Bull Ring Can you clarify Equal treatment of Beliefs without sounding like something Negative or Impossible

Discussion in 'The Bull Ring' started by emilynghiem, May 24, 2019.

  1. emilynghiem
    Offline

    emilynghiem Constitutionalist / Universalist Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2010
    Messages:
    21,838
    Thanks Received:
    3,022
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    National Freedmen's Town District
    Ratings:
    +8,426
    In trying to be fair and resolve conflicts with TheProgressivePatriot, over how I misread previous complaints
    and likewise my own stated principles being taken wrong as well,

    This thread is to try to MORE ACCURATELY explain and clarify
    what we both mean.

    1. I stand corrected that TPP DID NOT MEAN that GOVT should be used to police and punish people for their beliefs.

    That's what I see going on with interpretations of laws, such as penalizing Bakers with fines for not agreeing to provide services involved in "same sex weddings" that the business owners do not believe in.

    2. What TheProgressivePatriot objects to is abusing the idea of "equal treatment of beliefs under law" as
    A. requiring or assuming all people will "agree and get along"
    B. failing to address beliefs that are harmful, such as abusive forms of discrimination, and should NOT be treated "equally" as beliefs that are NOT harmful, abusive or discriminatory

    Since TPP confirmed his viewpoint is NOT
    the argument I presented in the previous BR thread,
    I am using THIS thread to ALSO make similar corrections:

    My viewpoints and standards are also NOT
    what TPP is saying either.

    A. I ALSO agree that people are NOT going to agree on beliefs, and that is why I advocate protecting groups FROM EACH OTHER because they will NOT agree. That is why I propose to
    separate party beliefs and creeds so people DO NOT
    impose on each other.

    That's one correction I am TRYING to make.

    B. To clarify what I mean by Respecting people's choice of beliefs equally, but NOT assuming they are all the same and "ignoring" conflicts, I will offer THIS analogy:

    INCLUDING all instruments in an orchestra EQUALLY, even if they play different music in different keys
    DOES NOT MEAN LETTING THEM CLASH.

    The individual instruments, musicians and sections
    STILL MUST PLAY THEIR DIFFERENT PARTS CORRECTLY
    so that these DIFFERENT parts harmonize properly.

    Just because I am saying NOT to REMOVE or EXCLUDE different instruments or parts, but to include them EQUALLY,
    DOES NOT MEAN IGNORING CONFLICTS AND CLASHES BETWEEN THE PARTS.

    TheProgressivePatriot
    With different groups and beliefs, the problems CAUSING THE CLASHING can be resolved WITHOUT discriminating against that whole group for their beliefs or for conflicts with their beliefs THAT CAN BE SOLVED.

    Is this more clear?

    In the analogy comparing musicians playing their instruments with followers of a group exercising their beliefs,
    I find that if the members of a group CONTRADICT their own beliefs, this causes conflicts with OTHER groups as well.

    This is like when a musician FAILS to play the part IN TUNE,
    or in CORRECTING TIMING OR KEY,
    then this will CLASH with other instruments playing their parts.

    So it isn't because the INSTRUMENT or MUSIC is wrong,
    it's because the musician is playing their part wrong.
    And if that problem is corrected, then the DIFFERENT PARTS
    DO HARMONIZE. THEY DON'T HAVE TO CLASH when each part is played in tune, in the right key and timing.

    Does THIS analogy help explain what I mean?

    I'm saying don't just "kick the whole group out" because of conflicts.

    If a GROUP is experiencing or causing CONFLICTS WITH OTHERS, that means they have INTERNAL conflicts that need to be resolved FIRST. This can be resolved by working WITHIN that Group's organizations and policies.

    Fix that first, and then the other conflicts with other groups can be resolved in turn.

    NOTE 1: If these clarifications do not work, please advise.
    I gratefully appreciate help from TheProgressivePatriot
    and others to clarify what both of us mean by our objections,
    and what we do NOT mean that the other person was objecting to!

    Thank you for your help,
    Emily
    ====================================
    ADDENDA
    NOTE 2: An exceptional type of cases that requires different treatment
    are cases of mental or criminal illness, abuse and disorders that are NOT the person's free choice, but due to mental conditions or addictions outside that person's control where they are not competent and/or become dangerous threats to themselves or others.

    After looking into spiritual therapy methods of diagnosing, treating and curing such conditions including Schizophrenia, I believe in taking a MEDICAL approach to diagnosis and treatment that would incorporate these effective methods of spiritual therapy, healing and cure.

    Because these areas involve spiritual beliefs and differences in beliefs, either these must remain free choice or medical research studies are required to PROVE the physical cause and effects follow a process, so that treatment can be developed scientifically and not rely on "faith."

    NOTE 3: If anyone else can PLEASE help resolve this conflicts in communication and perception of beliefs, between me, TheProgressivePatriot and other Progressives, Liberals, Democrats on here, I would like to propose a collaborative campaign to fix social problems and political conflicts with govt policy, by uniting forces with candidates such as Bernie Sanders, Tulsi Gabbard, and Ami Horowitz, so we can bring together the DIVERSE approaches and voices within the Progressive Movement and Liberal Democrats.

    If we can resolve conflicts WITHIN OUR OWN RANKS that means we can solve conflicts with other groups (instead of projecting internal conflicts externally and blaming other groups for our own contradictions in policies).
     
    Last edited: May 24, 2019
  2. BULLDOG
    Offline

    BULLDOG Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2014
    Messages:
    59,280
    Thanks Received:
    6,684
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Ratings:
    +39,506
    Your orchestra analogy would make sense if all the instruments agreed on which song to play and were willing to compromise to perform that song to the best of the entire group's ability. That is not, and never will be the case. Each section has their own particular agenda and goals, and the wishes of any other section means less than nothing. Obstructing other sections efforts is just as important as working toward their own goals. Obstructing other sections is part of their own goal.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  3. emilynghiem
    Offline

    emilynghiem Constitutionalist / Universalist Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2010
    Messages:
    21,838
    Thanks Received:
    3,022
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    National Freedmen's Town District
    Ratings:
    +8,426
    Dear BULLDOG
    Are you telling me that all orchestras play the same music at the same time?
    I don't think so.

    There are some that play the same music,
    and others that do not. But they do not go around legislating
    how, when and what the other orchestras should choose to play.

    You make a good point that some tactics seem to be
    obstructionist. This is like one section trying to outblast the other.

    When people have control of their own orchestras, there
    is no need to compete with others for control. Set up your
    own group, and then if you obstruct the music you only affect yourself!
     
  4. BULLDOG
    Offline

    BULLDOG Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2014
    Messages:
    59,280
    Thanks Received:
    6,684
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Ratings:
    +39,506
    Your analogy referred to one orchestra (everybody) with different sections (individual religious/political/ethical ideologies) . Completely separate orchestras don't generally have to interact with each other, and there is no need to even consider what another orchestra might do. We live in a society that includes everybody. All the different sections. There is, and will always be interaction between opposing factions. That's why we have laws to sort out those conflicts while trying our best to be fair to everybody.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  5. emilynghiem
    Offline

    emilynghiem Constitutionalist / Universalist Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2010
    Messages:
    21,838
    Thanks Received:
    3,022
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    National Freedmen's Town District
    Ratings:
    +8,426
    Thanks again BULLDOG for your critical comments and input.
    Yes to the above, but we AGREE when to separate different programs not imposed on the general public.

    For example, with right to life programs focused on abstinence and preventing abortion by education,
    we AGREE to let those be funded separately -- we do not REQUIRE all taxpayers to fund
    "right to life" agenda as the liberals are trying to force ALL taxpayers to fund "right to health care."

    We ALREADY HAVE states with distinct legislatures only representing THEIR populations.
    We don't have Texas laws getting imposed on Alaska, where residents pass their OWN legislation and versions of the same
    principles. They can all agree that murder is wrong and punishable by law, but the statutes in Texas are a separate code from Alaska.

    Why not allow Parties to govern their own members under policies and terms of benefits they approve
    WITHOUT requiring other parties to agree with them? We don't require Hindus to approve of Catholic school policies.
    Why not AGREE where to separate creeds and quit imposing beliefs that other groups DISAGREE with because of their own?

    I believe we can do a better job of respecting and separating beliefs
    than what is being forced on people now. People don't agree to fund the Wall
    or Universal Care for all without certain terms and conditions they disagree on as well.

    Why not separate funding where we AGREE this would work better?
     
  6. BULLDOG
    Offline

    BULLDOG Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2014
    Messages:
    59,280
    Thanks Received:
    6,684
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Ratings:
    +39,506
    Great idea. All those separate groups that don't want to consider others have to do is not accept any federal funding, tax breaks, etc. When they accept those gifts, and they are gifts, from the federal government (people across the country), they become part of the entire group, and must adhere to fairness for everybody in the group. Any state that wants to self fund their own healthcare programs should be allowed to do so, but don't stick your hand out expecting the rest of the country to fund that individual state's choice. You can't have it both ways.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  7. G.T.
    Offline

    G.T. Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2009
    Messages:
    72,511
    Thanks Received:
    9,821
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    out
    Ratings:
    +49,740
    equal treatment of beliefs?

    So bad ideas should be treated equally with good ideas I dont think so. Thats setting the bar so low in political correctness that humans would have 65 I.Q. as the average in 3 generations.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  8. C_Clayton_Jones
    Offline

    C_Clayton_Jones Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2011
    Messages:
    52,605
    Thanks Received:
    10,980
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    In a Republic, actually
    Ratings:
    +37,591
    The doctrine of equal protection of the law concerns solely the relationship between government and those governed – not between or among private persons and organizations.

    Private persons and organizations are at complete liberty to maintain and express their hateful, bigoted, and racist beliefs.

    They are not at liberty, however, to seek to codify their hateful, bigoted, and racist beliefs in secular law.

    Moreover, the notion of ‘protecting’ groups from each other because they don’t agree is problematic; what, exactly, is supposed to do the ‘protecting’ – certainly not government, as that is neither the role nor responsibility of government.

    Indeed, citizens need to be protected from government, from excess and overreach by the state; that’s the purview of the Constitution and its case law: to prohibit government from seeking to disadvantage certain classes of persons for no other reason than who they are.

    TheProgressivePatriot understands this and is consistent and correct when responding, for example, to those hostile to gay Americans and who wish to disadvantage gay Americans through force of law – such as denying same-sex couples access to marriage law, which in fact violates the right of gay Americans to equal protection of the law as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.

    That the Constitution prohibits government from discriminating against gay Americans in no manner ‘violates’ the beliefs of those hostile to gay Americans, and those who oppose same-sex marriage.

    Last, the notion of ‘equal treatment’ of beliefs is errant sophistry – as long as the state governs in accordance with Constitutional case law, that some might perceive their beliefs to have been ‘violated’ by necessary, proper, and Constitutional laws is devoid of merit.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  9. emilynghiem
    Offline

    emilynghiem Constitutionalist / Universalist Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2010
    Messages:
    21,838
    Thanks Received:
    3,022
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    National Freedmen's Town District
    Ratings:
    +8,426
    Dear G.T. cc: TheProgressivePatriot
    This is EXACTLY the miscommunication/misperception I am trying to address and resolve.

    I'm saying that with ANY beliefs, people need this freedom to decide
    which they agree are good, consistent and align with their own beliefs,
    and which they do not agree with because they find them detrimental, conflicting, harmful
    or whatever reason they may have for not wanting to go with that belief.

    I'm saying GOVT should not make this decision FOR people,
    but PEOPLE should make their decisions about faith based beliefs.
    Public policy should not impose but REFLECT what people consent to.

    G.T. if I believed what you insinuated,
    then that argument would support the idea of people making laws that
    DENY same sex marriage or LGBT orientation/identity as "bad ideas."
    Clearly you should know by now that's not what I mean.

    I'm saying if we want to teach equal respect for people's freedom to exercise and express
    beliefs in LGBT orientation, identity and same-sex marriages, DESPITE
    other people lobbying against this as 'BAD IDEAS,' then the same freedom
    of choice should apply to other beliefs, such as Christian spiritual therapy
    for healing people of unwanted orientation (which OTHER people oppose
    by arguing that "ALL conversion or reparative therapy" are BAD IDEAS). There
    are other people who have found effective methods of this therapy to be
    helpful NOT harmful. So instead of discriminating against the WHOLE thing as "bad"
    why not distinguish WHICH practices or cases cause abuse or harm, and which do not.

    The reason people have the right to separate either LGBT beliefs or Christian beliefs from Govt
    is NOT that we believe such beliefs are "bad" or "good"
    but because it is NOT Govt business to establish beliefs, right OR wrong, good OR bad.
    Faith based beliefs are a matter of individual choice.*

    So even if Christian beliefs and practices are considered GOOD for people,
    that's NOT justification to legislate them through govt unless people consent
    (and likewise with socialist beliefs where people should have free choice
    in the terms of funding them instead of this getting legislated by majority mandates).

    *Now, if it comes to ACTIONS, then if those ACTIONS violate rights of others,
    that's different from BELIEFS that Govt cannot regulate.

    If there is some abusive bias or discrimination in policy,
    it should be addressed and resolved CORRECTLY. NOT BY OVERRCORRECTING
    where it ends up penalizing and discriminating the other way against the opposing side!
     
  10. emilynghiem
    Offline

    emilynghiem Constitutionalist / Universalist Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2010
    Messages:
    21,838
    Thanks Received:
    3,022
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    National Freedmen's Town District
    Ratings:
    +8,426
    Thank you C_Clayton_Jones

    Re: They are not at liberty, however, to seek to codify their hateful, bigoted, and racist beliefs in secular law.

    Because discriminatory biases are NOT supposed to be "codified into secular law"
    This is why I contest and oppose as unconstitutional such govt policies as the following:
    A. penalizing bakers and other businesses for NOT AGREEING to participate in or provide
    cake decorations or services pertaining to "same sex marriages" that violate their beliefs
    B. penalizing taxpayers for NOT buying into insurance or govt regulated health care programs
    that violate their Constitutional beliefs
    C. penalizing citizens for "asking questions" of transgender persons in public restrooms
    which ordinances such as the HERO ordinance in Houston sought to regulate as a form of "harassment"

    A. In the first case, bakers and other businesses have every right to decide what services they want to offer.
    As long as NOBODY can buy a "same sex wedding" cake (regardless of the race, gender, orientation, belief etc. of the customer)
    then that's NOT "discriminating against the person or customer";
    it's about refusing that SERVICE that the business does not agree to provide.

    So if you are trying to punish that baker or business,
    it's not because of the service it's because of their BELIEFS.
    The SERVICE was not offered to ANYONE, and that's what the business has the right to choose.
    The conflict was over BELIEFS, but Govt cannot regulate or penalize people for BELIEFS,
    so the case should have been resolved over what ACTIONS were abusive or discriminatory,
    instead of fighting over BELIEFS. The Govt should have stayed OUT of people's differences in beliefs,
    and only policed any actions that were discriminatory (such as if any CUSTOMERS were refused
    service or harassed for their orientation or beliefs, which is DIFFERENT from discriminating between
    TYPES OF SERVICES the businesses offers or not).

    B. in the case of ACA mandates, complainants argued these VIOLATED and penalized them for their
    Constitutional beliefs that (1) a Constitutional Amendment would be required before expanding duties of
    federal govt into requiring health insurance and related regulations (2) federal govt is not otherwise
    authorized to manage or regulate health care choices which are reserved to individuals and states
    (3) the same bill was not passed by Congress and ruled on by the Court, but a DIFFERENT "public health" bill
    was passed by Congress (again biased unconstitutionally against the beliefs of half the nation that it
    was not constitutional) while a re-interpretation as a "tax bill" was ruled by the Court as constitutional.
    (4) citizens were deprived of liberty without due process of law (5) federal govt had no authority to
    require citizens to pay to join religious organizations in order to qualify for exemptions, where such
    conditions constitute govt regulation on the basis of religion or creed.

    C_Clayton_Jones you and I agree more than disagree that Govt should not establish "bigoted" beliefs as law. (I call this BIASED, where the criteria I use is whether or not the public CONSENTS to the law or it is CONTESTED as having a faith based BIAS. It's not just a matter of being BIGOTED, the First Amendment does not specify that only "bigoted beliefs" cannot be established by govt but ANY religious or "faith based" beliefs. So I use the terms "faith based or biased" to cover all cases.)

    However where we seem to disagree, is you FAIL to apply this SAME standard
    to BELIEFS that YOU deem to be agreeable or good for the public interest
    but OTHER PEOPLE deem to be DISCRIMINATORY and AGAINST public interest.

    So you are indirectly promoting the legislation of biased beliefs, by DISCRIMINATING
    against OTHER people arguing those BELIEFS you support being legislated through govt are "harmful and bigoted."

    You are only protecting against such abuse of govt if it aligns with YOUR BELIEFS. But when it comes to OTHER PEOPLE's BELIEFS being protected from what THEY deem to be harmful or bigoted biases, then you discriminate and don't support equal protection for them!
     

Share This Page