If we start deciding what religious beliefs are correct and which are not then there is no religious liberty. Tell me a religious belief which respects the equality of being human but that you think should be banned.

Here is your logical fallacy right there.  You are limiting the discussion to religions that "respect the equality of being human", yet your say that if we question the legitimacy of beliefs, as you have just done, then there is no religious freedom.

But to answer the point, I would say that we have numerous religions that do not respect the equality of being human.  Islam is a good example as women are clearly not extended equal rights or status. 

By human sacrifice I presume you mean involuntary human sacrifice, which does not respect equality.  You cannot sacrifice someone else's life for the same reason you cannot murder, because it is their life and it is not yours to take.  I will never approve of human sacrifice but if two people voluntarily get together and agree to practice it then can you interfere with what two consenting adults want to do?  I'd wonder about the victim's ability to consent, is there a mental deficiency or a lack of understanding on their part?  I'd need to be convinced before I'd agree that it was consensual.

See here again you contradict yourself.  You want to be the gatekeeper of whether a religion is one that respects equality.  But absolute freedom means the government cannot inquire into whether the religion respects equality.  If it does, then the religious freedom is not absolute.  You can't have it both ways.

And yes, I do advocate fixing mistakes of the past but that is a secondary priority to not making more mistakes today.

Freedom of religion never has been absolute and never will be.  If it isn't the government, it is a different religion fighting with it.

Well, that's nice of you, but the NC law makes no such distinction as to whether someone has been "treated for the gender issue."

That is one major problem with the law as it would make it illegal for a post-operative person to use the restroom of their now physical gender.  That could lead to dicks in the woman's room.  Of course, since the 4th Circuit just ruled a similar law unconstitutional in Virginia, the NC law might be a dead letter.

As for a woman in the men's locker room, I don't feel as strongly about that. There is much less predation of women to men than men to women.  Rape is the most vile of crimes, and is almost always attributed to men raping women.

I don't think most women think rape is the most vile.  Close, but most of us would rather be raped than murdered if it came down to a choice.  Too frequently we got both.  That is one reason I am such a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment.  It can give me a better chance.

If you've heard his speech on this, apparently fracking is responsible for water pollution, earthquakes, and male pattern baldness.

What I find so stunning are the monkeys who are clapping and cheering when he says things like shutting down fracking.  Apparently they don't know one of my clients who runs a precision machine tool shop that builds equipment for the fracking industry and employs several hundred people, or anyone in the Wisconsin mining industry that mines sand used in fracking, or the hundreds of thousands of other people who would lose their jobs if this becomes policy.

I heard someone call these people "Ungrateful Americans."  The same people who were screaming to break our dependency on Middle East oil now want to shit on the very industry that has helped us accomplish that goal.

Even if there are mild negatives to fracking, I think that problem of shipping huge quantities of money to people who want to destroy us is more problematic.  If the west wants to deal with the Middle East problem it needs to achieve enough energy independence so that we need to buy the oil less than the middle east needs to sell it.  They have taken our money and grown their populations way above what the land will support.  They have to import food.  We have the food.  Let them need that more than we need their oil and all the problems of the middle east becomes much more manageable.

I will heartily endorse Cruz to the Supreme Court when President Trump nominates him.

An unlikely confluence of events.

Ideologues do not follow the Constitution.  They just come up with clever ways to spin it to support their policy objectives.  Precisely what conservatives say they don't want, but of course do if they agree with the ideologue.

Just from personal experience, I think Trump has a much better chance against Hillary than Cruz.  Cruz can't even draw as many Republican votes as Trump, and every D that I know HATES  Cruz.  I can't imagine that he would get any D votes and very few undecided votes.  Trump would get some (many?) of those votes.

I agree!  The nation hasn't focused on Cruz's negatives which Hillary would hammer home.  While Hillary has high negatives, either Cruz or Trump will scare Bernie's supporters enough to get them to the polls for Hillary.  At the same time, Trump's middle-of-the-road-yet-pissed-off supporters are not going to be excited about Cruz.  Hillary's appeal to blacks and Hispanics will mean that Cruz isn't likely to sweep the south.  He will largely be dead meat in the NE and on the West Coast which already puts Hillary way ahead in the electoral count.  Cruz is inexperienced, he doesn't play well with others, and he is not a great campaigner.  He comes off rather smarmy.  I think that the Dems will tear him up once they set their sites on him.

As long as their social agendas are being tended to, they're quite happy.

You realize that this describes the entire social conservative wing of the Republican party as well.

Quote from: Kristin on January 17, 2016, 02:20:00 PM

I expect that what will happen is that civil war will erupt in someplace, like Belgium.  The pro-democracy resistance will appeal to the EU for military assistance.  Some countries will answer the call, causing civil strife with their own Muslim communities.  At some point, some group or another will appeal to the U.S. to come over and restore democracy and suppress (read kill or deport) the Muslim population.

The other option is is that the Muslims suppress their nuttier elements and an Islamic reformation takes place that specifically repudiates all Islamic teachings that are antithetical to modern democracy and individual liberties.

I leave it to you to decide which is the more likely scenario.

Hi Kristin.  I doubt we will see civil wars in indoctrinated Europe.  We won't bail them out this time either.  This is for whatever reason a welcome invasion by their government/political class.  Their people are used to oppression, and being serfs, they have no 2A, and the independence has been bred out of them over the centuries.  We are the last hope and the last resistance to the new Dark Ages.   

That is politically incorrect enough that I could have written it.     I do think that there is more than a grain of truth and hits on one of the major differences between the U.S. and Europe.  I tend to look at it slightly differently, though it may be a distinction without a difference.  For two to three hundred years, most all the ornery malcontents of Europe, those yearning to be free, came to the U.S.  That seeded this continent with the ornery and left Europe a bit bereft in that department. 

I would argue, however, that another major difference is our Constitution.  It is a paean of orneriness as it enshrines individual liberties.  No other country has that.  Witness the UK Parliament debating excluding Trump from entering their country because they don't like free speech if it might offend somebody.

That being said, if they have leader, then will fight.  They are good at that, once there is someone to follow.