Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Thursday February 08 2018, @05:08AM   Printer-friendly
from the on-a-wing-and-a-prayer dept.

Submitted via IRC for AndyTheAbsurd

Washington, DC—American Atheists expressed outrage today at the drastic changes implemented by the Trump administration that will further elevate religious beliefs above the law.

Without any substantive public announcement, the administration made changes to the policy manuals for U.S. Attorneys’ offices and Department of Justice (DOJ) litigation offices. These offices are now required to assign a staff member to monitor all litigation and immediately inform high-ranking political appointees at DOJ whenever the offices are subject to a lawsuit involving religious liberty, when religious liberty is used as a defense in litigation, or when the offices file a suit involving religious issues.

These changes also require U.S. Attorneys and litigation offices to seek the approval of the Associate Attorney General—who is a political appointee—before proceeding with any civil suit that may involve religious liberty issues. By doing so, the Trump administration is favoring religious beliefs above all other matters, and is eroding the independence of these offices by allowing a political appointee to overrule the judgment of career DOJ attorneys.

"This is a breathtaking expansion of religious privilege in the DOJ," said American Atheists' legal and policy director Alison Gill. "These policy changes significantly undermine the rule of law and favor religious beliefs at the expense of nondiscrimination and equal protection."

"Requiring the approval of religious political appointees before enforcing the law is something I would expect to see in a theocracy like Iran or Saudi Arabia, but I'm rapidly losing any sense of shock and surprise at the lengths this administration will go to impose the beliefs of religious extremists on all Americans," added David Silverman, president of American Atheists.

This latest attack on religious neutrality comes two weeks after the Trump administration created the Conscience and Religious Freedom Division within the Office for Civil Rights at the Department of Health and Human Services. This new division is charged with shielding medical professionals who, because of their own religious objections, refuse to treat patients.

Source: https://www.atheists.org/2018/02/doj-religion-czars/


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1) 2 3
  • (Score: 5, Informative) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday February 08 2018, @05:12AM (83 children)

    by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Thursday February 08 2018, @05:12AM (#634685) Journal

    Seriously, Trump could not possibly give less of a shit about religion. No, this creeping Dominionism is all Pence and his merry band of wild-eyed, drooling Theonomists. Look them up if you don't know what they are; they have just scored a massive coup.

    It goes without saying that we are all in deep shit. I predict there will be some First Amendment challenges, let alone Fourteenth, but the fact that it even happened in the first place really does not bode well for the US...

    --
    I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
    • (Score: 1, Troll) by arcz on Thursday February 08 2018, @05:18AM (19 children)

      by arcz (4501) on Thursday February 08 2018, @05:18AM (#634688) Journal
      The government generally has no obligation to pursue a prosecution. So I don't know whether what you say is accurate. It's "prosecutorial discretion" and business as usual. If you have a problem with this, attack the underlying legal principle that allows it, instead of whining when it allows something you don't like.
      • (Score: 5, Informative) by captain normal on Thursday February 08 2018, @05:37AM (15 children)

        by captain normal (2205) on Thursday February 08 2018, @05:37AM (#634697)

        Well then you get into problems with Article I of the Amendments to the Constitution Of The United States of America.
          'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

        --
        When life isn't going right, go left.
        • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday February 08 2018, @05:46AM (4 children)

          by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Thursday February 08 2018, @05:46AM (#634702) Journal

          I'm thinking this will hit the Due Process clause before the First Amendment, or maybe both at the same time in the same Supreme court lawsuit.

          The real test is probably going to be when the Satanists or whoever decide to put on their troll hats (colanders? or is that the FSM acolytes?) and start stirring shit up. Then this will be exposed for the complete, transparent sham it is. And what happens from there, well, that will determine whether we become more like Norway or more like Iran. I, for one, am not optimistic.

          --
          I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @06:36AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @06:36AM (#634736)

            care to join my floation-for-freedom ARK crusade?

          • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Thursday February 08 2018, @04:37PM (2 children)

            by Phoenix666 (552) on Thursday February 08 2018, @04:37PM (#634993) Journal

            I think you're right that Pence is driving this, not Trump. But because it is Pence, and not Trump, I'm not so worried about it. Further, the Religious Right is rather marginalized at the moment. Cruz was their darling in the primary, and he has been quite invisible since losing. Overall they have less of a presence and influence on the Whitehouse now than they did under George W. Bush. I was worried then as you are worried now, and we got through it.

            There are other social trends that lead me to believe that we're relatively OK vis-a-vis the danger of theocracy. One, gay marriage has been legalized in many, many states now. That was unthinkable 20 years ago. It represents a sea change in social attitudes. Two, marijuana has been legalized in a decent number of states and it looks like still others may follow suit (all that fat, juicy, taxable money has state legislatures drooling). That was also unthinkable 20 years ago.

            Those are both things that the Religious Right fought for decades. But if the rest of society has moved on enough to codify their feelings into law, then the RR has lost its grip on policy making.

            --
            Washington DC delenda est.
            • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday February 08 2018, @08:22PM (1 child)

              by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Thursday February 08 2018, @08:22PM (#635172) Journal

              Don't. Don't get complacent. Cornered, wounded animals are most dangerous and most likely to bite. The Birchers and their fellow-travelers play the long game, far longer than most Americans are capable of comprehending. They've already caused a sea change in the American body politic, one that swings in their favor. We are in deep trouble, and it's going to take decades to dig ourselves out of it, because by the time the critical percentage of engaged Americans realize what's happened, the Theonimists will have implemented permanent changes in our system of government.

              --
              I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
              • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Friday February 09 2018, @12:49AM

                by Phoenix666 (552) on Friday February 09 2018, @12:49AM (#635319) Journal

                I'm not complacent. It's that the Religious Right are fairly marginalized at the moment, but they're not particularly cornered either because they feel like they're on the winning side. The core of Trump's support are a different crowd. There's some overlap of course, but they're not the Bible Thumpers who were W's base.

                I would also say it's not that the Birchers are deep thinkers or long-term strategists. They simply are what they are. They haven't changed their nativist stripes since the 19th century.

                --
                Washington DC delenda est.
        • (Score: 1) by tftp on Thursday February 08 2018, @05:52AM (7 children)

          by tftp (806) on Thursday February 08 2018, @05:52AM (#634709) Homepage
          Not a lawyer, but imo the 1st is not violated. These changes were not made by Congress.
          • (Score: 3, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Thursday February 08 2018, @06:11AM (3 children)

            by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Thursday February 08 2018, @06:11AM (#634717) Homepage Journal

            Not a lawyer, but imo the 1st is not violated. These changes were not made by Congress.

            IANAL either, but IIUC, Congress created the Department of Justice, as it did most other Executive Branch agencies. As such, if the DOJ violates any amendment, that puts it in conflict with the Constitution.

            Any lawyers want to weigh in on this?

            --
            No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
            • (Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday February 08 2018, @04:50PM (2 children)

              by frojack (1554) on Thursday February 08 2018, @04:50PM (#635008) Journal

              IANAL either, just a guy who can read.

              TFS says:

              will further elevate religious beliefs above the law.

              So how is having someone to watch for such "above the law", when it says right there in the first amendment:

              Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

              Protection of, but not meddling in, religion is the law of the land, is it not?

              --
              No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
              • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday February 08 2018, @05:48PM

                by DeathMonkey (1380) on Thursday February 08 2018, @05:48PM (#635062) Journal

                Protection of, but not meddling in, religion is the law of the land, is it not?

                Amendment XIV
                Section 1.

                All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

                Giving Christians extra protections is not equal.

              • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Thursday February 08 2018, @10:00PM

                by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Thursday February 08 2018, @10:00PM (#635227) Homepage Journal

                Those are interesting statements Frojack.

                However, they have nothing at all to do with the thread (discussing whether or not the DOJ is required to abide by the constitution and its associated amendments).

                Thanks for sharing!

                --
                No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday February 08 2018, @06:15AM (2 children)

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 08 2018, @06:15AM (#634721) Journal
            The First Amendment has been extended beyond that (for example, state law also has to honor the First Amendment). Keep in mind that most such powers of the executive branch come from laws passed by Congress. The First Amendment certainly prohibits Congress from creating or empowering entities that can violate the First Amendment.
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @06:54AM (1 child)

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @06:54AM (#634748)

              You would think... have you listened to the people that "share" your beliefs?

              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday February 08 2018, @07:22AM

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 08 2018, @07:22AM (#634765) Journal
                Yes. Now, the question should be who shares my beliefs? Odds are good you got that part wrong.
        • (Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Thursday February 08 2018, @06:44AM (1 child)

          by realDonaldTrump (6614) on Thursday February 08 2018, @06:44AM (#634741) Homepage Journal

          Freedom of religion, so important! When they found big problems in our Constitution, that was the first one they fixed. They left that one out at first, how could they leave it out? The first Americans, our brave Pilgrims, started America because they had no freedom of religion. They wanted the freedom of religion, they gave up their old lives. I'm sure they miss their old lives. Believe me, I miss mine.

          Let me tell you, 44 guys were President before me. The greatest of them, the greatest President before me, was Andrew Jackson. President Jackson wrote something terrific that I want to share with you. Very long, but worth reading. He wrote "I was brought up a rigid Presbeterian, to which I have always adhered. Our excellent constitution guarantees to every one freedom of religion, and charity tells us, and you know Charity is the reall basis of all true religion, and charity says judge the tree by its fruit. All who profess christianity, believe in a Saviour and that by and through him we must be saved. We ought therefor to consider all good christians, whose walk corresponds with their professions, be him Presbeterian, Episcopalian, Baptist, methodist or Roman catholic. let it be remembered by your Grandmother that no established religion can exist under our glorious constitution." So beautiful!

          • (Score: 1) by anubi on Thursday February 08 2018, @10:14AM

            by anubi (2828) on Thursday February 08 2018, @10:14AM (#634805) Journal

            Andrew Jackson is a wonderful entity to follow...

            One thing I really respect Andrew Jackson for was he understood the BANK. [youtube.com]

            He sure liked the people, from what I understand - and did everything in his power to empower this nation.

            They are NOT our friend! They have to be the most parasitic organization on the planet. Usury.

            The biggest problem I see is way too many of us do not understand how the trap works, and we walk right in!

            --
            "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @06:27AM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @06:27AM (#634729)

        These offices are now required to assign a staff member to monitor all litigation and immediately inform high-ranking political appointees at DOJ whenever the offices are subject to a lawsuit involving religious liberty, when religious liberty is used as a defense in litigation, or when the offices file a suit involving religious issues.

        "Required" doesn't seem to mean "Discretion".

        • (Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday February 08 2018, @04:57PM

          by frojack (1554) on Thursday February 08 2018, @04:57PM (#635016) Journal

          So what?

          Wouldn't you expect the DOJ would be notified about EVERY lawsuit - against them, or by one of their offices?
          Wouldn't you expect that DOJ would have very limited discretion about adhering to the first amendment?

          --
          No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @08:03AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @08:03AM (#634779)

        Shut up, Arcz, you godsucker!

    • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @05:23AM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @05:23AM (#634693)

      I don't agree with Dominionism, and I have no idea whether or not Pence or Sessions do. But I am worried that people whose beliefs were mainstream five minutes ago, and virtually unanimous just a bit before that, are going to be persecuted simply because many other people changed their minds.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @06:09AM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @06:09AM (#634715)

        Welcome to human society, mainstream beliefs are what passes for "normal". Just be thankful that most modern humans agree that whatever beliefs someone has is the purview of themselves. Persecution is an arcane subject, and if you feel persecuted by the derision of others just remember that those same people would probably been put to death by your breathren a handful of decades ago.

        • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Phoenix666 on Thursday February 08 2018, @04:44PM

          by Phoenix666 (552) on Thursday February 08 2018, @04:44PM (#635001) Journal

          There's the point that follows from what you are saying, which is that the freedom of speech means the government can't do anything to you for what you say. It does not, however, mean that other people have to continue to associate with you, or do business with you, or refrain from saying mean things to you. The freedom of speech does not confer the freedom to not be offended, or to prevent other people from disagreeing with you.

          A lot of consternation and gnashing of teeth is happening right now in the public discourse because many have come to believe the freedom of speech is a gentle blanket to shield them from a cruel, cruel world. It's not. It's more a hair shirt or a thorny crown that scratches and pokes and irritates.

          --
          Washington DC delenda est.
    • (Score: 2, Troll) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday February 08 2018, @06:10AM (49 children)

      by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Thursday February 08 2018, @06:10AM (#634716) Homepage Journal

      In an ideal world, what Trump did is what should have been done before the calendar rolled over to 1800. In the very first Amendment, the very first liberty covered is religion. It's that important.

      Now we're not in an ideal world, so nutjob atheists want freedom from ever even being exposed to religion legislated and your more militant religious types want their brand codified into law. The happy medium is to do as the founders intended and simply keep the government the hell out of religious matters except to do its most fundamental job, protecting the liberties of its citizens. In this case that means to ensure that everyone is free to believe as they like as long as they're not actually harming anybody by practicing said beliefs. Which is what these positions are allegedly for. They'll no doubt be misused by both sides over the coming years but then find me something a politician won't misuse for their own gains.

      --
      My rights don't end where your fear begins.
      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday February 08 2018, @06:17AM (4 children)

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 08 2018, @06:17AM (#634722) Journal
        The question is whether these "czars" will enforce that aspect of the First Amendment, or violate it? I'm not confident in such things when someone brings in ideology officers.
        • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday February 08 2018, @06:41AM

          by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Thursday February 08 2018, @06:41AM (#634738) Homepage Journal

          See above regarding both sides using them improperly. That doesn't mean routine cases that nobody's raising a big media stink over won't be handled properly though, which is about all I'd hope for in any case.

          --
          My rights don't end where your fear begins.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @04:32PM (2 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @04:32PM (#634990)

          The thing is "religious freedom" in the US more or less means the freedom to ban other people from having anal sex.

          • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday February 08 2018, @05:17PM

            by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Thursday February 08 2018, @05:17PM (#635033) Homepage Journal

            That statement is idiotic. It hasn't been true for twenty years or more.

            --
            My rights don't end where your fear begins.
          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday February 08 2018, @08:15PM

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 08 2018, @08:15PM (#635169) Journal

            The thing is "religious freedom" in the US more or less means the freedom to ban other people from having anal sex.

            Do you really believe that? If so, there are plenty of resources [billofrightsinstitute.org] on the internet to disabuse you of that notion.

      • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @06:57AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @06:57AM (#634752)

        It shouldn't have been done at all in 1800 or now. Freaking Godbots are always trying to force their beliefs on others. We don't need the government helping.

      • (Score: 2) by Wootery on Thursday February 08 2018, @11:21AM (17 children)

        by Wootery (2341) on Thursday February 08 2018, @11:21AM (#634820)

        nutjob atheists want freedom from ever even being exposed to religion legislated

        Is that really a thing?

        everyone is free to believe as they like as long as they're not actually harming anybody

        Indeed. Corollary: the government shouldn't care whether your reason for doing something has anything to do with religion. 'Religious freedom' grants you no special privileges, it just means the government can't screw with your freedom to privately practice your religion.

        • (Score: 2, Troll) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday February 08 2018, @12:17PM (16 children)

          by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Thursday February 08 2018, @12:17PM (#634838) Homepage Journal

          nutjob atheists want freedom from ever even being exposed to religion legislated

          Is that really a thing?

          You haven't seen it? Fighting against religion (Well not any religion. Only christianity really.) is a huge thing for a significant part of the left in the US.

          ...the government shouldn't care whether your reason for doing something has anything to do with religion.

          I agree. Any matter of conscience, religiously motivated or not, should be sufficient grounds for the government to back off and let you live as you believe as long as you're not harming anybody.

          'Religious freedom' grants you no special privileges, it just means the government can't screw with your freedom to privately practice your religion.

          Absolutely incorrect. For starters, that's quite special or it wouldn't have been necessary to make it the first liberty protected under the first amendment.

          Also, remove the word "privately". You're free to practice your religion in any way you see fit, both in public and private, as long as you aren't harming anyone by doing so, trying to get the government involved in promoting your religion, or using your position as an agent of the government to promote your particular religion. The first amendment guarantees freedom "of" religion not freedom "from" religion. There are no guarantees, either explicit or implicit, that you should not have to see the exercise of religion in public.

          It's important to be precise about these things.

          --
          My rights don't end where your fear begins.
          • (Score: 2) by Wootery on Thursday February 08 2018, @12:42PM (5 children)

            by Wootery (2341) on Thursday February 08 2018, @12:42PM (#634851)

            We weren't talking about 'fighting against religion', we were talking about atheists pushing for legislation to keep them from ever being exposed to religion. Not even close to the same thing.

            Any matter of conscience

            I'm not sure if we're quite on the same page - my point was that religious views are just another private opinion. I treat 'matters of conscience' with no particular special reverence.

            Example: Don't want to sell the morning-after pill? Then the pharmacy owner is quite entitled to refuse to hire you. I don't care why you don't want to sell the pill, or how strongly you happen to feel about it. Whether it's because you're under the delusion that it's a tool for murder, or whether it's because you just don't like the colour, is really not the point.

            Your freedom to practice your religion is merely a special-case of your general freedom to do what you like in your own time.

            You're free to practice your religion in any way you see fit, both in public and private, as long as you aren't harming anyone by doing so

            But not really. If your religion requires you to wear clothing that makes you unable to do the job, that's your problem, not the employer's problem.

            But my religion says so should carry no more weight than But I really want to. That's essentially what it means anyway, except with additional baggage of superstition and identity thrown in. Freedom of religion does not grant you carte blanche to deviate from corporate policy.

            trying to get the government involved in promoting your religion, or using your position as an agent of the government to promote your particular religion

            Indeed, I'd missed that rather big point - the government isn't in the business of taking sides regarding religions, or of taking sides regarding religion vs non-religion. That's not the same thing as freedom of religion though, that's separation of church and state.

            There are no guarantees, either explicit or implicit, that you should not have to see the exercise of religion in public.

            Of course. Other people are of course free to practice their religions.

            • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @01:09PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @01:09PM (#634871)

              The problem often flows in the reverse direction. You want to buy an abortion pill and they won't sell. You want a job and you fit all qualifications except for nonsense like, say, "not being gay" or "not wearing a hijab to work" they won't hire.

              Not "I got screwed due to my religion", instead "I got screwed due to someone else's religion".

              I don't know what the answer is. But there are so many damned (heh) devout Christians in the country that the standard civil libertarian approach I like screws everyone else.

            • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday February 08 2018, @02:51PM (3 children)

              by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Thursday February 08 2018, @02:51PM (#634935) Homepage Journal

              We weren't talking about 'fighting against religion', we were talking about atheists pushing for legislation to keep them from ever being exposed to religion. Not even close to the same thing.

              Works in theory. In practice it's been exactly the same thing though.

              Example: Don't want to sell the morning-after pill? Then the pharmacy owner is quite entitled to refuse to hire you. I don't care why you don't want to sell the pill, or how strongly you happen to feel about it. Whether it's because you're under the delusion that it's a tool for murder, or whether it's because you just don't like the colour, is really not the point.

              Yeah, I agree. What I don't agree with is saying a pharmacy owner either must or cannot sell the morning after pill based on federal law. Both are pretty plainly prohibited by the first amendment and would be protected by the ninth and tenth even without the first.

              That's not the same thing as freedom of religion though, that's separation of church and state.

              It really kind of is. You can't viably have the former without the latter.

              As for pushing freedom of religion onto private industry or individuals, I agree that was never the intent of the first amendment and do not claim it to be a desirable thing. If I appeared to imply that, I misspoke.

              --
              My rights don't end where your fear begins.
              • (Score: 2) by Wootery on Thursday February 08 2018, @04:21PM (2 children)

                by Wootery (2341) on Thursday February 08 2018, @04:21PM (#634980)

                In practice it's been exactly the same thing

                Absolute nonsense. Look at the Four Horsemen. [wikipedia.org] None of them oppose freedom of religion.

                Here in the UK, probably most of us are atheists, but we're generally smart enough to still value freedom of religion.

                Both are pretty plainly prohibited by the first amendment

                I agree I wouldn't want a law like that, but I don't see how it's a First Amendment issue exactly. The government makes regulations all the time.

                You can't viably have the former without the latter.

                It's not a great idea, but it's possible. Here in the UK, we technically have a state church, but also have full freedom of religion.

                If I appeared to imply that, I misspoke

                Not at all, we're on the same page there.

                • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday February 08 2018, @05:25PM (1 child)

                  by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Thursday February 08 2018, @05:25PM (#635046) Homepage Journal

                  The government makes regulations all the time.

                  Yes, over this side of the pond though, they're not supposed to be allowed to unless that power was explicitly spelled out in the constitution. We have not one but two amendments that say so. The ninth and tenth, if you're curious and don't already know. They're utterly ignored every chance the Supreme Court gets though.

                  It's not a great idea, but it's possible. Here in the UK, we technically have a state church, but also have full freedom of religion.

                  Fair point. The Church of England is more or less a nostalgic remnant of days past nowadays though, isn't it? I think something approaching the effect that has on policy would be necessary to have one without the other.

                  --
                  My rights don't end where your fear begins.
                  • (Score: 2) by Wootery on Friday February 09 2018, @09:53AM

                    by Wootery (2341) on Friday February 09 2018, @09:53AM (#635458)

                    They're utterly ignored every chance the Supreme Court gets though.

                    Indeed. Day to day, the idea of constitutionally limited government doesn't seem to crop up in the USA.

                    more or less a nostalgic remnant of days past nowadays though, isn't it?

                    Not far off, but do they have a small amount of real power. Some bishops are entitled to a position in the House of Lords. [parliament.uk]

          • (Score: 5, Insightful) by DutchUncle on Thursday February 08 2018, @02:55PM (6 children)

            by DutchUncle (5370) on Thursday February 08 2018, @02:55PM (#634938)

            >>> Fighting against religion (Well not any religion. Only christianity really.) is a huge thing for a significant part of the left in the US.

            No, fighting against religious zealots forcing their particular version of religion (most typically some version of Christianity) on everybody else by codifying into civil law is a huge thing. And fighting against religious zealots who insist that they are not subject to civil law because they are following "the true law". You only see it as being against Christianity because Christianity is so overwhelmingly dominant and embedded in the culture.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @04:35PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @04:35PM (#634992)

              But my religious says it's the One True Religion. My religion says everyone must be like me. If you're not like me, you're oppressing me! Waaaaaaaaah :(

            • (Score: 3, Interesting) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday February 08 2018, @05:32PM (4 children)

              by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Thursday February 08 2018, @05:32PM (#635050) Homepage Journal

              That I would have no problem with. If that were all that were happening, I wouldn't have a beef with the atheists on the left at all. It's not though. Consider this: any comedian can currently make a child-fucker joke about a Catholic priest (when most of them are not) as part of a stand-up act but could they do the same of Mohamed (who actually was according to their own holy book) and ever be able to work in Hollywood again?

              --
              My rights don't end where your fear begins.
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @06:38PM (3 children)

                by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @06:38PM (#635104)

                not the same

                Christians haven't been trying to behead comedians that say such things.

                Muslims have -- or people claiming to be Muslim.

                Christians generally only try to blow up abortion clincs when they resort to violence. They generally believe the pen and social stigma is mightier than the sword.

                • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday February 08 2018, @10:14PM (1 child)

                  by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Thursday February 08 2018, @10:14PM (#635235) Homepage Journal

                  What christians do or don't do was irrelevant to the point I was making. The left's reactions to the stated examples are what was in question.

                  --
                  My rights don't end where your fear begins.
                  • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Thursday February 08 2018, @10:32PM

                    by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Thursday February 08 2018, @10:32PM (#635247) Homepage Journal

                    What christians do or don't do was irrelevant to the point I was making. The left's reactions to the stated examples are what was in question.

                    Except what you call "the left" isn't monolithic, nor is it particularly left wing. There are assholes of every stripe, so your statement could easily use "bank tellers," "right-wing nut jobs," "Right-handed melon farmers" or anything else and still have the same semantic value.

                    --
                    No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 09 2018, @12:16AM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 09 2018, @12:16AM (#635303)

                  Christians haven't been trying to behead comedians that say such things.

                  Rather recent development.

          • (Score: 2, Insightful) by termigator on Thursday February 08 2018, @06:46PM (1 child)

            by termigator (4271) on Thursday February 08 2018, @06:46PM (#635113)

            You haven't seen it? Fighting against religion (Well not any religion. Only christianity really.) is a huge thing for a significant part of the left in the US.

            Citation needed.

            You cannot state a belief as a fact.

            • (Score: 1, Troll) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday February 08 2018, @10:18PM

              by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Thursday February 08 2018, @10:18PM (#635238) Homepage Journal

              No, but I can say google it your damned self. I have better things to do than collate citations for someone who's going to stick their fingers in their ears and go lalalala no matter what proof is provided.

              --
              My rights don't end where your fear begins.
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 09 2018, @03:23AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 09 2018, @03:23AM (#635372)

            Onward Christian Snowflakes

      • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday February 08 2018, @12:13PM (12 children)

        by fustakrakich (6150) on Thursday February 08 2018, @12:13PM (#634835) Journal

        Going back to 1800, what Trump is doing is more akin to the Aliens and Sedition Act.

        But really, why would anybody want to go back to 1800 [mentalfloss.com]?

        --
        La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
        • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday February 08 2018, @12:21PM (11 children)

          by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Thursday February 08 2018, @12:21PM (#634841) Homepage Journal

          Going back to 1800, what Trump is doing is more akin to the Aliens and Sedition Act.

          How, precisely, do you figure? Unless they're being misused, all he's done is set up a group of people whose job it is to look after the first liberty guaranteed in the bill of rights. Now misuse is highly probable, regardless of who's in office, but that does not make their stated purpose in any way illegal or immoral.

          --
          My rights don't end where your fear begins.
          • (Score: 2, Insightful) by fustakrakich on Thursday February 08 2018, @01:05PM (10 children)

            by fustakrakich (6150) on Thursday February 08 2018, @01:05PM (#634869) Journal

            Well, believing their stated purpose is part of the problem. The abuse goes without mentioning. What they are defending is so patently absurd, it's hard to know where to begin an argument. I guess first would be that a purely religious objection to a medical procedure can cause harm to the patient. So, whose rights shall prevail? Personally, I pick the patient. The doc should pick a profession where his beliefs don't get in the way.

            --
            La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
            • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday February 08 2018, @02:59PM (9 children)

              by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Thursday February 08 2018, @02:59PM (#634941) Homepage Journal

              I guess first would be that a purely religious objection to a medical procedure can cause harm to the patient.

              Actual harm, peachy keen. "I didn't get what I wanted and had to go down the street to" harm? That can fuck entirely off. It's not harm.

              We let conscientious objectors out of drafted military service if violently defending their nation violates their conscience. It should go without saying that lesser degrees should fall on their side as well. Personal inconvenience or annoyance are not sufficient reason to force someone to do something they believe is fundamentally wrong.

              --
              My rights don't end where your fear begins.
              • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday February 08 2018, @03:36PM (7 children)

                by Grishnakh (2831) on Thursday February 08 2018, @03:36PM (#634958)

                That's a bullshit argument. What if you're gay, and you have a bad accident, and go to the ER? All the docs there follow some religion that hates gay people, so they use "religious freedom!!!" to deny giving you any care. There's no other ERs in the area that you can get to before you die from your wounds.

                This is why the Civil Rights Act included a provision to prevent businesses from offering services to everyone equally. You can't always just "go down the street". Although granted, if we're talking about getting a wedding cake, rather than getting your life saved by necessary medical treatment, that's arguably a very different situation.

                • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday February 08 2018, @05:41PM (6 children)

                  by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Thursday February 08 2018, @05:41PM (#635056) Homepage Journal

                  Allowing a patient to die would be actual harm. Making them have to drive a couple blocks to a different bakery is not. Not even financial harm of any significant degree. If there were a sane standard of harm codified, we wouldn't be having this conversation. We might be having one over whether the federal government had the constitutional authority to create the Civil Rights Act in the first place but that would be an entirely different matter.

                  --
                  My rights don't end where your fear begins.
                  • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday February 08 2018, @06:14PM (5 children)

                    by Grishnakh (2831) on Thursday February 08 2018, @06:14PM (#635082)

                    Allowing a patient to die would be actual harm. Making them have to drive a couple blocks to a different bakery is not.

                    Right, that's exactly what I was saying before, that there is an arguable difference between those situations. But what if the bakery is the only one in a 50-mile radius? That's worse, I think, but even there, I think it's pretty obvious that getting a cake baked simply isn't a *need* in any way, whereas getting medical attention, or getting medication from a pharmacy, is. But, while these are obviously on opposite ends of the need spectrum, where do you draw the line?

                    I think the common-sense solution is pretty simple: if you offer a product or service to the general public, you can't discriminate against your customers. You shouldn't be forced to offer a product you don't want to offer to anyone (e.g., pork at a Jewish/Muslim butcher shop, or Playboy at a Christian bookseller), and for artistic works on commission, I think the artist should have full freedom to choose which projects he wants to take on (so the wedding cake baker should not be able to refuse to sell a blank cake, or a pre-made generic cake, to a gay couple, but that baker should not be forced to decorate a custom cake according to a gay couple's wishes).

                    • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday February 08 2018, @06:57PM (4 children)

                      by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Thursday February 08 2018, @06:57PM (#635120) Homepage Journal

                      I'd be willing to discuss carving out an exception anywhere a practical and viable alternative is not present even for non-critical products and services. I simply can't go along with exchanging anyone's liberties for another person's momentary convenience though. It's a massively imbalanced trade. Owning a business is not a bad thing and certainly not bad enough to warrant forcing anyone to disregard their personal morality.

                      None of the above should be taken to mean I wouldn't bake a cake for a gay couple. I'd make it rainbow colored with huge peckers made out of flesh-colored icing all along the corners if they wanted. Our entrepreneurial spirit here in the US almost always trumps prejudice nowadays.

                      --
                      My rights don't end where your fear begins.
                      • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday February 08 2018, @07:11PM (3 children)

                        by Grishnakh (2831) on Thursday February 08 2018, @07:11PM (#635130)

                        I simply can't go along with exchanging anyone's liberties for another person's momentary convenience though. It's a massively imbalanced trade. Owning a business is not a bad thing and certainly not bad enough to warrant forcing anyone to disregard their personal morality.

                        We tried that approach before, and it didn't work. It resulted in black people not being able to go to restaurants and do all kinds of other things, so they existed as 2nd-class citizens. It's the very reason we came up with the Civil Rights Act. This is one of those libertarian principles that sounds good in theory ("the free market will fix it!!"), but in practice simply doesn't work.

                        That said, I don't support forcing some religious nut cake baker to do custom cake decoration for a gay couple, but if they just want to stop in and buy a pre-made cake off-the-shelf and decorate it themselves, it should be illegal for the baker to sell it to them.

                        • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday February 08 2018, @10:27PM (2 children)

                          by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Thursday February 08 2018, @10:27PM (#635241) Homepage Journal

                          Didn't work then. Are you really saying the American people haven't changed in the past seventy years?

                          That said, I don't support forcing some religious nut cake baker to do custom cake decoration for a gay couple, but if they just want to stop in and buy a pre-made cake off-the-shelf and decorate it themselves, it should be illegal for the baker to sell it to them.

                          I'm fine with that. There's a big difference between asking someone to create something and asking them to ring something up. It needs to be done properly though. The CRA needed to be an amendment. It was so clearly and indisputably unconstitutional that the justices who allowed it to stand should have been disrobed and disbarred.

                          --
                          My rights don't end where your fear begins.
                          • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday February 08 2018, @10:40PM

                            by Grishnakh (2831) on Thursday February 08 2018, @10:40PM (#635257)

                            There's a big difference between asking someone to create something and asking them to ring something up. It needs to be done properly though. The CRA needed to be an amendment.

                            Well, according to my research, the Supreme Court decision is still pending. That'll probably work this out, in which case a law isn't really needed. I haven't read the CRA, but I imagine they never envisioned something like this, and never thought someone would sue because an artistic business wouldn't create custom artwork for them due to discrimination. (Honestly, it's pretty silly: why would you commission an artist to create artwork for you when he disagrees with or even hates whatever it is you're asking him to create art for? You're going to get a lousy product.) The SCOTUS will probably make a ruling basically saying what I said, and then that'll be the end of it. That's the whole reason we have the court system we have: to interpret laws when you run into weird corner cases like this.

                          • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday February 10 2018, @07:36AM

                            by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Saturday February 10 2018, @07:36AM (#635925) Journal

                            "Didn't work then." Uh...are you...are you seriously...did you just goddamn say "try segregation again?" Really?!

                            You reveal more of yourself than you intend to, I think, with comments like that. But please, *do* explain to us how we've changed in the last 70 years that would make "separate but equal" totally, really, completely work THIS TIME YEW GAIZE. This should be darkly hilarious...

                            --
                            I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
              • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday February 08 2018, @04:23PM

                by fustakrakich (6150) on Thursday February 08 2018, @04:23PM (#634983) Journal

                The other answer beat me to the punch. If a doctor denies life saving treating for personal reasons he has no business being a doctor. Religion is personal. It should stay that way. What's that rule? *What goes in Vegas stays in Vegas*

                --
                La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
      • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday February 08 2018, @12:53PM (10 children)

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 08 2018, @12:53PM (#634857) Journal

        In this case that means to ensure that everyone is free to believe as they like as long as they're not actually harming anybody by practicing said beliefs.

        Freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.

        If I had my druthers, I'd druther not hear about a synagogue, or a temple, or mosque in the US. They would all be churches - Christian churches, to be specific. But, I don't get my druthers. The people around me are free to worship as they see fit. They may worship Satan, they may worship the oak tree on the corner, or they may worship their cat. Most people worship the Almighty Dollar, and give a little lip service to one god or God or another.

        Freedom of religion. No one is free from religion in this nation, or in this world. All of us are exposed to ideas and judgements that we find offensive. Damned near everyone in the world thinks that I'm going to hell, because I don't believe as they do. Even people who believe almost as I do, think that I'm going to hell, because I don't accept their dogma.

        American Atheists expressed outrage

        and not one fuck was given.

        • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday February 08 2018, @04:12PM

          by Grishnakh (2831) on Thursday February 08 2018, @04:12PM (#634976)

          Most people worship the Almighty Dollar, and give a little lip service to one god or God or another.

          Yep, that sounds like pretty much everyone who goes to some "megachurch" in the US these days.

        • (Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Thursday February 08 2018, @06:49PM (5 children)

          by nitehawk214 (1304) on Thursday February 08 2018, @06:49PM (#635115)

          So you admit you would force people in to your religion if you were permitted to do so?

          Now you see why organizations like American Atheists exist.

          But cry me a river over how you are oppressed.

          --
          "Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
          • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday February 08 2018, @11:08PM (4 children)

            by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 08 2018, @11:08PM (#635269) Journal

            Literacy 101, should be available at your local community college. I made no mention of forcing anyone to believe or to worship as I see fit - I only mentioned my "druthers".

            • (Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Friday February 09 2018, @12:02AM (3 children)

              by nitehawk214 (1304) on Friday February 09 2018, @12:02AM (#635297)

              Ahh ahh, just banning other religions and making sure nobody is allowed to talk about them openly. Yep, totally not a religious state and forcing your religion on anyone when your religion is allowed free reign in the media.

              --
              "Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
              • (Score: 1, Flamebait) by Runaway1956 on Friday February 09 2018, @12:17AM (2 children)

                by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday February 09 2018, @12:17AM (#635304) Journal

                Ya wanna know where I stand on all the stupid you're spouting at me? In another discussion with the Azuma Hazuki creature, I pointed out that we - all humans - are kinda fucked. We should be born with an inate sense of truth, or fact, or something. We hear a story about God, and we just KNOW that it's fact or fiction. That's what I really like to have - everyone just KNOWS the truth. Maybe the Hindus have it right - and if so, every single person on the planet should know it. Maybe the atheists have it right - and again, everyone should just know it. Whichever, if any, belief is true, should be obvious fact to all people.

                Here, in this thread, I voiced a preference for Christianity - then pointed out that not all Christians are the same anyway. I don't subscribe to the Catholic Church's dogma, for example.

                Where do you go with my statement of opinion? You took almost half an inch of opinion, and you've run two miles down the road to make it into an inquisition.

                You don't get away with that stupid shit. There is no inquisition here. It's all in your mind, Bubba, not mine. Nowhere in my post was the word "ban" used. Nowhere was a genocide mentioned. Nowhere did I mention burning down a synagogue, or a mosque. Nowhere did I infringe upon any other person's right to worship as he sees fit.

                It's pretty damned obvious that you have your own preferences - and those preferences are not Christian, in any way, shape or form. Why are you here, trying to force your beliefs on me? I don't want to hear your belligerent attitude toward me, or toward Christianity. Run along now, and kindly fuck off.

                • (Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Friday February 09 2018, @12:24AM

                  by nitehawk214 (1304) on Friday February 09 2018, @12:24AM (#635307)

                  I ain't fucking off, but I am belligerent.

                  But I am not the one that is feeling persecuted.

                  But, hey, keep dealing out insults as if they were rational arguments.

                  --
                  "Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
                • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday February 10 2018, @07:38AM

                  by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Saturday February 10 2018, @07:38AM (#635926) Journal

                  Hey, you managed to spell it right this time :) Are you getting sweet on me, Runaway? That's actually kind of cute, aside from how revolting the idea is. You're just a big ol' softie under that self-assembled shell of crusty old bullshit, ain't'cha?

                  --
                  I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
        • (Score: 3, Funny) by fyngyrz on Thursday February 08 2018, @07:51PM (2 children)

          by fyngyrz (6567) on Thursday February 08 2018, @07:51PM (#635157) Journal

          they may worship their cat

          Well, the thing about that is that my cat actually exists, so it's a lot easier to do. :)

          • (Score: 3, Informative) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday February 08 2018, @09:00PM (1 child)

            by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Thursday February 08 2018, @09:00PM (#635194) Journal

            Plus cats are more or less autotheists (n: one who believes that s/he is God) so it's only natural for them to expect it :)

            --
            I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
      • (Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Thursday February 08 2018, @06:46PM

        by nitehawk214 (1304) on Thursday February 08 2018, @06:46PM (#635112)

        Yeah it's the atheists that are persecuting you. Hilarious.

        --
        "Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Thursday February 08 2018, @06:32AM

      by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Thursday February 08 2018, @06:32AM (#634733) Homepage Journal

      No, this creeping Dominionism is all Pence and his merry band of wild-eyed, drooling Theonomists.

      Don't count Jeff Sessions out of this either. He's not as *much* of a bible thumping zealot, but he sees the authoritarian potential.

      --
      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by fustakrakich on Thursday February 08 2018, @12:01PM (5 children)

      by fustakrakich (6150) on Thursday February 08 2018, @12:01PM (#634830) Journal

      I don't know what everybody is so worried about. You're supposed to be able to vote them out, right? The chance to speak up is coming in a few short months. My only advice is to *make it count*

      --
      La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
      • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday February 08 2018, @06:18PM (4 children)

        by Grishnakh (2831) on Thursday February 08 2018, @06:18PM (#635083)

        Every nation gets the government it deserves.

        • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday February 08 2018, @09:01PM (3 children)

          by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Thursday February 08 2018, @09:01PM (#635195) Journal

          This wasn't true the last half dozen times you posted it and it's not true now. If, and only if, every single citizen had an equal, equally-good, well-informed understanding of all the issues, and it was equally easy for them all to vote, and they all voted, would this apply. Otherwise it's just another variant of "fuck you, got mine."

          We largely agree on most things, but I need to call this toxic BS out before it calcifies itself in your mind.

          --
          I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
          • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday February 08 2018, @09:16PM (2 children)

            by Grishnakh (2831) on Thursday February 08 2018, @09:16PM (#635207)

            No, it's exactly true. It has absolutely nothing to do with voting: it's as true in a totalitarian police state as it is in a socialistic democratic state. Joseph de Maitre was absolutely correct when he wrote this in the 1800s. The only possible exception to it is nations where they've been invaded and occupied by a superior force. Otherwise, disagreeing with it means that you fundamentally think that a nation's citizens have no duty to make their nation the way they want, and that somehow they're entitled to whatever ideal version of a state you envision, but without having to work for it.

            • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday February 08 2018, @09:36PM (1 child)

              by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Thursday February 08 2018, @09:36PM (#635218) Journal

              Er...you didn't read anything I wrote, did you? If someone can't vote, they can't "work for it." Now the ones who *didn't* vote, we can agree, deserve whatever shit they get, but deliberate disenfranchisement, gerrymandering, and plain old "not being able to get to the fucking poll because I have three part time minimum wage jobs and need all of them to keep a roof over my head" are things, too.

              --
              I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
              • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday February 08 2018, @10:17PM

                by Grishnakh (2831) on Thursday February 08 2018, @10:17PM (#635237)

                Er...you didn't read anything I wrote, did you? If someone can't vote, they can't "work for it."

                I read everything you wrote, you just seem to not understand how governments are created. Have you never heard of a "revolution"? Do you really, naively, think that governments are all created peacefully by some people getting together and holding elections? The US government wasn't even formed that way, nor were most other democratic governments. It's the responsibility of the people of a nation to create the kind of government they want to have, full stop. There are no exceptions, except for the case I stated before where they're physically prevented by an outside force. The people of the nation are the only people who have responsibility to govern them, otherwise, who else has this responsibility?

                It seems like you're the one not reading anything I write.

    • (Score: 2) by SomeGuy on Thursday February 08 2018, @03:59PM (2 children)

      by SomeGuy (5632) on Thursday February 08 2018, @03:59PM (#634968)

      He may not give a shit about religion, but he gives enough of a shit about making himself *look* religious.

      Someone needs to inform these idiots that THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS GOD!

      • (Score: 2) by dry on Friday February 09 2018, @02:13AM (1 child)

        by dry (223) on Friday February 09 2018, @02:13AM (#635354) Journal

        Are you claiming the cat doesn't exist?

        • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 09 2018, @04:13PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 09 2018, @04:13PM (#635542)

          A: What is in the box may be an infinite number of different things. There is no logical reason here to assume it must be a cat.

          B: Whatever does happen to be in the box does not deserve worship. Although a cat might disagree.

          I'm hoping it will be a pony! :P

  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @05:19AM (33 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @05:19AM (#634690)

    Some among us didn't want a chunk of our genitalia cut off just to please the supposed Creator of the entire Universe.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @05:46AM (31 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @05:46AM (#634701)

      Cutting off pieces of junk have nothing to do with 'appeasing' a god. It's about a religious tradition. Not everything an organised religion does is purely derived from dogma. For example, celebratory feast days are an artefact of a group of people coming together, where the exact dates used were not scripturally decreed. Yet, still there are Easter, Christmas, Ramadan, Passover, etc.

      Have a go at the tradition of circumcision if you want, but don't try to blame it on pure religious belief.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @05:51AM (29 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @05:51AM (#634707)

        However, if you cut off a chunk of my dicks, I'm going to kill you.

        • (Score: 3, Touché) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday February 08 2018, @06:13AM (22 children)

          by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Thursday February 08 2018, @06:13AM (#634719) Homepage Journal

          Plural? Well now, color me impressed.

          --
          My rights don't end where your fear begins.
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @06:18AM (21 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @06:18AM (#634724)

            If that typo helps you to ignore the reality of the situation, then I'm glad to be of service.

            • (Score: 2, Disagree) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday February 08 2018, @06:38AM (20 children)

              by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Thursday February 08 2018, @06:38AM (#634737) Homepage Journal

              Circumcision is nothing remotely like female genital mutilation. Unless the doctor slips, circumcised males are left with a perfectly functional penis that they will thoroughly enjoy using every chance they get. The reality is that nobody misses a bit of pointless skin that they don't remember ever having in the first place. Which is why it's almost always done while the guy in question is too young to remember.

              --
              My rights don't end where your fear begins.
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @06:42AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @06:42AM (#634739)

                Sure.

              • (Score: 4, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Thursday February 08 2018, @07:01AM (7 children)

                by hemocyanin (186) on Thursday February 08 2018, @07:01AM (#634754) Journal

                It's only "nothing like" because its part of our tradition. Tradition doesn't make it any less mutliatory.

                • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday February 08 2018, @12:25PM (6 children)

                  by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Thursday February 08 2018, @12:25PM (#634843) Homepage Journal

                  I'm afraid it is "nothing like" because it in no way impedes sexual fulfillment among the people it's practiced on. When performing genital mutilation on females, that is the entire purpose. The foreskin, however, is no more necessary to a healthy or enjoyable sex life than the earlobes are.

                  --
                  My rights don't end where your fear begins.
                  • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @01:40PM (4 children)

                    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @01:40PM (#634904)

                    Actually, you're wrong. My circumcision was incomplete, so I have a flap of foreskin left. Stimulation there feels better than stimulation anywhere else. So we circumsized men might enjoy orgasms as much as intact men, but the build up to orgasm (which lasts many minutes, unlike the orgasm itself) feels better for them.

                    • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday February 08 2018, @04:39PM (3 children)

                      by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Thursday February 08 2018, @04:39PM (#634995) Homepage Journal

                      That's on malpractice not circumcision.

                      --
                      My rights don't end where your fear begins.
                      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @06:06PM (2 children)

                        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @06:06PM (#635073)

                        Please, read your parent's post again.

                        He's saying that what little foreskin he has left is the best part of his penis to stimulate.

                        • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday February 08 2018, @07:14PM (1 child)

                          by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Thursday February 08 2018, @07:14PM (#635131) Homepage Journal

                          Ah, my bad. Entirely possible but not really viable to gather empirical data on unless you can find a bunch of uncut guys who don't mind permanently ditching their turtleneck for science. I mean, I have areas around scars that are uber-sensitive as well, though the area they're in wasn't at all before it got cut on. One of them in particular would get my dear, sweet granny punched in the face if she touched it but an inch or two away and I'm all "meh".

                          --
                          My rights don't end where your fear begins.
                          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 09 2018, @02:46AM

                            by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 09 2018, @02:46AM (#635363)

                            Speaking of scars, if you can see your circumcision scar around your dick, then you yourself can see what's left of your inner foreskin; it's the region between the scar and the head of the penis. You'll notice that this region is kind of ticklish, and sensitive to light, sensual touch, unlike the head of the penis which is supposed to be actually quite numb during normal sexual operation (and otherwise irritating, for protective purposes).

                            Of course, you might not even have this little bit of extant foreskin. For instance, traditional Jewish circumcision is supposed to remove even this, and thereby place the scar right up behind the head of the penis.

                            In any case, you're certainly missing most of your ridged band, and a shitload of nerves, and the mechanical nature of the shaft tissue has been basically destroyed. You have a mutilated penis; that's what it is, by definition.

                  • (Score: 2) by dry on Friday February 09 2018, @02:36AM

                    by dry (223) on Friday February 09 2018, @02:36AM (#635360) Journal

                    Says someone who obviously doesn't have a foreskin. Might as well say having not having labia doesn't impede a woman having sex. Especially if removed early enough that she never misses it. After all, she still has a vagina.
                    The foreskin is perhaps the most sensitive part of a male and in the form of the clitoral hood, a female, as well as protecting another very sensitive part, namely the glans.
                    Just because you were mutilated young enough not to know how shitty your sex experiences are doesn't mean that they're shitty due to missing some of the equipment needed to enjoy sex to the maximum.

              • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @09:56AM (9 children)

                by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @09:56AM (#634799)

                Unless the doctor slips, circumcised males are left with a perfectly functional penis that they will thoroughly enjoy using every chance they get.

                Violating people's fundamental right to control their own bodies is unethical regardless of whether or not it causes permanent damage to them. It should be illegal to mutilate other people's genitals when they are not able to consent, unless perhaps there is some sort of imminent medical necessity. Religion doesn't give one the right to mutilate other people's genitals, and neither does tradition. All the arguments in favor of circumcision are either outright illogical (religious-based arguments) or insufficient to justify such a violation of someone's rights (supposed minor medical benefits).

                The reality is that nobody misses a bit of pointless skin that they don't remember ever having in the first place.

                The reality is that some people are upset that they didn't have a choice in the matter. I'm not sure why some people are so afraid of concepts such as consent.

                Which is why it's almost always done while the guy in question is too young to remember.

                Right, before they have a chance to defend themselves.

                • (Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @10:06AM (3 children)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @10:06AM (#634802)

                  Go complain to your parents. I certainly don't care about your penis.

                  If it bothers you so much, go here http://www.cirp.org/pages/restore.html [cirp.org] and find a plastic surgeon and quit blathering on about shit that has nothing to do with TFA or anything other than your own self-loathing.

                  • (Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @10:07AM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @10:07AM (#634803)

                    Yeah. Sure.

                  • (Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @06:03PM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @06:03PM (#635071)

                    Yeah. Sure.

                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @07:40PM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @07:40PM (#635151)

                    Then I guess if you don't mind we will remove part of your anatomy. And then if you don't like it you can get a plastic surgeon to go fix it afterwards. I mean since consent doesn't matter right?

                • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday February 08 2018, @12:36PM (4 children)

                  by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Thursday February 08 2018, @12:36PM (#634849) Homepage Journal

                  It's no more "mutilation" than piercing a child's ears is. The guy is deprived of nothing but maybe a second worth of wash time in the shower.

                  --
                  My rights don't end where your fear begins.
                  • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday February 08 2018, @01:00PM (3 children)

                    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 08 2018, @01:00PM (#634864) Journal

                    A second? Uhhhhh - I didn't have my sons chopped. Sometimes, I regretted that decision, at bathtime. How many times have YOU attempted to clean and examine one of those things?

                    I suppose that it only takes a second, most of the time, once the kid is old enough to do things for himself. But care givers can have hell during those first few years.

                    • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @01:42PM

                      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @01:42PM (#634906)
                      Don't be using the stiffer toothbrushes for that then. They may seem faster but there's more strife at bath time.
                    • (Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @06:09PM (1 child)

                      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @06:09PM (#635077)

                      That damages it.

                      It's still attached to the head of the penis in youth, and becomes easily retractable by adolescence.

                      Seriously, what is wrong with you Americans? Just... leave children's cocks alone. Nature didn't fuck up the penis; it doesn't need your 'intervention'.

                      • (Score: 3, Informative) by AthanasiusKircher on Thursday February 08 2018, @06:43PM

                        by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Thursday February 08 2018, @06:43PM (#635107) Journal

                        Yeah, what's scarier is that even many American doctors don't know this. They've been trained in the traditional "hygiene" BS that led circumcision to become common in the U.S. in the first place.

                        Despite stern warnings from the American Academy of Pediatrics against forcible retraction in recent years, many doctors still do it in their offices and make unnecessary announcements about cleansing and retraction to parents.

                        For those who don't know the reality of recent scientific findings, only about 20% of boys can fully retract the foreskin by age 6, unless they have had a forcible retraction. The majority can do it by age 10. So, basically by the time most boys can retract it, they should be bathing themselves (mostly) anyway. Parents should almost never be retracting foreskins for cleaning... Well, unless they or a barbaric doctor has forcibly torn the connective tissue to retract it, in which case it could become a breeding ground for infection. Tearing the tissue deliberately likely leads to many more complications than the small chance of UTI etc. that might come from not cleaning the area thoroughly before adolescence. (Cleaning it poorly can actually make things worse.)

                        I personally witnessed two different pediatricians attempt to do this unnecessarily to my son... The second time it caused my son to yelp in pain and begin to cry, though thankfully the doctor didn't force it far enough that it would bleed from the tearing.

                        The sad thing is that many parents are more knowledgeable about uncircumcised males in the U.S. than doctors are.

              • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @02:14PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @02:14PM (#634924)

                Touch a kids privates and you go to jail.

                Touch them with a scalpel and praise God!

                So glad I still have my foreskin. Sex IS way more enjoyable with my tip protected. Many men work to regrow theirs. So many there is a movement. Too bad women can reverse the hate brought on them

                God should be punished for this shit.

        • (Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Thursday February 08 2018, @06:20AM (5 children)

          by MichaelDavidCrawford (2339) Subscriber Badge <mdcrawford@gmail.com> on Thursday February 08 2018, @06:20AM (#634725) Homepage Journal

          for years I thought they had given me a new dick.

          --
          Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
          • (Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @06:29AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @06:29AM (#634730)

            Surgical manipulation of children's sexual organs.

            Hee hee.

          • (Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @06:46AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @06:46AM (#634743)

            Surgical manipulation of children's sexual organs.

            Hee hee.

          • (Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @06:59AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @06:59AM (#634753)

            Surgical manipulation of children's sexual organs.

            Hee hee.

          • (Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @07:46AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @07:46AM (#634774)

            Surgical manipulation of children's sexual organs.

            Hee hee.

            ----

            Go on. Downmod it; surely THIS time will make the difference.

          • (Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @06:10PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @06:10PM (#635079)

            Surgical manipulation of children's sexual organs.

            Hee hee.

            ----

            Go on. Downmod it; surely THIS time will make the difference.

      • (Score: 3, Funny) by tftp on Thursday February 08 2018, @05:55AM

        by tftp (806) on Thursday February 08 2018, @05:55AM (#634710) Homepage
        A newbirn infant has no religious beliefs yet. By logic one would wait until the child is sufficiently mature and wise - say, 80 years old - and only then offer him the chop. He would be smart enough to refuse.
    • (Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Thursday February 08 2018, @07:11AM

      by realDonaldTrump (6614) on Thursday February 08 2018, @07:11AM (#634762) Homepage Journal

      Some of us told Father that God made Man PERFECTO. In the image of God, right? And that we're almost a man. But Father wouldn't listen!

(1) 2 3