CDZ Political Beliefs: Should these be barred from Govt where they violate beliefs of other citizens?

[emilynghiem]

If Political Beliefs or Creeds violate beliefs of other citizens, should such laws be barred from govt to establish but require consensus in interpreting or writing laws to prevent discrimination by creed?

 

[emilynghiem]

After talking with my farther left progressive friends, only one does not depend on Biden being in office to push his political beliefs. And that's mainly because Sanders or someone else is necessary. These Liberals who believe the purpose of govt is to provide for welfare as the reason for existence, have beliefs that absolutely rely on govt to establish health care or people are not protected equally in their world. Where they have to defend and rely on Biden and Congress to impose their political beliefs they cannot seem to practice or defend without Govt establishing their creed as a national religion. It is a similar belief system to Christians who have to have a Bible based govt or it isn't legitimate. They cannot tolerate, recognize or comply with any govt that doesn't follow God through Jesus Authority. As a Constitutionalist, I can only recognize laws and govt that meet Constitutional criteria, process and consent of the people where beliefs are involved, because that is the standard that was established by Convention to set up the rules between people States and Federal Govt. If we want to change these standards and rules, we need another Convention. I tried to explain to my Statist friends that their beliefs in right to health care are as important to them as right to life is for others. So if we don't allow one belief to be mandated through govt "based on faith it will save lives" it is unfair to mandate the other belief or it's discrimination by creed. Both would violate due process and beliefs of dissenters who believe that "less restrictive means" can save as many lives and still meet compelling govt interest without violating the beliefs and Constitutional rights of others. So refraining from establishing right to life beliefs as faith based means having the same respect and treatment of right to health care that can be practiced through Cooperatives without mandating for everyone through govt, as prolife programs are expected to operate. It is sad and shocking to me to find that so many people are so self absorbed in defending their own beliefs from infringement by others, they go too far and start abusing party and govt to impose their own beliefs that exclude or violate others. Two wrongs don't make it right to bully and abuse govt to discriminate by creed. But I was told emphatically by a right to govt health care adherent "he doesn't care about the rights or beliefs of others, because medicare for all will save lives." I told him medical cooperatives protect the same medicare pricing for all, while costing less than trying to mandate through govt and not violating anyone's rights and beliefs including prochoice and prolife. Christian spiritual healing would also save more lives, and enable prisons, mental wards, and death rows to be converted into medical treatment centers and teaching hospitals to cure the sick and prevent abuse, addiction, violent crime including rape and murder. Does that mean Christians can lobby govt to mandate Spiritual Healing to save lives and reduce the cost of crime and disease? "But that would never happen". What if Christians united and demanded these conditions be added to govt if their tax dollars are going to pay for health care and education? If LGBT beliefs and right to health care are going to be established through govt, why not require Spiritual Healing to cure Pedophilia and other addictive or abusive criminal disorders, including extreme violent political obsessive delusions for ALL citizens who demand that govt impose their beliefs by mandates "because their way is right and others are wrong". Either allow ALL political beliefs to be established by the same arguments defending LGBT as a minority class not requiring a majority to be protected by govt, or agree to SEPARATE political beliefs funded by party and keep these out of govt similar to other religious beliefs and creeds. We cannot change or force people to change their political beliefs, so why not agree to bar political beliefs from govt to avoid discrimination by creed? Www.ethics-commission.net

 

[Jarlaxle]

If Political Beliefs or Creeds violate beliefs of other citizens, should such laws be barred from govt to establish but require consensus in interpreting or writing laws to prevent discrimination by creed?

No, because I have no interest in thought police.

 

[sartre play]

Maters not what political party they willingly support to the very depths of stupide, SCREAMING & yelling hate filled nonsense, the crazy's have taken over are country. zero tolerance zero willingness to collaborate on any thing, so called leaders only afraid of lose of their job spewing nonsense. Embarrassing mess for anyone with half a brain.

 

[sartre play]

Our not are. spelling error.
anger never fixes anything.

 

[foggedinn]

If Political Beliefs or Creeds violate beliefs of other citizens, should such laws be barred from govt to establish but require consensus in interpreting or writing laws to prevent discrimination by creed?

Every creed or belief system offends someone. I believe that the Word of God is the Law and that everything else is politic. Witnesses that can't tell all they know because it would reveal sources or methods are all false witnesses and should be beaten with a stick.

 

[emilynghiem]

Note: I am adding a copy of a post that includes a summary of how to accommodate opposing political beliefs of parties otherwise interfering with equal representation. See the end of the comment below I am citing to support the argument for ways to separate political beliefs and parties from Govt. =========== This was originally in response to the attached meme (see Image): Glad there is divine humor to be made. I do believe things happen for a reason, and some people need these Democrats in office to heal and focus on solutions they couldn't do with distractions over Trump. However two facts remain: 1. Still 70-74 million who voted for Trump *include* 40-60% who didn't consent to rule changes on mail-in ballots "not voted on" by state legislatures as required by Constitutional agreed standards on election rules, where absentee ballots *notarized* under penalty of perjury would have allowed agreement on the rules and prevented the contested election disputes, disruptions to democratic representation, and consequent costs of resources, property and lives lost in the aftermath. And 2. the Statist political beliefs and practices by liberal Democrats and progressives cannot be established or enforced through Govt without violating Constitutional and Civil Rights laws and Protections of opposing citizens. Including those identifying as Libertarians, Constitutionalists, some Christians and Anarchists if they oppose Statism without seeking to impose theocracy or other fascism, and many Conservatives arguing against Discrimination by Creed. If Democrats support equal inclusion, representation down to the pronouns each person chooses to use, and changing state and national policies for 96% of the population to accommodate the beliefs, expressions, practices and identity of choice for LGBT making up 4% of the population, surely 40-60% of the 70 plus million voting Conservative, Republican or in favor of Trump deserve the same represenation, inclusion and protections as lobbied for LGBT in govt, media and all public institutions. If not, this is Discrimination by Creed, favoring LGBT beliefs, identity and practices from bullying and exclusion while Democrats lobby to punish, bully and exclude Conservatives for beliefs in limited govt and enforcing Rule of Law. If a whole Party abuses govt and solicits funds to conspire to violate civil rights by discrimination by creed and class, that should be prosecuted as a felony. Opponents should unite and sue to stop Statist abuse of Govt that violates beliefs in limits on Govt and rights of people and states, discriminates by creed against half the population of each state and the nation identifying with Conservative or with Libertarian or other anti-Statist beliefs, and conspiracy to violate equal protections and civil rights which is a criminal felony. That part is not a joke. This division in political beliefs should be taken seriously and accommodated for equally, instead of blaming both sides for their beliefs and continuing to bully each other which doesn't solve the problem. If we cannot agree on political beliefs, the parties should separate from govt, keep public policy neutral, and only require taxpayers to pay for policies that all people, states and parties agree should be federal govt and national policy for everyone. Anything disputed and not resolvable due to difference in political beliefs or creed should be separated from federal govt and decided by people, state or party so taxpayers who agree on the same policy can fund and follow their own practices without abusing govt to impose on dissenting taxpayers, parties or states.

 

[sartre play]

This is the most hate I have ever seen, and Its generated by people who are quick to jump on anything the pot stirring media throws out. like red meat to wolfs.

 

[Bernhard]

If Political Beliefs or Creeds violate beliefs of other citizens, should such laws be barred from govt to establish but require consensus in interpreting or writing laws to prevent discrimination by creed?

As a German, I'd say I'm fine with how we do things over here:

Freedom of speech and of opinion is protected, unless these opinions are a violation of the articles laid down in the constitution AND are presented with an "actively fighting attitude". There is a security agency, the Office for Protection of the Constitution ("Verfassungsschutz") that monitors anti-constitutional groups and can collect evidence that can be used in court trials to ban anti-consitutional parties or organizations.

If you think tolerating intolerance is a violation of free speech, I'd disagree with you and point you to the Paradox of Tolerance:

Paradox of tolerance - Wikipedia

You don't have to respect or even protect opinions of people who have the opinion that other people should no longer be allowed to voice their opinions.

Thanks to these laws, (West-)Germany banned the old Nazi German Reich Party in 1953 and the Communist Party in 1956. And the far-right AfD, as well as some parts of the far-left Linke party, are being monitored by the Verfassungsschutz.

Yet, the hurdles for a party ban are very high, and that's good. A case for banning the neo-Nazi NPD failed in the 00s. Better err on the side of freedom.

 

[Bernhard]

That said, I'd guess today's Republicans would have a problem, if German law applied.

They disagree that free and fair elections should decide who becomes President, which means they openly violate the Constitution. AND they have an actively fighting attitude towards the Constitution, by inciting mobs, militias and domestic terrorists, to attack the Constitution.

I'd see a case for a ban here.