people have utilized the government to present insanity as laws, I mean, go to any small town city council meeting and see what some folks want to happen. Or the clerkβs office to see how a dingbat with a grudge treats the folks working there, intentionally overwhelming the staff with open records requests so there is no way they can keep up within the regulations, and then sue because of it. If it is unconstitutional on its face, as this is breaking three different clauses of just the first amendment, it shouldnβt even be allowed to move past the first step.
Four, while it may be true this SCROTUS will likely jump at the opportunity to rescind the first amendment, that doesnβt mean we should be allowing shit like this to be considered. This is a clear violation that ought to be addressed at the lowest levels. Not automatically assumed the highest level will allow it because we all know the SCROTUS is hopelessly corrupt. If heβs not willing to accept the automatic rejection this deserves, make him work for the SCROTUS eyes, make him pay the lawyer and court fees to lose time after time after time. Donβt just give in.
Five, this is much a free speech violation as it is a religious freedom violation. Forced speech isnβt free. Forced religion isnβt free. And despite his delusion, making children recite by rote some nonsense words doesnβt make them true believers.
Regarding your Point Three, I have held for a while that the second one irrationality is successfully introduced to a system, whether it's a human being or a society or whatever, there is almost no limit to the number of subsequent irrationalities which may follow. It's the foot-in-the-door syndrome.
And it's dangerous as hell.
Iβm really surprised that a non resident has the legal standing to do this in SD. Itβs not even carpet bagging. Itβs like De Santis is trying to govern SD but as the governor of Florida. π€·ββοΈ
That surprised me as well.
Don't give DeNazi ideas.
Me thinks the Satanic Temple and FFRF, will be throwing a wrench and rationality into Florida manβs future as a lawgiver.
Point Two needs to be blasted from the rooftops. We need to disabuse people of the notion that religion makes you a better person, and your point about the clergy is, to me, the kill shot.
"There has to be a mechanism to just trash these types of suggestions."
The mechanism is the number of signatures needed before lawmakers will look at it. California famously (infamously?) has a low number of signatures required compared to it's population, so they get a lot of crazy. Most states, however, have a difficult to reach threshold. I am not sure if SD is in the California position or if they have a sufficiently high threshold that this just won't go anywhere.
In some states, the mechanism is that private citizens are not allowed to bring referenda type motions at all. You must convince an elected legislator to bring your idea to the floor.
But any mechanism where some expert evaluates a measure and just trashes it because they think the content is unconstitutional on it's face is a bad mechanism, because then what is considered 'unconstitutional' becomes up for political grabs. Imagine if SD had a we-don't-have-to-bother-with-this-one evaluator like you want...and that person was a Trumper.
Then letβs introduce an amendment that states as soon as someone makes over $100,000,000 they must submit themselves to a slaughterhouse for consumption.
Itβs just as unconstitutional as forcing children to pray as this one is. Like I said, it will be mentally unstable folks with an ax to grind grinding the government to a halt trying to manage all the nonsense.
Yeah, it can be abused, but then the courts should get involved. Theyβre gonna be involved anyway. The issue should be addressed as early as possible, not wait for peopleβs rights to be trampled or state resources to be wasted.
I have seen the peeled form of Elmu. I wouldn't eat that with your mouth!
Can we set up a Go Fund Me for people we don't like?
You could submit that. And you likely wouldn't get the signatures. That's how such craziness gets defeated. Then when it passes, someone sues, the courts put an immediate stay in place, and that's the *second* check on it.
The US government has traditionally been very leery of prior restraint on political rights (i.e. shutting down speech or political advocacy *before* it turns into illegal action), because that so very easily slides into repression of unpopular political views.
But okay, for sake of argument, let's say we create the mechanism you want. SD now has a Legal Vetoer In Chief, who reviews all citizen proposals before they can be voted on and simply trashcans the ones they deem unconstitutional. Bang: no unnecessary referenda, no unnecessary votes in the legislature. Fast and simple. But now please answer my previous post's last question: how do you stop that person from being an arch-conservative? How do you stop that person wielding that veto power to veto whatever they want? How do you stop them from shutting down what you consider good requests while letting through what you consider to be bad requests?
IMO, this 'expert vetoer' or 'prior constitutional reviewer' idea is a face-eating leopard, and you have not thought about what happens when it decides to turn around and eat YOUR face instead of the other guy's (or gal's).
Thereβs the redress in court for that. I did address this. Sorry, but we canβt eat people according to standard federal law, but if you think we should prove that it is not unconstitutional and I will consider this rule.
The face eating leopards are already ignoring the will of the people when ballot measures are meeting the requirements, and being passed by a majority of the electorate.
Maybe we donβt have a person stating this or that isnβt constitutional, but more clearly defined requirements that do eliminate the trash before anyone has to take nonsensical measures seriously. Maybe require folks who introduce these things to defend them to a board when they initially present them. Make them explain how it is not unconstitutional to make people say what you want them to say daily. Not have to fight them in federal court after folks are forced into speech they donβt believe.
Looking at the situation the way you do is a losing proposition for whatβs right. The face eating leopards are eating our faces the way the system is working now, but then they can eat our faces any other way as well. Suggesting a possible solution to minimize the damage is the only sensible approach. Good proposals will be able to defend themselves and bad wonβt, and making this happen at the lowest possible level will minimize damage. Because weβve got Ten Commandments posters going up in schools while the Christian nationalists play footsie in the courts. Because someone like Dershowitz lies about the constitutionality of the proposal to the masses that donβt think for themselves.
It is an imperfect system, it will remain an imperfect system, but we can still try to improve it.
I think your idea in the third paragraph about having people defend their proposals to a board has merit. An open public board meeting, with pros and cons and constitutional problems explained in plain language, broadcast and livestreamed for transparency, I think that would go a long way to stopping a lot of cray-cray.
Robust public education in civics would help too, but I guess ya can't have everything.
I think 'presenting to the board' is what we already have at the local level. When people present some idea to a school board, that's what they are doing. So that proposal won't eliminate locally-considered bad ideas any earlier or faster than we do now, because it's the process we already use. The cranks can still come to the board meetings and waste everyone's time with their five minute "bring prayer back in school" presentations, and school boards dominated by conservatives will still think they are constitutional and go down that path and cost their taxpayers a lot of money in lost court cases.
For state-level proposals, your board is just another face-eating leopard. Again, let's walk through what happens. The SD legislature has a supermajority of republicans. So they create a constitutional review board consisting of Ken Ham, David Barton, and Samuel Alito. With that in place, guess which ideas go forward for vote and guess which don't. How do you stop your board idea from becoming that?
The reason local governments run all ideas through the same process is exactly this. Yes, "working the process" on a 'Jesus prayer' idea or a 'creationism is too science' idea wastes some time and money. But faster "expert decides" processes are more corruptible. You, we, the people have to stop searching for 'good king' solutions. Not only do they not exist because the populace doesn't agree on what makes a king good, but they are inherently inimical do democratic processes. The solution to bad legislative proposals is not Put A Sole Authority In Charge That I Would Like.
Not necessarily a "local" board, as in, at the community level. For state-wide ballot initiatives, I believe Val had in mind a state board, or maybe even a regional board in very large states, that could convene whenever someone or some organization wanted to get a statewide referendum on a ballot (correct me if I am in error, Val).
This extra requirement alone would hopefully mean that an obviously unconstitutional amendment effort would not get off the ground. Board members would be required to have expertise in that particular state's Constitution; there could be other requirements to ensure fairness, such as an equal number of Republicans, Democrats, and Independents. And all proceedings would be livestreamed and broadcast to the public.
Anybody who wanted to could still bring any initiative proposal they desired, but if that proposal didn't pass constitutional muster, it could not go any further. and why said proposal did not qualify would be explained in plain language.
In the interest of saving the state time, money and resources down the road, I think Val's idea is a step in the right direction.
Regarding your point two about crime going down all over US. The followers of the orange jail suit will not believe that.
As to the fourth point, the Alliance Defending Freedom or its ilk will take the case pro bono. They live for this nonsense. Jay Sekulo follows in the same circles as Christian nationalists.
What's funny about the Jewish faith is their workarounds of their own laws.
Like on the Sabbath, you are fettered by rules. Wanna go to the beach on the Sabbath?
Easy, put up the magic strings called Eruv and it's all good!
ππππππππππππππππππππ―Well said!
I suppose I could ask, "What part of: 'Congress shall make no law, respecting an establishment of religion,' Hellinger doesnt' understand," but I doubt he'd care. It's pretty clear that his sole intention was to find a state where slipping such a statute through a state legislature would be easy-peasy, whereupon his foot (and precedent) are in the door and others can carry that torch from that point. The hell of it is that, in a state like South Dakota, he MIGHT just get away with it.
And we're off to the races again with State / Church arguments which should have been settled law 100 years ago, and yet aren't, because obsessives like this guy can't bear the thought of religion NOT being in public schools.
When did prayer start to work? And if they were working, why did he not pray for a state with no crime?
Or did he and it didn't work?
Have he lost faith in Odin or FrΓΈy or whoever he prays to?
What a small minded person.
I defy anyone to find data that proves more religiosity reduces crime. What you will find is that countries that are more religious are more violent, more crime ridden, less tolerant, less educated, more violence against women and groups who donβt subscribe to their views on religion, more violence against LGBTQ+, more autocratic and authoritarian and utterly dismal on human rights. This list is not an entirety of negatives. The data is also easily accessible from the google. The slow demise of affiliated is no accident. Itβs what happens in civilised society that realises religion is a poison, a cancer and that excision cannot happen fast enough.
I know. But over-religious people don't want to know.
The overly religious donβt want to know a lot. Small minded seems to be their MO. π΅βπ«
No. They donβt. The US seems to be following the same pattern of becoming less religious, that is shown in data from Europe. Slower, but still consistent. Iβm thinking the data that shows the believers are on the downward trend, for years now (even if it is a trickle a year) are in an existential crisis over the idea that belief in a deity, theirs in particular (because itβs always about their version of religion, or god), is creating this existential crisis that produces whack jobs. Itβs not going to get better as the non-affiliated, or plain old non-believers, continue to increase, itβs going to get whackier, and worse. Imho.
Exactly, more religion does not solve crime. I was thinking about this several months ago to use in discussions with various people who claim we need more religion to reduce crime.
The US has the most prisoner incarcerations in the world, more than China. The US has fluctuating between 1.8 - 2 million prisoners in our system in 2023. 65% of them identify as Christians. That is 1,170,000 inmates who committed various crimes that landed them in prison who all believe in Jesus Christ. Meanwhile only half percent are atheist / agnostic.
Religion, church, god, jesus christ, muhammad, moses, etc solve NOTHING.
Anyone want to try getting a law passed to force prayer to the Almighty Spaghetti Monster, or Odin, Zeus, Athena, Inanna? Same thing, same exact thing.
The old gods and the new? Lol π
β«βͺ It's beginning to look a lot like Westeros! βͺβ«
With less weirwood trees and sacred groves.
And at least a couple direwolves!
Malamutes are good substitutes π
Haven't had a dog since "Miska," our Hungarian Vizsla (and she was wonderful!). Not enough room in this house, really, darn it.
So we have puddy-cats!
π€£ππ€£π
Not Ninkasi ?
I had never heard of Ninkasi! But I have now. Beer Goddess Ninkasi might be the best choice! π€©π€©
Poseidon is my go-to deity.
Or Deliria.
Depends on my mood that day.
Iβm being exposed to new gods and goddesses!! Pardon my ignorance, but I had never heard of Deliria before. I searched the google and found her on Krapopolis. Going to watch as soon as I get my pizza! π π
Heh heh. Yep, Krapopolis. My new favorite animated show! It's wonderful and clever!
It's taken me a while since I first read this piece, but now I'm genuinely pissed off. I would give a lot to get in Hellinger's face and say, bluntly, "NO. You DON'T get to force your religion on others. Not kids, not adults, not ANYONE, and you don't get the government to do your dirty work for you.
"You have the right to your beliefs and to pray all you want. You DO NOT have the right to coerce everyone else to agree with your beliefs."
πππππ
π Thanks!
Just look at Godβs gifts, like childhood leukemia! Thatβs real love!
Bone cancer, too.
Totally. I mean, "Have mercy on us?!?" Just WHEN has Yahweh EVER had genuine, unaffected and unconditional mercy on ANYONE? Human beings have shown more mercy than that biblical fuck ever did.
Hell, Ted Bundy showed more mercy than Yahweh ever did.
Because nothing tells people just how much you care quite like trying to get legislation passed in another state, I guess?
Maybe I'm just tired and grumpy today. Maybe I didn't get enough sleep. Maybe my hormones are making me miserable. I'm at the point where I have zero patience left with the people just like this guy, who cannot mind their own business and think they must dictate to everyone else how to live their lives. I feel these people need reminding that they do not, in point of fact, own all of humanity, and are not responsible for the actions of others; therefore they should sit the **** down and shut the **** up before someone gets angry about it.
As of this post, nobody has been appointed Supreme Dictator of the United States. This noisy minority might want a dictatorship, but they're the only ones who do and they're assuming they'll be the ones in charge. History says that never goes well, and the people who put the dictator in charge are usually the ones that pay for it first.
Looking at the requirements for a ballot measure in North Dakota reveals that the voting population would be about 875,000 voters. The 17,000 number is for an 'initiated statute'. A constitutional amendment would require about 35,000 voter signatures. But this quick research revealed an even more interesting fact: North Dakota has NO voter registration! That's right. A deep red state requires only that you have valid ID and have lived in the state for 30 days prior to election to vote. While in the other 49 states Republicans are throwing up roadblocks to registration and purging voter roles. Imagine if California decided to do away with voter registration? How much would Faux News freak out about that?
They don't have the desire to suppress votes where the electorate is already a supermajority on their side.
Ok, I'm going to say it. Just a lot of small dick energy around those who claim to speak for a god.
C'est toujours mieux en musique
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gfScllYsuC8
LMFAO now that's stuck in my head for the day π€£ π€£π€£π€£
My job is done π
They're already freaking out about it, and it isn't even happening... so I'd venture to guess there'd be a few cases of this in the "news"room: https://i.pinimg.com/originals/23/7c/29/237c296792117070a68d68191f09ccd9.gif
π½ππππππ¦, π π πππ’ππππππ, ππ₯πππππππ ππ π ππππ π ππππππ π π‘βππ‘ βπβπ πππ‘ π‘πππππ π πππ ππ‘πππ ππ π‘βπ πππ‘π‘ππ πππ π‘βππ‘ βππ ππππ βπππ ππ ππ’ππππ¦ ππππππππ. (π·ππβπ‘ π βπππ‘ π‘βπ πππ π πππππ!)
For sure, we don't want a repeat of Cakeshop. Stay neutral, lest the courts find in favor of the idiot because you weren't.
I was in that government position once (not about gay rights or religion though). My boss told me the same thing. I.e. yes, these people are crazy and their idea for how to spend government money is a nonstarter. But you send them through the proper evaluation process just like any reasonable idea, you apply the same rules, and you let the process eliminate them. Because if you don't, they sue and very likely win the government resources/hiring/benefit we both agree they don't deserve.
Well then Muslim children should be allowed to bring prayer rugs and pray accordingly
Why is it that I get the sense that Hellinger is far less interested in religious egalitarianism than he is in CONFORMITY?
I just have that sense, ya know? WHYIZZAT??? π€
Unless we each conform, unless we obey orders, unless we follow our leaders blindly, there is no possible way we can remain free.
Famous words from that scion of conformity, Major Frank Burns, late of the 4077th Mobile Army Surgical Hospital.
Maybe it's odd, but I feel sorry that Larry Linville never really got out from under that role.
He had a rather sizeable career in TV both before and after M*A*S*H. Made over a dozen movies, too.
I was glad to see him and Burghoff go.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6d23ba04298184acb96ee4be7a7f6ef7d177fb462257ed685d29e34e5647eb70.jpg
"The text of this prayer is as follows:
Almighty God, who is aware of His creation..."
Some day, millions or billions of years in the future, god is going to look up from whatever he's doing and say "Wait, was I supposed to be doing something?"
οΈπ΅ In the year 8510
God is gonna shake His mighty head
He'll either say, "I'm pleased where man has been"
Or tear it down and start again οΈπ΅
https://youtu.be/N03Uoj6p9QA
I don't know how they figured on getting to 8510. They were so much closer with the opening lines...
"In the year 2525, if man is still alive
If woman can survive,"
I won't be around to find out but I doubt we even make it that far.