whembly wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I'm not sure I'd agree with it or if its even possible, because Americans are contrarians by nature.

Again, this is the national republican party platform making promises of theocracy. Being "contrarians by nature" didn't stop them from coming together to start on an openly theocratic agenda at the highest level of politics.

We're not going to look like the Christian equivalent of Iran.

God forbid (swidt?) we have have religious people in our elective offices and use the word "God".

That's some creepy jeepers stuff man.

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Ah... okay.

I can see that then.

I'm not sure I'd agree with it or if its even possible, because Americans are contrarians by nature. Plus, you have to have other aspects of the government to assent to that kind of direction (local government, courts, bureaucracy in general)... such that, I'd argue it'd damn near impossible.

This isn't about fearing some kind of takeover, its about the harm done each small piece of their agenda that they manage to put in place. And it's about the harm done to the idea of an open, tolerant society when one major political party accepts a religious nationalist group in to its ranks.

.

 whembly wrote:
God forbid (swidt?) we have have religious people in our elective offices and use the word "God".

"God-given rights" is not a "Theocracy".

 whembly wrote:
...speaking of "Draining the Swamp"...

NEW: Donald Trump expected to name Elaine Chao as Transportation Secretary, senior Trump transition sources tell @ABC News.

— ABC News Politics (@ABCPolitics) November 29, 2016

Elaine Chao... same chick who worked for Dubya in his 2 terms as Secretary of Labor...

Same chick who's married to none other that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
God forbid (swidt?) we have have religious people in our elective offices and use the word "God".

And there you go, back to that straw man. The issue is not religious people being elected or using the word "God" as private citizens, it's that one of the two (relevant) parties is openly promising to govern by Christian doctrine. Please do not misrepresent my argument again.

"God-given rights" is not a "Theocracy".

No, but explicitly stating that the laws of God take priority over the laws of government is.

Locke wrote that all individuals are equal in the sense that they are born with certain "inalienable" natural rights. That is, rights that are God-given and can never be taken or even given away. Among these fundamental natural rights, Locke said, are "life, liberty, and property."

 whembly wrote:
Okay.

What exactly are you, Peregrine and Ustrello worried about?

Let's have it.

 sebster wrote:
It's almost as if Trump's out of the blue, late campaign promise to drain the swamp was a shameful, hopeless lie. Who'd have guessed?

 whembly wrote:
Okay.

What exactly are you, Peregrine and Ustrello worried about?

Let's have it.

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Okay.

What exactly are you, Peregrine and Ustrello worried about?

Let's have it.

I can think of quite a few things I'm worried about with the republican party: their appalling beliefs on LGBT issues,

promoting Christian doctrine over science in education,

continuing to test the limits of just how many restrictions on abortion they can get away with before the courts step in,

making non-Christians feel unwelcome with state-endorsed prayer in schools/at government meetings/etc, for some specific examples.

But beyond the policy issues I'm extremely worried about the fact that one of our two parties is openly undermining the idea of secular government with explicit promises of rule by Christian doctrine, while right-wing apologists like you laugh at the idea that we could have any problems with theocracy.

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Okay.

What exactly are you, Peregrine and Ustrello worried about?

Let's have it.

Entering government for the express purpose of making it completely reflect one religion should be fairly obviously terrible.

 whembly wrote:
I'll admit, I never supported the right's objection of gay marriage. Good thing it's settled.

wut? You mean teaching Creationism? Do you have citation where they dropped evolution from the ciriculum?

I never understood the acrimony over this... meh.

I just told you... that GOP platform is not advocating a theocracy. It's just a rehash the Jeffersonian/Locke description of individual rights.

 whembly wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Well... then I'll be on the lookout for those Religious Goon squads then.

Oathkeepers, the 3%. I can go on

I'm looking at my window now... can't be sure if I should be terrified or not.

You said you will be on the lookout for religious goon squads sarcastictly. I named two of the more famous ones ergo I answered your question before you moved goalposts

I'm being sarcastic because they're in extreme minority. I put them in the same buckets as the Westboro Baptists.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Well... then I'll be on the lookout for those Religious Goon squads then.

And this is why right-wing politics is broken. Why do you have to jump all the way to "religious goon squads" as the thing to fear (with the obvious conclusion that if we don't see them then there's no theocracy problem) and ignore all of the other threats of a theocratic government?

Because I'm mocking the idea that we'd see a theocracy.

 whembly wrote:
Please provide an example.

The director of the CIA has warned US President-elect Donald Trump that ending the Iran nuclear deal would be "disastrous" and "the height of folly".
In a BBC interview, John Brennan also advised the new president to be wary of Russia's promises, blaming Moscow for much of the suffering in Syria.
In his campaign, Mr Trump threatened to scrap the Iran deal and also hinted at working more closely with Russia.
Mr Brennan will step down in January after four years leading the CIA.
In the first interview by a CIA director with the British media, John Brennan outlined a number of areas where he said the new administration needed to act with "prudence and discipline" - these included the language used regarding terrorism, relations with Russia, the Iran nuclear deal and the way in which the CIA's own covert capabilities were employed.
Russia's role in Syria
Mr Brennan offered a bleak assessment of the situation in Syria arguing that both the Syrian regime and the Russians were responsible for a slaughter of civilians which he described as "outrageous".
The administration of President Barack Obama has pursued a policy of supporting moderate rebels fighting the Assad regime in Syria. The CIA director said that he believed the US needed to continue that support to help rebels withstand what he called an "onslaught" carried out by Syria, Iran, Hezbollah and Russia.

Russian continued to hold the key to Syria's future, he said, but he expressed scepticism about its willingness to come to any kind of deal. He said Moscow had been "disingenuous" in their negotiating tactics, seeking to draw the process out in order to "choke" Aleppo.
"I do not have confidence that the Russians are going to relent until they are able to achieve as much tactical battlefield successes as possible," he said.
The incoming Trump administration has suggested it may try to work more closely with Russia on a number of issues.
"I think President Trump and the new administration need to be wary of Russian promises," Mr Brennan told the BBC, arguing Moscow had failed to deliver in the past.
Hacking the US election
On the role of Russia in trying to influence the US election by hacking and releasing information, the CIA director confirmed Russia had sought to carry out such activity but said he would defer to domestic counterparts as to the impact.
He did confirm that he had conversations with his Russian opposite numbers to challenge them over these actions and warn them that they would backfire.

The US should not "stoop to their level" or risk escalation by responding in kind to Russian hacking, but he said there were other ways of ensuring Russia understood such activity was unacceptable.
Iran nuclear deal
He also warned Donald Trump's incoming team over their position taken during the campaign to abandon the nuclear deal with Iran.
"I think it would be disastrous," Mr Brennan told the BBC.
"First of all for one administration to tear up an agreement that a previous administration made would be unprecedented."
He said such a move would risk strengthening hardliners in Iran and risk other states pursuing nuclear programmes in response to a renewed Iranian effort. "I think it would be the height of folly if the next administration were to tear up that agreement," he said.
Terror threat
Terrorism remains an overriding concern. The team planning external attacks within the so-called Islamic State remained "very active" and, he said, was seeking to demonstrate that - despite setbacks on the battlefield - the group still had the ability to carry out attacks against the West.

Drones and detainees
The CIA is charged with gathering intelligence and acting as the covert arm of the president. Its activities are usually secret and often - when revealed - controversial.
One of the most public challenges that John Brennan faced during his tenure was dealing with the fallout of the CIA's use of techniques such as waterboarding on detainees after the 9/11 attacks.
President-elect Trump has said he would consider resuming waterboarding if he thought it would be effective. John Brennan made clear he thought that would be a mistake.
"Without a doubt the CIA really took some body blows as a result of its experiences," he said. "I think the overwhelming majority of CIA officers would not want to get back into that business."

The pace of drone strikes increased during the Obama administration although responsibility for many of them has shifted to the military rather than the CIA. When John Brennan ran counter-terrorism operations in the White House, he was instrumental in putting in place a series of rules over drone strikes.
So could a new administration simply re-write the rules on drone strikes as well as the handling of detainees?
"This is where there is tremendous responsibility on the new administration…to make sure that they use the great capabilities that this government has as effectively and as judiciously as possible," he told the BBC arguing that if powers such as drone strikes were misused they could prove counterproductive to US security.
'War on Islam'
The CIA director said he had not yet sat down with the new team to discuss the capabilities and programmes the CIA has but he was ready to do so.
"There are a lot of people out there who read the papers and listened to a news broadcasts where the facts may be a bit - you know - off. And so I want to make sure the new team understands what the reality is. It ultimately will be up to them to decide how to carry out their responsibilities."

Some members of the new administration, such as Gen Michael Flynn, have talked of the US needing to recognise it was in a "world war" with Islamist militants.
When asked if language about "world wars" was helpful, the CIA director said the new team needed to be "disciplined in the language that they use (and) the messages that they send. Because if they are not disciplined, their language will be exploited by the terrorist and extremist organizations as a way to portray the United States and the government as being anti-Islamic and we are not."
Mr Brennan said President Obama had asked US intelligence to "dig down" on whether the transition period might be exploited by adversaries. President-elect Trump has said he will nominate Congressman Mike Pompeo to be the next director of the CIA.

 Ustrello wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Well... then I'll be on the lookout for those Religious Goon squads then.

Oathkeepers, the 3%. I can go on

 Kanluwen wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Trump is now calling for jail time and/or loss of citizenship for anyone who burns a US flag.

This is the person that's less bad than Clinton?

What type of crap bag could be for this type of law?

The Flag Protection Act of 2005 was a proposed United States federal law introduced by Senator Bob Bennett (R-UT), and co-sponsored by Senators Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Mark Pryor (D-AR) and Thomas Carper (D-DE). The law would have prohibited burning or otherwise destroying and damaging the US flag with the primary purpose of intimidation or inciting immediate violence or for the act of terrorism. It called for a punishment of no more than one year in jail and a fine of no more than $100,000.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_Protection_Act_of_2005

Bad idea then, bad idea now.

Did you actually read the bit you provided?

Just sayin'.

Additionally:

According to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, the act was summarized as such:

Amends the federal criminal code to revise provisions regarding desecration of the flag to prohibit: (1) destroying or damaging a U.S. flag with the primary purpose and intent to incite or produce imminent violence or a breach of the peace; or (2) stealing or knowingly converting the use of a U.S. flag either belonging to the United States or on lands reserved for the United States and intentionally destroying or damaging that flag.

There's a wild difference between what Trump is advocating("Punish those who burn the flag in protest!") and the proposed thing.

Both are bad ideas certainly, but one of these things is not like the other.

 reds8n wrote:

Spoiler:

Sad thing is, one isn't even surprised anymore.

Leaders of the free world eh ?

 whembly wrote:

making non-Christians feel unwelcome with state-endorsed prayer in schools/at government meetings/etc, for some specific examples.

I never understood the acrimony over this... meh.

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Please provide an example.

And example of what, a person who's entered politics purely to fight for dominionism? That'd be Ted Cruz. Michelle Bachmann is another. Ben Carson is another - remember him claiming Clinton was a servant of lucifer?

Or do you want an example of how this is harmful? Do you notice any similarity between those three - they all take absolute, moralist positions against the Democrats, casting the Democrats as willful proponents of evil. In this view conflict isn't part of politics, it is the purpose of politics. It's why the freedom caucus has obstructed purely for the sake of obstructing. It's why Cruz led his stupid government shutdown. And perhaps worst of all, dominionists believe very strongly in freedom of religion, but their view of freedom is one in which Christians are free to impose their will on others. It is in this way that 'freedom of religion' was warped to become 'we want to ban gay people getting married'.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 whembly wrote:

making non-Christians feel unwelcome with state-endorsed prayer in schools/at government meetings/etc, for some specific examples.

I never understood the acrimony over this... meh.

Okay. Now reverse the roles. They make Christians unwelcome with state-endorsed Islamic or Buddhist prayer. Massive uproar I'd bet.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 whembly wrote:

making non-Christians feel unwelcome with state-endorsed prayer in schools/at government meetings/etc, for some specific examples.

I never understood the acrimony over this... meh.

Okay. Now reverse the roles. They make Christians unwelcome with state-endorsed Islamic or Buddhist prayer. Massive uproar I'd bet.

Well we can look at what happened here to get an idea.

The Satanic Temple is known for proposing a satanic monument be erected at the Oklahoma state Capitol where a Ten Commandments monument was put up. When it sought permission last September to pass out its own materials at Orange County public schools, the school board decided it had a problem. The Orlando Sentinel quoted board Chairman Bill Sublette as saying, “This really has, frankly, gotten out of hand. I think we’ve seen a group or groups take advantage of the open forum we’ve had.”

The story quotes Greg Harper, vice president of the evangelical group World Changers of Florida, as saying that he would view any change in the policy as an attack on Christmas. It says:

“They seem to be moving against the interests of a large part of the community,” he said, likening it to the district’s August decision to ban football chaplains at schools. “The Bible will open somebody’s heart, somebody’s mind, and cause them to pursue answers.”

Board member Christine Moore also seemed to struggle with the effect of a policy change on Christian groups. “Everyone’s upset about the Satanists and the atheists coming,” she said.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 whembly wrote:

making non-Christians feel unwelcome with state-endorsed prayer in schools/at government meetings/etc, for some specific examples.

I never understood the acrimony over this... meh.

Okay. Now reverse the roles. They make Christians unwelcome with state-endorsed Islamic or Buddhist prayer. Massive uproar I'd bet.

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
That faction you're describing is in extreme minority.

It's not a thing.

We are the party of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The Declaration sets forth the fundamental precepts of American government: That God bestows certain inalienable rights on every individual, thus producing human equality; that government exists first and foremost to protect those inalienable rights; that man-made law must be consistent with God-given, natural rights; and that if God-given, natural, inalienable rights come in conflict with government, court, or human-granted rights, God-given, natural, inalienable rights always prevail; that there is a moral law recognized as “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God”; and that American government is to operate with the consent of the governed. We are also the party of the Constitution, the greatest political document ever written. It is the solemn compact built upon principles of the Declaration that enshrines our God-given individual rights and ensures that all Americans stand equal before the law, defines the purposes and limits of government, and is the blueprint for ordered liberty that makes the United States the world’s freest and most prosperous nation.
-Republican Party platform for 2016

Sure seems like an awful lot of talk of how important God is for a party where the theocrats are an extreme minority...

President-elect Donald Trump says Abdul Artan should never have been allowed to enter the U.S. (AP; Kevin Stankiewicz for the Lantern/Handout via Reuters)

President-elect Donald Trump believes that the Somali immigrant who plowed a car into a crowd of pedestrians on the campus of Ohio State University on Monday and then used a butcher knife to attack them should never have been allowed to enter the United States.

Abdul Razak Ali Artan, a 20-year-old Muslim who was a lawful permanent resident and student at the school, was shot and killed by police moments after the attack began. Eleven people were wounded, but all of the victims survived. ISIS claimed responsibility for the assault on Tuesday, calling Artan one of its “soldiers.”

“ISIS is taking credit for the terrible stabbing attack at Ohio State University by a Somali refugee who should not have been in our country,” Trump tweeted early Wednesday.

But U.S. officials say there is no evidence Artan — a refugee who came to the United States with his family in 2014 after fleeing Somalia for Pakistan in 2007 — communicated directly with the terrorist organization. Rep. Adam Schiff, ranking Democrat on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, said Artan appeared to have been influenced by extremist material on the Internet.

“It appears that the attacker was radicalized online by jihadist propaganda,” Schiff said in a statement.

Trump’s statement echoes his controversial immigration plan, which first called for a temporary ban on all Muslims entering the United States. Trump announced that plan after terror attacks in San Bernardino and Paris. He later muddled his position, saying he wanted to suspend immigration from countries or regions that are “harboring and training terrorists.”

 Ahtman wrote:
Emperor Trump bequeathed us a morsel of his mindgrapes about the OSU attack.

President-elect Donald Trump says Abdul Artan should never have been allowed to enter the U.S. (AP; Kevin Stankiewicz for the Lantern/Handout via Reuters)

President-elect Donald Trump believes that the Somali immigrant who plowed a car into a crowd of pedestrians on the campus of Ohio State University on Monday and then used a butcher knife to attack them should never have been allowed to enter the United States.

Abdul Razak Ali Artan, a 20-year-old Muslim who was a lawful permanent resident and student at the school, was shot and killed by police moments after the attack began. Eleven people were wounded, but all of the victims survived. ISIS claimed responsibility for the assault on Tuesday, calling Artan one of its “soldiers.”

“ISIS is taking credit for the terrible stabbing attack at Ohio State University by a Somali refugee who should not have been in our country,” Trump tweeted early Wednesday.

But U.S. officials say there is no evidence Artan — a refugee who came to the United States with his family in 2014 after fleeing Somalia for Pakistan in 2007 — communicated directly with the terrorist organization. Rep. Adam Schiff, ranking Democrat on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, said Artan appeared to have been influenced by extremist material on the Internet.

“It appears that the attacker was radicalized online by jihadist propaganda,” Schiff said in a statement.

Trump’s statement echoes his controversial immigration plan, which first called for a temporary ban on all Muslims entering the United States. Trump announced that plan after terror attacks in San Bernardino and Paris. He later muddled his position, saying he wanted to suspend immigration from countries or regions that are “harboring and training terrorists.”

Magnanimous Great Leader has spoken. Hear ye and tremble.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
"How dare he make political points out of this tragedy?! This is a disgrace to America and he should be ashamed!!"

That about right?

 Hordini wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Well... then I'll be on the lookout for those Religious Goon squads then.

Oathkeepers, the 3%. I can go on

I'm pretty sure those aren't religious groups.

Membership is available to those individuals who are current serving or retired military, reserves, National Guard (including Air National Guard), and veterans; as well as current and former police and fire-fighters. Provided, that no person who has been convicted of treason or felony in any state or territory of the United States, or dishonorably discharged, unless restored to civil rights; and no person who has been adjudicated mentally incompetent, unless restored to legal capacity, shall be entitled to be a member.

(b) Associate Member: Associate Membership is available to those citizens who have not served in any capacity listed in subsection (a) above, who support our mission and take an oath to support and defend the Constitution. Provided, that no person who has been convicted of treason or felony in any state or territory of the United States, unless restored to civil rights; and no person who has been adjudicated mentally incompetent, unless restored to legal capacity, shall be entitled to be an Associate Member.

Section 8.02. Restrictions on Membership:

(a) No person who advocates, or has been or is a member, or associated with, any organization, formal or informal, that advocates the overthrow of the government of the United States or the violation of the Constitution thereof, shall be entitled to be a member or associate member.

(b) No person who advocates, or has been or is a member, or associated with, any organization, formal or informal, that advocates discrimination, violence, or hatred toward any person based upon their race, nationality, creed, or color, shall be entitled to be a member or associate member.

(c) Oath Keepers reserves the right in it’s sole discretion, to withhold, deny, or revoke the membership or associate membership of any person whom Oath Keepers determines will dilute, impair or disrupt Oath Keeper’s mission, dishonor, or in any manner bring ill repute to Oath Keepers.

Section 8.03. Disclaimer: Unless otherwise affirmatively stated by the member or officer, no statement, appearance, presentation, speech, or action, by said member, shall be taken, construed, or intended to be on behalf of the United States government, any branch of the military, or any other government entity, federal or state. The status as a current serving service-member of the armed forces of the United States, municipal, state, or federal law enforcement officer or fire-fighter, shall not be a determining factor in the selection or appointment as an Officer or Trustee of Oath Keepers.

Section 8.04. Code of Conduct. All members must understand that their actions not only reflect on Oath Keepers but on the entire military, law enforcement, fire fighters and first responder , former and current, community. We strive to maintain a positive image within our communities and states. All members are fully and solely accountable for their actions while members of Oath Keepers. All Oath Keepers Members and Associates shall possess and maintain high moral and ethical standards and uncompromised integrity for continued membership in Oath Keepers. All members are to conduct themselves in a courteous and lawful manner at all times. Members are expressly prohibited from fraternizing with known criminals, known or suspected criminal organizations and their members, associates or affiliates. Oath Keepers and its members are responsible to maintain the integrity and honor of this organization. Oath Keepers shall have a zero tolerance policy for actions that bring disrespect, dishonor or disrepute on Oath Keepers or the military, law enforcement, fire fighters and first responder community.

Section 8.05. Our Mission. Oath Keepers is a non-partisan association of currently serving military, reserves, National Guard, veterans, Peace Officers, and Fire Fighters who will fulfill the Oath we swore, with the support of like minded citizens who take an Oath to stand with us, to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, so help us God. Our Oath is to the Constitution.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
To be frank I think it is a pretty good idea to prevent future mass murderers from entering the USA. To take it a logical step further, we ought also to throw out any future mass murderers who currently are resident in the country.