North Korea has announced a freeze on nuclear testing and missile testing. This is a very unusual move for them.
I wonder if this is about Trump. It wouldn't surprise me if the North Koreans felt that Trump was the one president who might actually attack them despite the cost to South Korea, and that the only way to ensure North Korea could survive to the next American administration was to lay low and avoid provoking Trump.
People often forget that Watergate started with a burglary of the Democratic Party offices in the Watergate Hotel looking for dirt.
And here we are around 50 years later with another Republican President who is trying to cover up their role in another illegal break in of the DNC looking for dirt. This time technology has evolved and the break in was electronic involving electronic messages and files instead of paper messages and files. And the DNC is again forced to file another civil suit to ensure that another Republican president cannot use the government to obstruct justice.
People often forget that Watergate started with a burglary of the Democratic Party offices in the Watergate Hotel looking for dirt.
And here we are around 50 years later with another Republican President who is trying to cover up their role in another illegal break in of the DNC looking for dirt. This time technology has evolved and the break in was electronic involving electronic messages and files instead of paper messages and files. And the DNC is again forced to file another civil suit to ensure that another Republican president cannot use the government to obstruct justice.
The parallels to Watergate are all over the place, right down to the language Trump and Nixon both used (used) to try wish the situation away.
The "religious freedom" debate is such a strange one in that both sides are driven almost entirely by concerns about hypothetical and unlikely extremes. I suspect that very few people would actually care about the wedding cake case, for example, except that everyone sees one outcome as a prelude to an oppressive dystopia. There was an interesting article in The Atlantic a couple of months back about "equilibria" vs. "limits" and how the difference can exaggerate the magnitude of our disagreements. I was curious what y'all would think about it.
Religious Freedom bills are not what they pretend to be for.
They are used as a backdoor legal maneuver to allow Christianity to dictate what is allowed by the law and what is not. Essentially they are a way to seek a legal means to be a bigot and discriminate in ways that you are not otherwise legally allowed to do.
Basically a "get out of jail free" card for any law or thing you don't like. Just claim your sincerely held religious beliefs told you not to follow the law and service this or that person or group.
As far as I can tell, they're not even for that, although they might have that effect. I think their primary purpose is as culture-war symbols to convince evangelicals that Republicans are on their team. It is playing with fire from a civil rights standpoint, though, and I don't think that people's slippery-slope fears are entirely unfounded. I just wish they didn't dominate the conversation quite so thoroughly.
As far as I can tell, they're not even for that, although they might have that effect. I think their primary purpose is as culture-war symbols to convince evangelicals that Republicans are on their team. It is playing with fire from a civil rights standpoint, though, and I don't think that people's slippery-slope fears are entirely unfounded. I just wish they didn't dominate the conversation quite so thoroughly.
But it is what they are. You should call a duck a duck even if it's somewhat unpleasant to do that. This whole "both sides" stuff is ridiculous. "Well Jeb beat up and shot the guy but the guy maybe said something about Texas so both sides have a point." Both sides are not equal, both sides are not arguing in good faith.
As far as I can tell, they're not even for that, although they might have that effect. I think their primary purpose is as culture-war symbols to convince evangelicals that Republicans are on their team. It is playing with fire from a civil rights standpoint, though, and I don't think that people's slippery-slope fears are entirely unfounded. I just wish they didn't dominate the conversation quite so thoroughly.
In the guidelines the Trump Administration laid out (for example) a doctor or nurse would not be obligated to treat someone whose lifestyle they disagreed with on religious grounds (presumably someone gay or transgender). Now, of course, 99.99% of the time, this is never going to be an issue. But we live in a country with 300+ million people. Eventually, some doctor or nurse is going to take up on that offer, and someone will DIE because of it, all to protect "religious freedom" as some sort of abstract concept. As I have said before, if I invented a religion tomorrow that said "I refuse to treat or serve conservatives", it would have no more or less Constitutional validity than a Christian refusing to serve or treat a LGBT person. But I am beyond certain I would be excoriated and called ridiculous for doing so, and the same people pushing for the right to refuse service/treatment to the LGBT community would call me intolerant because it would, hypothetically, mean singling THEM out. And that is the point. My religious point of view WOULD be ridiculous. Where along the line did the essence of "freedom" become taking pleasure in purposefully hurting or making life difficult for others based on nothing but their sexual orientation or skin color?? What a bankrupt view of the concept. And one that can really only be held if you have no real perception of what actual persecution looks like.
@smeagolheart: I am arguing a limited both-sidesism here in one sense, which is that both sides tend to debate this on the basis of what they see as the logical conclusions of the opposition's proposed policies, and I don't think either extreme is very realistic. My impression it that a lot of people on the Christian right have good-faith concerns/delusions (informed by an atrocious media diet) that someone is going to come arrest them for praying or whatever. That's not going to happen, but I also don't think that firefighters will be allowed to refuse to save same-sex couples.
I alluded to a second sense, though, in which I see no moral equivalence here whatsoever: This is an intentional wedge issue chosen by Republican politicians. The magnified division is on them.
Hold on, did Jeb! beat someone up and shoot him? It's always the quiet ones.
@jjstraka34: Yeah, this is the sort of thing I'm talking about. You're taking it to the logical extreme. You're not wrong, but I can't shake the feeling that people are being tricked into talking past each other when the conversation goes there.
@jjstraka34: Yeah, this is the sort of thing I'm talking about. You're taking it to the logical extreme. You're not wrong, but I can't shake the feeling that people are being tricked into talking past each other when the conversation goes there.
It is the logical extreme, but in a country with a massive population, the logical extreme will eventually happen many times over. I'm quite sure there are less than half a dozen of these "bakery" cases, so that is small potatoes. Half a dozen deaths over the course of say, 4 or 5 years from medical personal not treating people is NOT small potatoes, even if the statistics are. And expecting even a "religious" doctor or nurse to treat anyone who is put in front of them in not a sign of impending totalitarianism.
I've read a bit of the declassified Comey memos. I saw little relevatory, but I do find Comey's writing style interesting. It's a very precise, methodical, detailed record. He clearly gave thought to documenting every relevant detail and clarifying every data point that might be interpreted in more than one way, as well as distinguishing his own interpretations from Trump's own words, and explaining where he and Trump had a different understanding of certain terms, like "honest loyalty." His saying early on that he had quoted Trump in places but avoided using quotation marks is a good example. He even thought about how the punctuation could distort the meaning of his notes.
I've read a bit of the declassified Comey memos. I saw little relevatory, but I do find Comey's writing style interesting. It's a very precise, methodical, detailed record. He clearly gave thought to documenting every relevant detail and clarifying every data point that might be interpreted in more than one way, as well as distinguishing his own interpretations from Trump's own words, and explaining where he and Trump had a different understanding of certain terms, like "honest loyalty." His saying early on that he had quoted Trump in places but avoided using quotation marks is a good example. He even thought about how the punctuation could distort the meaning of his notes.
Why anyone would believe Trump over Comey (despite I myself having MAJOR problems with how Comey handled the Clinton email investigation all through 2016) is beyond comprehension. Trump has proven for DECADES he is a pathological liar.
but I also don't think that firefighters will be allowed to refuse to save same-sex couples.
I alluded to a second sense, though, in which I see no moral equivalence here whatsoever: This is an intentional wedge issue chosen by Republican politicians. The magnified division is on them.
Hold on, did Jeb! beat someone up and shoot him? It's always the quiet ones.
No similarities intended to any Jeb living or dead.
I guarantee you that when something like a firefighter refuses to treat a gay couple and claims religious freedom that guy will not want for legal representation from Conservative groups and politicians.
The Trump administration has already said they will defend and protect health care workers who want to refuse to treat patients because of their religious beliefs. This will happen. Many Republicans seemingly want this scenario to happen-for people to be denied service on up to people dieing. Why else come out to say you will defend health care workers who refuse service on religious grounds.
The Republican party only offers wedge cultural issues. Their bread and butter is demonizing others - gays, non-Christians, Muslims, immigrants, Mexicans, liberals, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, now that they don't have anyone to hate they are eating each other.
but I also don't think that firefighters will be allowed to refuse to save same-sex couples.
I alluded to a second sense, though, in which I see no moral equivalence here whatsoever: This is an intentional wedge issue chosen by Republican politicians. The magnified division is on them.
Hold on, did Jeb! beat someone up and shoot him? It's always the quiet ones.
No similarities intended to any Jeb living or dead.
I guarantee you that when something like a firefighter refuses to treat a gay couple and claims religious freedom that guy will not want for legal representation from Conservative groups and politicians.
The Trump administration has already said they will defend and protect health care workers who want to refuse to treat patients because of their religious beliefs. This will happen. Many Republicans seemingly want this scenario to happen-for people to be denied service on up to people dieing. Why else come out to say you will defend health care workers who refuse service on religious grounds.
The Republican party only offers wedge cultural issues. Their bread and butter is demonizing others - gays, non-Christians, Muslims, immigrants, Mexicans, liberals, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, now that they don't have anyone to hate they are eating each other.
Just look at this tweet of Trump's from a few days ago. "Infested", "breeding", "crime". All in reference to immigrants. This is straight up how Nazi propaganda talked about Jews. Language deliberately meant to single out a certain group of people as vermin to be exterminated:
Right, I'm trying to differentiate between the Republican party/Trump administration, who know exactly what they're doing (on this narrow topic) and semi-engaged, vaguely conservative people who ask, "Why should the government force someone to make a cake?" I would like to get better at not answering that question with, "Why do you want gay people to die?" We can and should explain that we're worried about the eventual consequences, but I think the left would benefit from being more aware that a lot of people don't come to the debate thinking about it in those terms.
That average guy may not be after any big picture goal but that seems to exactly be the goal of the Republican politicians pushing the religious freedom laws - Healthcare workers not treating people. The Trump administration explicitly said this is their goal.
As far as I can tell, they're not even for that, although they might have that effect. I think their primary purpose is as culture-war symbols to convince evangelicals that Republicans are on their team. It is playing with fire from a civil rights standpoint, though, and I don't think that people's slippery-slope fears are entirely unfounded. I just wish they didn't dominate the conversation quite so thoroughly.
In the guidelines the Trump Administration laid out (for example) a doctor or nurse would not be obligated to treat someone whose lifestyle they disagreed with on religious grounds (presumably someone gay or transgender).
I'm sorry to say but this is an outright lie. They can refuse to participate in a sex change surgery, but its not a carte blanche license to discriminate. This is the exact kind of nonsense slippery slope argument Joluv was talking about.
I'd generally agree that the concerns that some on the Christian Right have may be overblown, but there is some worrisome precedent abroad. In Denmakr the predominant church is forced to conduct same-sex weddings, on the basis that it is a state actor under their constitution. I severely doubt that this would ever be the case here, but I personally know two people who would force priests to conduct same sex weddings under anti-discrimination law. It's a fringe position on the left, but it does exists
As far as I can tell, they're not even for that, although they might have that effect. I think their primary purpose is as culture-war symbols to convince evangelicals that Republicans are on their team. It is playing with fire from a civil rights standpoint, though, and I don't think that people's slippery-slope fears are entirely unfounded. I just wish they didn't dominate the conversation quite so thoroughly.
In the guidelines the Trump Administration laid out (for example) a doctor or nurse would not be obligated to treat someone whose lifestyle they disagreed with on religious grounds (presumably someone gay or transgender).
I'm sorry to say but this is an outright lie. They can refuse to participate in a sex change surgery, but its not a carte blanche license to discriminate. This is the exact kind of nonsense slippery slope argument Joluv was talking about.
I'd generally agree that the concerns that some on the Christian Right have may be overblown, but there is some worrisome precedent abroad. In Denmakr the predominant church is forced to conduct same-sex weddings, on the basis that it is a state actor under their constitution. I severely doubt that this would ever be the case here, but I personally know two people who would force priests to conduct same sex weddings under anti-discrimination law. It's a fringe position on the left, but it does exists
I disagree and would say that this is exactly a carte blanche license to discriminate. How is it not?
Who is going to say you don't have a sincerely held belief if you say you have one? In any scenario would any Republican come out against you if you say you are a christian with a sincerely held belief? No they wouldn't.
The "sincerely held religious belief" is a ridiculous arbitrary standard. And there can't really be a better one because religion relies on faith which is not really measurable or quantifiable. These laws are not subject to any limits. Because you can't quantify faith, can you? Would these religious zealots want to exclude someone who found faith yesterday or a week or a year? No of course not. There's never going to be a mention of how long it has to be sincerely held just like there is no requirement no proof. So they want it where you can decide one morning that fuck it you aren't going to treat LGBTQ people for anything because you feel it is your religious belief.
There are no limits on this. What are the limits? This is Republican lawmakers and Trump puting religion over the rule of law on us all. Oh smeagol, Pooh pooh, you say, they wouldn't do that. The hell they wouldn't. If there is no ceiling, do you think that they won't be happy to blow by accepted norms? What restraint has Trump or any republican shown ever? If you believe that these guys can be trusted to be moderate I've got a Supreme Court seat to sell you. Religious freedom is a fake standard that you can't quantify. It's got to go. Any rational judge (so not judges Trump is appointing) would see right through these charades and strike down these licenses to discriminate. If you want to be a bigot do it on your own time.
According to the ACLU lawyer "This administration has taken a very expansive view of religious liberty," she said in an interview "It understands religious liberty to override antidiscrimination principles."
There are many examples of health workers refusing care on religious grounds, including a nurse who didn't want to provide post-operative care to a woman who had an abortion, a pediatrician who declined to see a child because his parents were lesbians and a fertility doctor who didn't want to provide services to a lesbian couple. These examples are a feature not a bug. Why is this the goal of these guys? Once you are fighting for healthcare workers to discriminate there is no limit you are already there.
No limits. They can't say this is only for Christians because then the jig would really be up and they'd be outed as the religious bigots they are. So they have to defend everything. And as I've said you can't quantify this crap. Anybody can have a sincerely held belief. It's not logical and that's the point because it's based on faith which is not logical or quantifiable. It's ridiculous to use this as a law in 2018.
The real kicker here of course would be the nurse not providing post-op care to someone who had an abortion. Let'st stipulate we can understand if she didn't want to participate in the ACTUAL abortion. But refusal to treat a complication arising from an abortion?? How is that anything other than that nurse dealing out her own personal punishment?? I'm sure many doctors and nurses might not be thrilled when a killer injured by police is brought in clinging to life after a confrontation, but they treat that patient regardless of what they may or may not have been guilty of. So even if that nurse believed the woman who got an abortion was guilty of murder, what possible justification can there be for refusing to treat that woman AFTER the procedure she viewed as murder took place?? If this is the standard, why not just stop hospital treatments for everyone suspected of a crime (abortion is NOT a crime, but assuming the nurse views it this way, the analogy still stands)??
Here is an example from 2011 of a group of nurses who were NOT forced to participate in the actual abortion, but also refused to participate in ANY care of the patient, including routine before and after patient care. This is a concrete example of exactly this issue. It's not enough for them to not have to participate in the actual procedure. Apparently even having to ask patients if they are allergic to any medication or taking standard medical readings is too much to ask. We are talking about them literally not even wanting to write down the patient's name. At that point I say, suck it up or get another damn job. You are already being catered to in almost every way possible. What's the next step, an excused absence whenever a patient getting an abortion steps into the building?? There are reasonable exceptions to certain tasks in any job, but at a certain point it is on YOU to either accept what the job of being a nurse is, or find employment at a facility that caters 100% to your personal morality. If you are so vehemently opposed to abortion that you insist that you have NO contact with a patient who may be getting one, just how narcissistic and self-righteous do you have to be to think you should be able to dictate how the entire clinic or hospital should run, expecting the entire flow of the day to bend and shape to your whim?? A classic case of the hospital giving a mile, and these particular nurses taking 100.
And as for pharmacists, I have even less tolerance for the total nonsense of not filling prescriptions they find morally objectionable. A doctor filled out the prescription for a patient. You aren't that person's judge. Either fill the damn thing, or lose your license. A Muslim Jimmy John's driver isn't going to get an exemption from his employer so that he doesn't have to deliver sandwiches with pork in them. Having sincere religious beliefs and having religious freedom doesn't mean you have the right to immunity from the everyday inertia of how society functions. What other professions does this kind of entitlement to special treatment even apply to besides those involved in some part of the chain of the medical profession?? Does anyone here actually have a job in which raising a religious objection to a task wouldn't get them laughed out of the office?? As has been mentioned, a religious exemption is almost by definition arbitrary, subjective, unquantifiable and can take almost any form on any subject. But we all know this entire debate is about CHRISTIAN beliefs, which are held as unique and supreme in American society.
By the way, there was a similar issue about 10 years ago in which a small amount of Muslim cashiers were refusing to handle pork products while working the checkout counter. They shouldn't have been catered to either. Some companies like Target did CHOOSE internally to reassign those employees to another department, but there sure as hell wasn't an order from the Executive Branch of the United States protecting their right to not have to do so.
Let's say this issue comes up again. Anyone here honestly think the Trump Administration is going to stick up for the "religious liberty" of those Muslim cashiers?? Fat chance.
As far as I can tell, they're not even for that, although they might have that effect. I think their primary purpose is as culture-war symbols to convince evangelicals that Republicans are on their team. It is playing with fire from a civil rights standpoint, though, and I don't think that people's slippery-slope fears are entirely unfounded. I just wish they didn't dominate the conversation quite so thoroughly.
In the guidelines the Trump Administration laid out (for example) a doctor or nurse would not be obligated to treat someone whose lifestyle they disagreed with on religious grounds (presumably someone gay or transgender).
I'm sorry to say but this is an outright lie. They can refuse to participate in a sex change surgery, but its not a carte blanche license to discriminate. This is the exact kind of nonsense slippery slope argument Joluv was talking about.
I would take a position between you. - the guidelines don't actually change the law at all, i.e. they're a statement of policy rather than regulatory. In that sense the guidelines don't authorize anything new - so if a doctor was in the past required to treat a patient by law then in principle they still would be. - however, the law is not fixed. Even where the wording of laws does not change, the interpretation of those words by courts can change radically over time. Bearing that in mind I would argue that the guidelines are important and could indeed affect future court judgments.
Pretty much all the issues we discuss in this thread relate to balancing of rights - how one person's right to do as they want weighs in the scale against the potential consequences that person's actions could have for other people. The balance accepted by society changes over time, so it's not surprising that the way courts interpret the law also changes over time.
Do I find it conceivable that the SCOTUS could give sufficient priority to freedom of religion to allow something like refusal to treat certain people? Yes, I do. The groundwork for that has already been laid with the decisions in the various cake cases. They have made a distinction between providing a standard retail product (where you can't refuse) and an individual service (where you can). I'm sure medical care would come under the service category (even something like prescription services where in most cases there is no service element in reality), so following the same distinction a nurse would be entitled to refuse to provide care for gays. The only thing that would prevent that happening is the historic view that medical services are a special category and should be offered to everyone in need. That's where the Trump guidelines are important because they (or more accurately the statements made by the administration about them) seem to have been designed to weaken the distinctiveness of medical services. While that position is not binding on the SCOTUS I think it's reasonable to expect that it would have some persuasive effect.
What is *not* up for debate is that the best long-term chance for the survival of the species we know as "human being" will not be found by staying stuck on this one planet. There is a deadline in the future which we *cannot* alter--one day the Sun *will* swell into a red giant as it goes into its death phase, roasting this planet into a charred hunk of rock. If we haven't made a foothold on the Moon, then Mars, and then beyond that then we deserve to join the dinosaurs in the Hall of Failed Species. Of course, that eventuality presumes that a global pandemic hasn't wiped out so many people that recovery is not possible (the survivors will linger until they and their descendants die out from insufficient population) or that a "planet-killer" meteor has not struck.
The deadline is MUCH earlier than "the sun will go nova", which is still a few billion years off.
The carbon cycle will break down and photosynthesizing plants will die off in about 600 million years. Higher life dies out by 800 million years when all photosynthesis stops for not being enough carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and free oxygen disappears from the planet shortly afterwards.
From then on, Earth becomes increasingly uninhabitable due to ever rising temperatures and decreasing atmosphere from solar wind blowing it away due to a collapse of the Earth's magnetic field (caused by Earth's core solidifying), up to about 2.8 billion years, by which point even at the poles the Earth will be too hot for liquid water.
From then on, Earth becomes increasingly uninhabitable due to ever rising temperatures and decreasing atmosphere from solar wind blowing it away due to a collapse of the Earth's magnetic field (caused by Earth's core solidifying)
A really interesting, but really depressing read. Spoiler alert: Everyone and everything dies.
Isnt this the case with Mars, currently? I feel like I've read that Mars' core has solidified, and as a result, has only a token Magnetic field that isnt strong enough deflect solar radiation and the like.
I dont think Mars is ever going to be really "Habitable". I'm sure some people will eventually live there, but it'll be like the ISS or a lunar colony - a small refuge we use technology to make feasible, the planet at large being untenable for human life.
A really interesting, but really depressing read. Spoiler alert: Everyone and everything dies.
I wasn't going into details, just giving the quick and dirty version. But yes, at best by those times life will have become "it's life, Jim, but not as we know it" before everything dies.
I concur with @BallpointMan--habitation on Mars will have to be pressurized buildings joined together with airlocks. I would volunteer to go to Mars but by the time that is an option I will be far too old to be useful.
@smeagolheart "They are used as a backdoor legal maneuver to allow Christianity to dictate what is allowed by the law and what is not. Essentially they are a way to seek a legal means to be a bigot and discriminate in ways that you are not otherwise legally allowed to do."
The real kicker is that its not about religious freedom or Christianity at all. This crap is directly opposed to actual Christian doctrine. People are hiding behind "religious freedom" as an excuse to exercise their bigotry.
@smeagolheart "They are used as a backdoor legal maneuver to allow Christianity to dictate what is allowed by the law and what is not. Essentially they are a way to seek a legal means to be a bigot and discriminate in ways that you are not otherwise legally allowed to do."
The real kicker is that its not about religious freedom or Christianity at all. This crap is directly opposed to actual Christian doctrine. People are hiding behind "religious freedom" as an excuse to exercise their bigotry.
I'm not even opposed to nurses being allowed to not participate in abortions, from a purely practical point of view rather than a legal one. It's no good for anyone involved to have them participate in the actual procedure (though I do have to personally question why they are working at a clinic that provides them if they THAT opposed to it). But the line has to be drawn somewhere are far as basic duties of your job. I mean at a certain point, you could argue the guy whose job it is to plow snow in the parking lot to open up the parking space for the woman who is getting an abortion is "facilitating" in the act.
As for gender surgery, maybe I am naive about the medical profession, but don't most doctors who perform surgeries choose a specific type to become experts in?? Why would there ever be a situation where a doctor who has made the choice to learn and study how to do gender reassignment surgery have any moral objection to performing it?? That would be like me taking a job as a window washer at the Empire State building if I was deathly afraid of heights.
Maybe we are making too big of a deal about how often these cases will actually come up. But that begs the question of why it even needed to be addressed in the first place, if not as a way to throw a bone to the far-right base of the party.
A really interesting, but really depressing read. Spoiler alert: Everyone and everything dies.
I wasn't going into details, just giving the quick and dirty version. But yes, at best by those times life will have become "it's life, Jim, but not as we know it" before everything dies.
I concur with @BallpointMan--habitation on Mars will have to be pressurized buildings joined together with airlocks. I would volunteer to go to Mars but by the time that is an option I will be far too old to be useful.
It seems to me we have sort of given up on actual human exploration of space in the last few decades. We went to the Moon in 1969. I'm sure most people would have guessed that we would have already been to Mars by now if you asked them 50 years ago in the wake of that accomplishment. But it doesn't seem we have made any progress on that front whatsoever. I doubt it will even happen in the lifetime of the great-grandchildren of those posting now.
A really interesting, but really depressing read. Spoiler alert: Everyone and everything dies.
I wasn't going into details, just giving the quick and dirty version. But yes, at best by those times life will have become "it's life, Jim, but not as we know it" before everything dies.
I concur with @BallpointMan--habitation on Mars will have to be pressurized buildings joined together with airlocks. I would volunteer to go to Mars but by the time that is an option I will be far too old to be useful.
It seems to me we have sort of given up on actual human exploration of space in the last few decades. We went to the Moon in 1969. I'm sure most people would have guessed that we would have already been to Mars by now if you asked them 50 years ago in the wake of that accomplishment. But it doesn't seem we have made any progress on that front whatsoever. I doubt it will even happen in the lifetime of the great-grandchildren of those posting now.
Living on Mars may or may not happen in the foreseeable future, but I think there's a realistic chance of a manned visit to Mars even in my lifetime. NASA are planning manned flights there by the 2030s and there are plenty of other agencies with aspirations to go as well.
The moon landing was hugely accelerated as a result of political pressure driven by international competition. It's quite possible the same could happen again with respect to Mars. Russia has announced an intention to go in the 2040s, but I think a more likely candidate to trigger another space race would be China.
Comments
I wonder if this is about Trump. It wouldn't surprise me if the North Koreans felt that Trump was the one president who might actually attack them despite the cost to South Korea, and that the only way to ensure North Korea could survive to the next American administration was to lay low and avoid provoking Trump.
They are used as a backdoor legal maneuver to allow Christianity to dictate what is allowed by the law and what is not. Essentially they are a way to seek a legal means to be a bigot and discriminate in ways that you are not otherwise legally allowed to do.
Basically a "get out of jail free" card for any law or thing you don't like. Just claim your sincerely held religious beliefs told you not to follow the law and service this or that person or group.
I alluded to a second sense, though, in which I see no moral equivalence here whatsoever: This is an intentional wedge issue chosen by Republican politicians. The magnified division is on them.
Hold on, did Jeb! beat someone up and shoot him? It's always the quiet ones.
I guarantee you that when something like a firefighter refuses to treat a gay couple and claims religious freedom that guy will not want for legal representation from Conservative groups and politicians.
The Trump administration has already said they will defend and protect health care workers who want to refuse to treat patients because of their religious beliefs. This will happen. Many Republicans seemingly want this scenario to happen-for people to be denied service on up to people dieing. Why else come out to say you will defend health care workers who refuse service on religious grounds.
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/01/18/578811426/trump-will-protect-health-workers-who-reject-patients-on-religious-grounds
The Republican party only offers wedge cultural issues. Their bread and butter is demonizing others - gays, non-Christians, Muslims, immigrants, Mexicans, liberals, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, now that they don't have anyone to hate they are eating each other.
I'd generally agree that the concerns that some on the Christian Right have may be overblown, but there is some worrisome precedent abroad. In Denmakr the predominant church is forced to conduct same-sex weddings, on the basis that it is a state actor under their constitution. I severely doubt that this would ever be the case here, but I personally know two people who would force priests to conduct same sex weddings under anti-discrimination law. It's a fringe position on the left, but it does exists
Who is going to say you don't have a sincerely held belief if you say you have one? In any scenario would any Republican come out against you if you say you are a christian with a sincerely held belief? No they wouldn't.
The "sincerely held religious belief" is a ridiculous arbitrary standard. And there can't really be a better one because religion relies on faith which is not really measurable or quantifiable. These laws are not subject to any limits. Because you can't quantify faith, can you? Would these religious zealots want to exclude someone who found faith yesterday or a week or a year? No of course not. There's never going to be a mention of how long it has to be sincerely held just like there is no requirement no proof. So they want it where you can decide one morning that fuck it you aren't going to treat LGBTQ people for anything because you feel it is your religious belief.
There are no limits on this. What are the limits? This is Republican lawmakers and Trump puting religion over the rule of law on us all. Oh smeagol, Pooh pooh, you say, they wouldn't do that. The hell they wouldn't. If there is no ceiling, do you think that they won't be happy to blow by accepted norms? What restraint has Trump or any republican shown ever? If you believe that these guys can be trusted to be moderate I've got a Supreme Court seat to sell you. Religious freedom is a fake standard that you can't quantify. It's got to go. Any rational judge (so not judges Trump is appointing) would see right through these charades and strike down these licenses to discriminate. If you want to be a bigot do it on your own time.
https://www.cnn.com/2016/04/06/us/religious-freedom-laws-why-now/index.html
Trump signed an executive order
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/presidential-executive-order-promoting-free-speech-religious-liberty/
"It shall be the policy of the executive branch to vigorously enforce Federal law’s robust protections for religious freedom. " Does it say anything about reasonable enforcement? No. No limits.
Trump administration has expanded religious freedom "protections" for doctors, nurses and other health care workers who object to performing procedures.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/18/us/health-care-office-abortion-contraception.html
According to the ACLU lawyer "This administration has taken a very expansive view of religious liberty," she said in an interview "It understands religious liberty to override antidiscrimination principles."
There are many examples of health workers refusing care on religious grounds, including a nurse who didn't want to provide post-operative care to a woman who had an abortion, a pediatrician who declined to see a child because his parents were lesbians and a fertility doctor who didn't want to provide services to a lesbian couple. These examples are a feature not a bug. Why is this the goal of these guys? Once you are fighting for healthcare workers to discriminate there is no limit you are already there.
No limits. They can't say this is only for Christians because then the jig would really be up and they'd be outed as the religious bigots they are. So they have to defend everything. And as I've said you can't quantify this crap. Anybody can have a sincerely held belief. It's not logical and that's the point because it's based on faith which is not logical or quantifiable. It's ridiculous to use this as a law in 2018.
Here is an example from 2011 of a group of nurses who were NOT forced to participate in the actual abortion, but also refused to participate in ANY care of the patient, including routine before and after patient care. This is a concrete example of exactly this issue. It's not enough for them to not have to participate in the actual procedure. Apparently even having to ask patients if they are allergic to any medication or taking standard medical readings is too much to ask. We are talking about them literally not even wanting to write down the patient's name. At that point I say, suck it up or get another damn job. You are already being catered to in almost every way possible. What's the next step, an excused absence whenever a patient getting an abortion steps into the building?? There are reasonable exceptions to certain tasks in any job, but at a certain point it is on YOU to either accept what the job of being a nurse is, or find employment at a facility that caters 100% to your personal morality. If you are so vehemently opposed to abortion that you insist that you have NO contact with a patient who may be getting one, just how narcissistic and self-righteous do you have to be to think you should be able to dictate how the entire clinic or hospital should run, expecting the entire flow of the day to bend and shape to your whim?? A classic case of the hospital giving a mile, and these particular nurses taking 100.
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/12/umdnj_settles_with_nurses_over.html
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/01/18/578811426/trump-will-protect-health-workers-who-reject-patients-on-religious-grounds
And as for pharmacists, I have even less tolerance for the total nonsense of not filling prescriptions they find morally objectionable. A doctor filled out the prescription for a patient. You aren't that person's judge. Either fill the damn thing, or lose your license. A Muslim Jimmy John's driver isn't going to get an exemption from his employer so that he doesn't have to deliver sandwiches with pork in them. Having sincere religious beliefs and having religious freedom doesn't mean you have the right to immunity from the everyday inertia of how society functions. What other professions does this kind of entitlement to special treatment even apply to besides those involved in some part of the chain of the medical profession?? Does anyone here actually have a job in which raising a religious objection to a task wouldn't get them laughed out of the office?? As has been mentioned, a religious exemption is almost by definition arbitrary, subjective, unquantifiable and can take almost any form on any subject. But we all know this entire debate is about CHRISTIAN beliefs, which are held as unique and supreme in American society.
By the way, there was a similar issue about 10 years ago in which a small amount of Muslim cashiers were refusing to handle pork products while working the checkout counter. They shouldn't have been catered to either. Some companies like Target did CHOOSE internally to reassign those employees to another department, but there sure as hell wasn't an order from the Executive Branch of the United States protecting their right to not have to do so.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/17665989/ns/business-us_business/t/target-shifts-muslims-who-wont-ring-pork/#.Wtr7g4jwZPY
Let's say this issue comes up again. Anyone here honestly think the Trump Administration is going to stick up for the "religious liberty" of those Muslim cashiers?? Fat chance.
- the guidelines don't actually change the law at all, i.e. they're a statement of policy rather than regulatory. In that sense the guidelines don't authorize anything new - so if a doctor was in the past required to treat a patient by law then in principle they still would be.
- however, the law is not fixed. Even where the wording of laws does not change, the interpretation of those words by courts can change radically over time. Bearing that in mind I would argue that the guidelines are important and could indeed affect future court judgments.
Pretty much all the issues we discuss in this thread relate to balancing of rights - how one person's right to do as they want weighs in the scale against the potential consequences that person's actions could have for other people. The balance accepted by society changes over time, so it's not surprising that the way courts interpret the law also changes over time.
Do I find it conceivable that the SCOTUS could give sufficient priority to freedom of religion to allow something like refusal to treat certain people? Yes, I do. The groundwork for that has already been laid with the decisions in the various cake cases. They have made a distinction between providing a standard retail product (where you can't refuse) and an individual service (where you can). I'm sure medical care would come under the service category (even something like prescription services where in most cases there is no service element in reality), so following the same distinction a nurse would be entitled to refuse to provide care for gays. The only thing that would prevent that happening is the historic view that medical services are a special category and should be offered to everyone in need. That's where the Trump guidelines are important because they (or more accurately the statements made by the administration about them) seem to have been designed to weaken the distinctiveness of medical services. While that position is not binding on the SCOTUS I think it's reasonable to expect that it would have some persuasive effect.
The carbon cycle will break down and photosynthesizing plants will die off in about 600 million years. Higher life dies out by 800 million years when all photosynthesis stops for not being enough carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and free oxygen disappears from the planet shortly afterwards.
From then on, Earth becomes increasingly uninhabitable due to ever rising temperatures and decreasing atmosphere from solar wind blowing it away due to a collapse of the Earth's magnetic field (caused by Earth's core solidifying), up to about 2.8 billion years, by which point even at the poles the Earth will be too hot for liquid water.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_far_future
A really interesting, but really depressing read. Spoiler alert: Everyone and everything dies.
Isnt this the case with Mars, currently? I feel like I've read that Mars' core has solidified, and as a result, has only a token Magnetic field that isnt strong enough deflect solar radiation and the like.
I dont think Mars is ever going to be really "Habitable". I'm sure some people will eventually live there, but it'll be like the ISS or a lunar colony - a small refuge we use technology to make feasible, the planet at large being untenable for human life.
(Please correct me if I am wrong on this!)
I concur with @BallpointMan--habitation on Mars will have to be pressurized buildings joined together with airlocks. I would volunteer to go to Mars but by the time that is an option I will be far too old to be useful.
The real kicker is that its not about religious freedom or Christianity at all. This crap is directly opposed to actual Christian doctrine. People are hiding behind "religious freedom" as an excuse to exercise their bigotry.
As for gender surgery, maybe I am naive about the medical profession, but don't most doctors who perform surgeries choose a specific type to become experts in?? Why would there ever be a situation where a doctor who has made the choice to learn and study how to do gender reassignment surgery have any moral objection to performing it?? That would be like me taking a job as a window washer at the Empire State building if I was deathly afraid of heights.
Maybe we are making too big of a deal about how often these cases will actually come up. But that begs the question of why it even needed to be addressed in the first place, if not as a way to throw a bone to the far-right base of the party.
The moon landing was hugely accelerated as a result of political pressure driven by international competition. It's quite possible the same could happen again with respect to Mars. Russia has announced an intention to go in the 2040s, but I think a more likely candidate to trigger another space race would be China.