I have read it. I am not ignorant nor am I lying. I’ll re-read it though.
You might read a few legal articles and journals on the matter as well.
Some easily digested material are recent addresses by Dalin Oaks, currently a member of the LDS Church's Quorum of the Twelve, former president of BYU, former law professor, and former Utah State Supreme Court justice. He has written a few words, well within reach of anyone with mental faculties above the 9th grade level, regarding the special status of religion in our nation.
This address to the Beckett Foundation in 2013 is one of several a person might peruse. It contains this tidbit among others:
The guarantee of free exercise of religion must give persons who act on religious grounds greater protection against government prohibitions than are already guaranteed to everyone else by other provisions of the constitution, like freedom of speech. Otherwise, we erase the significance of the separate guarantee of free exercise of religion. ...
This preferred status must include more than a believer’s right of conscience. The Second Vatican Council’s “Declaration on Religious Freedom” (1965) per*suasively declares that “individuals do not practice their religion as a solitary act, but together with one another.” Our right to the free exercise of religion must apply when we act as a community. As elabo*rated by Matthew J. Franck of the Witherspoon Institute: “The vitality of faith comes in its communal character, in the individual’s fellowship with others whose views support, inform, and refine his own,” including the right to undertake “educational, cultural, charitable and social” efforts as they see fit.
Unfortunately, as scholars have observed, for about a half-century the role of religion in American life has been declining. In this same period, the guaran*tee of free exercise of religion seems to be weakening in public esteem. It is surely under siege by the forces of political correctness, which would replace it with other priorities.
(emphasis added and references and some formatting removed)
Before I became permanently disabled I used to be a “big brother”/advocate with disabled people. And one thing I know for certain is in repealing all anti-discrimination laws we are setting this country back a hundred years. I have seen it and I have experienced it myself, being discriminated against because of a disability or impairment that is not by the recipient’s works. Literally akin to pre-WW2 Germany in the early 30's. Yes I have met people that feel that very way- exterminate the disabled. I can only hope that you don’t support that level of cruelty.
I think you've managed to successfully invoke Godwin's law here. I'm not at all surprised.
That you impart such a question to me indicates you are either attacking me while trying to appear not to attack me ("When did you stop beating your wife? And how much common cause do you have with the Nazi and those who torture kittens?"), or that you really do lack any reading comprehension and cognitive ability. I've repeated made clear that I believe gun carriers should be given the same legal protections in public accommodations as given to any other protected group: no more, no less. You seem to want to give them more in churches, and less in businesses.
That you cannot see the obvious differences between gross infringements on the fundamental rights of others who happen to be disabled and simply not providing them special accommodation speaks volumes about how shallow and misguided your understanding of rights and rights theory are.
What is most notable though is that as you rail against providing any legal protections for legal gun carriers even asserting that such protections would damage the RKBA community, you believe that providing protections for the disabled is essential. I fail to understand the disconnect other than as a manifestation of the all too common ailment of the ill-informed, poorly educated, unintelligent, and lacking in critical thinking to believe that whatever they like is "constitutional" (or good, necessary, proper, etc) while whatever they don't care for must "unconstitutional" (or wrong, bad, and infringement of rights, and so on).
It’s not a matter o devaluing anything or anyone. You don’t like my opinion, so you get upset.
Your opinion is so incoherent as to be little more than a long string of anti-religious ramblings. I don't like having bigotries expressed in civil society.
Really? Never heard of you. And I am active in area politics with the Republican party as well as I spend a lot less time in forums than you. I’ll ask around about you. Quite frankly though, I am far from impressed. I am a proud lifetime member of what I consider the two best- GOA & JPFO. I am a gun supporter. I no longer have any guns, but I firmly support the right to own and hunt if they wish.
Sadly I have enough experience with gun groups that aside from those two, GOA and JPFO (and I suppose the group that took them in would actually make it 3 groups), that I have little faith in their true intent. I have found they are more of a “me” culture. Taking in money and donations in the name of standing up for the Second Amendment when in the end all it is about is them protecting their own rights and no one elses. That, along with your comment about removing all anti-discrimination laws, that should be of concern to everyone.
You remind me of the New York socialite who couldn't believe that Reagan won a second term because "No one [she knew] voted for him." Anyone at all active in RKBA in Utah knows several names including Clark Aposhian, Scott Engen, Woody Powell, and Charles Hardy. Those who were active 10 years ago, know Will and Sarah Thompson.
But none of that really matters. What matters is that there are those of us who, whether we generally use a pen name on these boards or not, are not the least bit concerned about putting our real names on what we write. Many of us know each other in real life.
Then there are those of you who hide behind your aliases, spewing your crap thinking you are anonymous. A couple of years back we had an anti-gun troll who we figured out was a cop in a smallish Utah town. Hiding behind what he thought was Internet Anonymity, his conduct was deplorable; grossly offensive and unprofessional. When we made clear we knew who he was and would let his chief (and any lawyers working cases against him) know what he was writing on-line, he disappeared. In another case, a fellow who makes his living providing medical services to LDS thought his anonymity was sufficient to shield him from the consequences of violating professional conduct requirements when he revealed deep seated bigotries against the religious beliefs held by many of his clients. When I pointed out his mistake, he railed, then quickly changed his behavior.
You anonymity is not nearly so secure as you think. And whether you have obvious professional liabilities for spewing bigotries, or something more subtle, you ought to conduct yourself on line as if your full name were attached to every post and there was a real possibility of that post showing up on your boss's desk, your neighbors' porch, your spouse's mail box, or in the hands of a hostile attorney in a criminal or civil trial.
Whatever you may think about what I've posted, the one thing you may know is that I've posted KNOWING my full name is attached.
You refuse to do likewise. Consider on why you are not willing to attach your name and on what consequences there might be if your name were attached before you continue to expose your bigotries.
As for your concerns about who is making money, I'm really sorry to disappoint, but GOUtah! has never asked for nor even accepted so much as a single penny in dues, donations, etc. We ask for some time to contact legislators, to get involved in elections. We are pure grassroots organization that costs those of us running it some money from our own pockets, time (including vacation time away from our jobs), and effort. There is certainly a place for fund raising organizations that can wage lawsuits, produce educational material, or even hire professional lobbyists. But that isn't who we are.
So before you presume to attack me or my credentials, you ought to get informed.
I've extended you the offer to let us all get to know who you are. You've declined. That is your choice. And having made it, you live with the consequences.
Looking at your behavior, it is people like you with guns that everyone should have guns to protect themselves from.
Are you dangerous? Are you a threat? I’m not sure. But I know a bully when I see one, and you fit the description like a key.
Pretty rich coming from a guy who choses as his alias the name of a murderous cop.
I don’t really care what you don’t tolerate.
But you do care. Demonstrably very much you care. You can't stand being called out on your bigoted ramblings, your inconsistent positions, and your offensive assumptions. And now you lie about not caring. Do you lie to yourself about these things, or just to the rest of us?
I have no hatred for the groups you mentioned. I do, however, despise people that claim to be somebody special and then they slander and defame those that disagree. Perhaps I am wrong about this but I don’t recall defaming you. Or insulting you. Yet you have done a marvelous job doing both to me. Does that make you feel better?
Of course you have defamed me. Just in this latest post you've damned me with loaded questions about whether I want to torture or euthanize the disabled ala the Nazis. If that isn't defamation, I can't imagine what is. You've repeatedly accused me of hypocrisy even if you haven't actually called me a "hypocrite" directly. You've repeatedly defiled what I hold sacred by setting it at a lower position than businesses hawking their wares. And you've called me a dangerous criminal of whom you are in physical terror. The only defense against these words being defamation is that they are clearly coming from a deranged and mentally incapacitated little mind.
Either you are ignorant of just how offensive and socially inappropriate your writings on this thread have been, or you are lying to cover up your conduct.
Now, we can keep this up as long as you like. I will continue to rip you apart as the pathetic, paranoid, inconsistent, ignorant, bigoted little cretin you are. Or you can cut your losses and move along to a thread your weaknesses will be less visible or at least less likely to draw my rebuke.
Charles
