Syria and the "moderate rebels"

[Pali]

So... this is his analysis from the future?  I'm pretty sure April 17, 2017 hasn't happened yet.

[Vaerick]

2 hours ago, Pali said:

Cutting something out of the budget to give tax cuts to millionaires and more money to the Pentagon is not really the same thing as not being to afford it.  Unless you mean countries like France and Germany can't afford Meals on Wheels, which is an odd complaint to make when both the EU in general and many member countries have their own food or other aid programs.

That's exactly what it means. They chose to cut one rather than have both. They (the politicians) decided it wasn't affordable for what they want to do. The word affordable itself is relative but in the sense that we physically couldn't you're right. 

 

Also it's not like the Obama administration helped much on that either. Though they did slightly better. 

Thing is though you can't compare the United States to any one European country. You'd have to compare to Europe as a whole to really get the logistical issues the be apples and apples. 

 

I I think when AT&T finishes the 5g cell network and combines it using the acquired dtv infrastructure broadband problems will be a thing of the past though. 

[Pali]

Comparing the US as a whole to Europe as a whole can be said to be unfair as the EU lacks many of the powers and responsibilities of the US federal govt. and the various members retain more power and responsibilities than the states do.  I really have no interest in getting back into the same discussion about politicians again because I made a joke about treating the US as "that place with wifi" since we don't even do that the best.

[Fool_Hardy]

People in my town say this is why Trump was elected.

Hope is all that some people have to cling to. If the democrats to not learn that condemning religious behavior is the first act of religious intolerance, the trend will continue.

[Pali]

"America is a nation of believers."

 

I guess I don't belong then.

[Fool_Hardy]

I believe in religious freedom. I also believe that most people without knowing often oppress the religious choices of other.

Case 1.

An atheist complains about a Manger on city property. He declares religious intollerence, he declares separation of church and state, he declares to be offended.

State removes religious paraphernalia from site.

The state, and more important, the elected officials, have oppressed religion on a grand scale.

What do you think happens next? Acceptance?

Let me quote the president, "Your Fired."

Lucky for Republicans the Liberals were in charge when Christians and Jews became fed up.

 

[Pali]

The govt. should not be in the business of promoting religion, either a religion in particular or religiosity in general.  A manger on city property is fine IF the city is 1) not placing it there as an official act of the city govt. but is instead accommodating a private group and 2) the city does not discriminate against other groups placing similar displays, be they Muslims, Satanists, atheists or any other group.  Courts have consistently ruled that these 2 guidelines must be followed, because being unable to use the state to promote your beliefs is not the state oppressing your beliefs but rather the state preventing your beliefs from being used by the state to oppress others.  The government failing to promote Christianity is the government obeying the Constitution.

[Celerity]

We have to remember that governments have two mandates:

1. Follow the law

2. Keep the people happy

Things get confusing because these mandates can be contradictory.  Usually the happiness mandate wins. You get into some serious trouble when you try to enforce the law despite happiness.

Doing a Christmas show at a public school might technically be against the law (in some cases). However, because a certain pressure of people want to see their kids doing Christmas shows at school, many schools allow it. The non-religious minority might be upset with it, and they might be legally right, but until they have sufficient social pressure to make the government understand that the people are not happy, it will probably continue for quite some time. (of course, in many places, the pressure is ALREADY sufficient to have caused changes in this topic).

Religions also have these mandates, and as any atheist knows only the rules that keep people are happy are the ones followed in religions. Few Christians would consider stoning their neighbor for whatever. This applies to law and government too. Governments will only enforce the laws that they can that keep people happy (and thus the gov. in power). The police could arrest any one of us at any time with a stack of felony charges and technically be legally correct. It would not work out well however.

A city cannot appease every religious and non-religious group. Those with the most social power will get the most representation. City hall might have a Christmas tree, but not observe Ramadan or worship the flying spaghetti monster. This inequality will anger some people, but most people are in favor of the current representation -- that is why they are there. When Christians lose social power (or otherwise lose the will to have the gov. represent them), you start to see a backlash against Christian representation in public affairs.

The important point is that you should not preemptively represent groups that lack the social power/will to be represented. This is where you get into social justice and all the problems contained within. A city without a Jewish population does not need to practice Jewish traditions to appease people seeking fair representation, because that is not fair representation. You can replace Jewish with any other group.

A wise atheist knows that religions are generally on the way out, whether it is from the lack of a need for social clubs as in the past or a shift in how people view the world. A militant atheist who demands that governments (and thus represented people) give up their representation early, to acknowledge this loss of representation in advance, are going to be met with hostile resistance, very likely extending the social will to be represented that much longer.

On the other hand, if the atheist does not apply enough pressure, it is also likely to delay the weakening of religious representation. That means that the answer is to non-militantly apply pressure. Don't cause fights and seek moral and legal representation.

Now, often the case is that a higher power seeks greater representation and uses the law to do so. This causes major disruption (e.g., the US civil war). For example, if a Christian president were to mandate Christianity as the only religion allowed to be practiced and the entire population must report to church, you will rightfully see social chaos. The President represents many people of many religions, but he does not need to accommodate every religion/non-religion in his speech or even observe religious and/or non-religious rites. He can accommodate atheists by working in the real world and accommodate the religious with his words.

The US isn't ready for non-religious presidents. When it is, there will be one. The market produces exactly what the people ask for, believe it or not. You twist the market (goofy electoral systems, antiquated primary systems, two party system, super delegates, voter fraud, tax money in the electoral process), and you start getting weird things, like Trump and Hillary.

Nobody belongs in that system, that is why things are so messed up. In that case, you have a few choices:

1. Work with the system (try to get your ideal representative elected -- good luck!)

2. Forcibly change the system (revolution/activism -- good luck!)

3. Work outside the system (got power? You can do this. Otherwise -- good luck!)

4. Ignore the system (go on with your life, regardless of stupid politicians).

I bet you can guess where most of us end up. This is natural and predictable because it is also the place where most people are happy and where most politicians would like the people to be. It isn't an accident the world is the way it is.

Be a good example of your cause, teach the youth, and maybe the system will be better in the future. Or maybe your ideal system is completely wrong and you mess up another generation.

[Pali]

18 minutes ago, Celerity said:

A city without a Jewish population does not need to practice Jewish traditions to appease people seeking fair representation, because that is not fair representation. You can replace Jewish with any other group.

Very true, which is why courts require standing to be demonstrated before even bothering to take up the case - and in most cases of alleged religious overreach by officials this is fairly easy to obtain, as populations are rarely 100% homogenous, especially on religious or philosophical matters, and we atheists are a sneaky lot, always popping up where nobody expects like the heretical Spanish Inquisition.  To quote Jean-luc Picard: "How many people does it take before it becomes wrong?  A thousand?  Ten thousand?  A million?  How many people does it take?"

 

Personally, I'm a big fan of the Church of Satan's approach - don't argue that Christians can't have their displays, simply demand that your own be allowed as well.  Most cities have no problem going along with this, and those that do get exposed as the theocrats they are.