A SCOTUS Opening

[NATI BENGALS]

(10-27-2020, 10:00 AM)PhilHos Wrote: So ACB is really a handmaiden? Really? Are you sure about that?

Yea I mean. Most people say

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jemimamcevoy/2020/10/07/what-does-it-mean-that-amy-coney-barrett-served-as-a-handmaid-in-a-religious-group/#216a572e8932

Ya know many are saying..

Just saying

And it doesn't really sound all bad. But it is what it is. So maybe don't get so butt hurt around here guys.

[*PhilHos*]

(10-27-2020, 10:05 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: I'm sorry. I was talking about the make up and character of our new scotus member. I don't know what you are talking about. 

Do you think she is a robot who knows how to read the constitution or something?

So you didn't call her a handmaiden?

(10-27-2020, 08:49 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Trust me I have full faith in the handmaiden 

No, I was right you did. So, unless you can show she is an actual handmaiden, then you weren't "calling it like it is" or "calling a spade a spade". You were belittling a woman based on her religion.

[GMDino]

(10-27-2020, 10:05 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: I'm sorry. I was talking about the make up and character of our new scotus member. I don't know what you are talking about. 

Do you think she is a robot who knows how to read the constitution or something?

No way she's that.  If she was she'd have known what was in the first amendment. 

[CJD]

(10-27-2020, 10:08 AM)PhilHos Wrote: So you didn't call her a handmaiden?


No, I was right you did. So, unless you can show she is an actual handmaiden, then you weren't "calling it like it is" or "calling a spade a spade". You were belittling a woman based on her religion.

I think that's a reference to the fact that The Handmaid's Tale, the book about a dystopian future where women are treated like breeding machines more than people, was based on People of Praise, among other religious zealot groups.

And, if I'm not mistaken, ACB literally had the title Handmaid in that group.

[*PhilHos*]

(10-27-2020, 10:07 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Yea I mean. Most people say

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jemimamcevoy/2020/10/07/what-does-it-mean-that-amy-coney-barrett-served-as-a-handmaid-in-a-religious-group/#216a572e8932

Ya know many are saying..

Just saying

And it doesn't really sound all bad. But it is what it is. So maybe don't get so butt hurt around here guys.

Oooooooooooooooooh, so you were pointing out she was a religious leader, not referring her to a "handmaiden" (typo on your part, I'm sure as the her title was "handmaid") in an attempt to belittle her. My bad. 

[*bfine32*]

I think we can all agree the the terms used to describe ACB recently in this thread were meant to attack her character and religious beliefs. That's to be expected in this forum. What's a little surprising is the support they've gotten.

[*PhilHos*]

(10-27-2020, 10:11 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I think that's a reference to the fact that The Handmaid's Tale, the book about a dystopian future where women are treated like breeding machines more than people, was based on People of Praise, among other religious zealot groups. And, if I'm not mistaken, ACB literally had the title Handmaid in that group.

No, I get that. But I don't think Nati realizes that a 'handmaid' in People of Praise was a leader. It'd be like me being critical of Pelosi because she serves as Speaker of the House.

[GMDino]

(10-27-2020, 10:11 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I think that's a reference to the fact that The Handmaid's Tale, the book about a dystopian future where women are treated like breeding machines more than people, was based on People of Praise, among other religious zealot groups.

And, if I'm not mistaken, ACB literally had the title Handmaid in that group.

Dawg haven't you learned that religion does not matter and cannot be used as a reason for someone to be disqualified for a position unless it's one of "those" religions like Islam?

https://www.indy100.com/article/marjorie-taylor-greene-ilhan-omar-rashida-tlaib-republican-muslim-bible-9678431
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-kamala-harris-sworn-bible-idUSKCN25E1UA
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/obama-used-quran-for-oath/

And that doesn't even get into what the POTUS says.

Or the number of "anti-Sharia law" bills passed in the US.

Religion is only bad when it is not the majority religion.

[NATI BENGALS]

(10-27-2020, 10:17 AM)PhilHos Wrote: No, I get that. But I don't think Nati realizes that a 'handmaid' in People of Praise was a leader. It'd be like me being critical of Pelosi because she serves as Speaker of the House.

jfc man i posted the article where you read about

[*PhilHos*]

(10-27-2020, 10:17 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I think we can all agree the the terms used to describe ACB recently in this thread were meant to attack her character and religious beliefs. That's to be expected in this forum. What's a little surprising is the support they've gotten.

To be fair, they have no other avenues to attack her. She's intelligent, not ugly, and has plenty of legal experience, though, I guess they could try to argue that she doesn't have enough JUDICIAL experience. But, that'd be hard to do when you're only forms of arguing are relegated to making fun of people. 

[*PhilHos*]

(10-27-2020, 10:21 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: jfc man i posted the article where you read about

Oooooooooooooooooh, so you were pointing out she was a religious leader, not referring her to a "handmaiden" (typo on your part, I'm sure as her title was "handmaid") in an attempt to belittle her. My bad. 

[CJD]

(10-27-2020, 10:17 AM)PhilHos Wrote: No, I get that. But I don't think Nati realizes that a 'handmaid' in People of Praise was a leader. It'd be like me being critical of Pelosi because she serves as Speaker of the House.

I don't know much about the People of Praise or their leadership structure or even their internal functioning. Maybe they are a normal religious group that is being unfairly maligned as a cult. But if they are actually a religious cult that treats women similarly to a man's property (harkening back to the olden times when women had very few rights and were reliant on their husband to provide for them), then I think her relation to that group would be a negative and wouldn't be bigoted towards religion to point that out.

But regardless of how the People of Praise actually function, I think Nati's reference is more closely tied to The Handmaid's Tale than the actual People of Praise.

To follow your analogy, it'd be like if someone made a dystopian story about the US Congress where the Speaker of the House is a slave to the other members of Congress who has been abused to the point where they can no longer speak, making the title "Speaker" painfully ironic (I know, it's a weird analogy, but it's what I'm working with haha).

[GMDino]

(10-27-2020, 10:22 AM)PhilHos Wrote: To be fair, they have no other avenues to attack her. She's intelligent, not ugly, and has plenty of legal experience, though, I guess they could try to argue that she doesn't have enough JUDICIAL experience. But, that'd be hard to do when you're only forms of arguing are relegated to making fun of people. 

She's made some rulings that can lead thinking people to believe that she will make future rulings they don't agree with.  She couldn't answer some basic questions (from Republicans) during her "hearing" and they even limited debate so they could hurry up before the election to force her through.

Her, what can be described as "extreme", religious views are more than fair game just as anyone's would be if they were being put in a position for life.  

Now, none of that means she will do her job poorly or unfairly.  But people having a problem (or "attacking" her as the right likes to say) is relevant.  If she does, however, rule using more of her religion than the constitution there is nothing that can be done so it is worth noting her beliefs.

Bringing up her looks is a very right wing thing to do though.  I wouldn't have expected that from you based on the way you usually post.

[NATI BENGALS]

(10-27-2020, 10:24 AM)PhilHos Wrote: Oooooooooooooooooh, so you were pointing out she was a religious leader, not referring her to a "handmaiden" (typo on your part, I'm sure as her title was "handmaid") in an attempt to belittle her. My bad. 

mixing up the cult terms. my bad

[*bfine32*]

(10-27-2020, 01:41 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Woohoo! Here’s to 40+ years of having some weirdo religious cult lady judging over me

(10-27-2020, 10:28 AM)GMDino Wrote: She's made some rulings that can lead thinking people to believe that she will make future rulings they don't agree with.  She couldn't answer some basic questions (from Republicans) during her "hearing" and they even limited debate so they could hurry up before the election to force her through.

Her, what can be described as "extreme", religious views are more than fair game just as anyone's would be if they were being put in a position for life.  

Now, none of that means she will do her job poorly or unfairly.  But people having a problem (or "attacking" her as the right likes to say) is relevant.  If she does, however, rule using more of her religion than the constitution there is nothing that can be done so it is worth noting her beliefs.

Bringing up her looks is a very right wing thing to do though.  I wouldn't have expected that from you based on the way you usually post.

How would a member of the Left classify the above post?

[CJD]

(10-27-2020, 10:20 AM)GMDino Wrote: Dawg haven't you learned that religion does not matter and cannot be used as a reason for someone to be disqualified for a position unless it's one of "those" religions like Islam?

https://www.indy100.com/article/marjorie-taylor-greene-ilhan-omar-rashida-tlaib-republican-muslim-bible-9678431
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-kamala-harris-sworn-bible-idUSKCN25E1UA
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/obama-used-quran-for-oath/

And that doesn't even get into what the POTUS says.

Or the number of "anti-Sharia law" bills passed in the US.

Religion is only bad when it is not the majority religion.

I think 9/11 kind of broke our collective brains when it came to the religion of Islam. It has its issues outside of that relation with some of their traditions (such as, for example, the women covering their hair and bodies with no such restrictions on men), but by and large it's pretty similar to Judeo-Christian religions, at least on the broader strokes.

I personally think that religion should remain a personal thing and should not affect policy in any way, as they are mostly beliefs with no real factual basis, but I realize that's impossible. How do you tell a Christian to not frame their political beliefs through their perspective as a Christian? Likewise with a Muslim, Catholic, Jew etc.

So, in lieu of that, I would just encourage people to analyze everything from a critical lens, rather than an emotional or religious one. When it comes down to it, making and enforcing laws are all about the logistics. Sweeping statements work in some areas, but law isn't really one of them. Nuance is required and that's where I think a lot of laws influenced too much by religion start to suffer a bit.

[NATI BENGALS]

(10-27-2020, 10:32 AM)bfine32 Wrote: How would a member of the Left classify the above post?

that's called sarcastic comedy. 

Look it up. You could use some

[*bfine32*]

(10-27-2020, 10:34 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: that's called sarcastic comedy. 

Look it up. You could use some

Great point. Comedy can NEVER be used to attack someone,

[*PhilHos*]

(10-27-2020, 10:25 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I don't know much about the People of Praise or their leadership structure or even their internal functioning. Maybe they are a normal religious group that is being unfairly maligned as a cult. But if they are actually a religious cult that treats women similarly to a man's property (harkening back to the olden times when women had very few rights and were reliant on their husband to provide for them), then I think her relation to that group would be a negative and wouldn't be bigoted towards religion to point that out.

I don't know much about them either, but I would think that if they were really a religious cult that treats women as property, I think more would be made about that using real world examples than constantly trying to conflate PoP to The Handmaid's Tale. 

(10-27-2020, 10:25 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: But regardless of how the People of Praise actually function, I think Nati's reference is more closely tied to The Handmaid's Tale than the actual People of Praise.

No, I agree. Nait was belittling a successful woman using her religion in as demeaning a way possible. Usually that's decried as sexist, but apparently it IS okay to be sexist against conservatives despite fred's whining of the use of the "victim card". 

[*PhilHos*]

(10-27-2020, 10:28 AM)GMDino Wrote: She's made some rulings that can lead thinking people to believe that she will make future rulings they don't agree with.  She couldn't answer some basic questions (from Republicans) during her "hearing" and they even limited debate so they could hurry up before the election to force her through.

Her, what can be described as "extreme", religious views are more than fair game just as anyone's would be if they were being put in a position for life.  

Now, none of that means she will do her job poorly or unfairly.  But people having a problem (or "attacking" her as the right likes to say) is relevant.  If she does, however, rule using more of her religion than the constitution there is nothing that can be done so it is worth noting her beliefs.

Bringing up her looks is a very right wing thing to do though.  I wouldn't have expected that from you based on the way you usually post.

These are all legitimate arguments against her confirmation, no doubt. Makes me wonder why some feel the need to resort to name calling. Really adds to the debate when that happens, doesn't it?