Doesn't mean he's not a tool, of course. Asking the majority if the minority oughta get a couple of rights is bad business, no matter who the minority is.

The king? The archbishop? The guy who left his lights on when he parked his car?

I suspect you're going to say judges, but that is a slippery slope of its own; depending on what they base the decision on.

Just asking.

The courts have bumbled along their own rocky path to justice, but I suspect they have made quicker strides than voters would have. How long would suffrage have taken if only men were voting?

Justices must at least sit around and think about things awhile, and frame a reasoned response, even if their decision is bad. All a voter has to do is "feel icky" and flip a lever.

Women's suffrage got here while only men were voting.

I've got a good quote around here somewhere, I can't find the book just now.

As in, if they just let men vote on whether or not women had the right to vote (or white people if blacks should vote, etc) it would have taken a lot longer. I'd say that's fairly typical- look at anytime a minority rights issue comes up. It's usually the courts that spark the change. Not always, but more often than not.



-Craig

Outside of Colorado, men were the only people voting on anything until the 19th Amendment was ratified. In other words, yes men voted to give women the right to vote. Probably to get their wives to shut up about it. /runs for cover/

but, the Supreme Court still had the final say after suffrage passed.

Amendment 19 to the Constitution of the United States:

"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

The USSC had no authority to rule on this once it had been ratified by the states.

Leser v. Garnett. Hammering out legislative "equality" has been a zig-zaggy path between the Houses and the Court, but because this is a republic rather than a democracy, it doesn't usually involve a popular vote on the issue. Nor should it, in my opinion. People are just not that thrilled about giving away their privilege (although that's not the way they would frame it).

If the vote was done like a general election, I don't think it would have turned out the way it did. Who knows, maybe it would have, but I think it would have taken much longer.

This is probably not the best example though, because it was done by Congress, not a general vote like Proposition 8 was. But you're right, it was a male Congress doing the voting. However, had they voted differently (and denied the vote to women) then I think it would have been appropriate for the courts to step in at that point since the rights of women in that case were certainly being denied them.

I know there is an argument of semantics here about whether you can "give" someone a right, but I think we are speaking in shorthand to make our points easier.

-Craig

That court case existed. I'm kind of surprised that sort of tin foil hat brigade complaint got all the way to the supremes. It was only about fifty years earlier that we'd killed 600,000 people enforcing the supremacy of the federal government. I guess anybody with a lawyer can try anything.

Hojon, the amendment had to be passed by 2/3 of both houses of congress and 3/4 of the state legislatures. Bunchs of them get proposed every year and go nowhere. If the general population had not supported suffrage, I don't think it would have passed.

but it's pretty hard to say either way and I'm just guessing based on how these things seem to go. Also based on the civil rights changes in the '50s and '60s and how the general population wasn't always accepting of what the courts or laws mandated. But, I could be wrong.

I think if you asked the average man back then if women should be able to vote he'd say no, or he'd say something non-committal about how he didn't really mind either way but never really thought about it, or he'd say sure I think they should. Even if the percentages of those men were even, that's still 2/3 that are either against it or wouldn't actively try to make it happen.

I don't think that's out of maliciousness or anything, just human nature. When we have things we want and our lives are generally going along well we typically don't think about much outside of our own world.




-Craig

Sorry about that. What facet of his toolishness in particular shall we discuss?

I hope he is not trying to pass this off as some sort of unbiased documentary.

he's a tool. Both witnesses and Mormons were persecuted in the past because they went out of their way to piss people off. He's says Witnesses don't look to the State to enforce their moral codes, but absent State intervention people like us would be getting stoned in Kingdom Hall parking lots.

If he thinks that religion is something that should be practiced in the privacy of your own home, he's welcome to start by telling his mother. Or is the public square only for people he agrees with?

We need the state to protect US from THEM.  They also have no problem using political pressure and resources for their own benefit, but continue to hype their "neutral" stance.

-Craig

of a quote I read once in a Watchtower magazine. It mentioned that the only reason disfellowshipped people are not killed is because it's against the law.

We'd all be stoned or killed in some other fashion if the law allowed them to do so according to that statement.

I remember seeing something to that affect in the watchtower way back when. And I can certainly attest to the fact that when I was DF'd, I felt like they'd have gladly bumped me off if only they could do it without getting in trouble.

Well, to be fair, I felt that way about most of them.. not every single one. There were a few who were actually nice people and felt really bad about not talking to me anymore. Few and far between tho..



--b


My horse loves me no matter what you think.

I mean, push to shove, the law is there to protect all of us from all of us, if we're worried about being stoned. Despite some real vindictiveness from some JWs, I don't think they have the stomach for public executions any more than they want to offer up cow viscera to the elders.

And the point remains that, as guano-loco as they are as a group, they don't mess around with trying to get invasive and inappropriate laws passed. Yes, it's because they're too passive to get anything done, but that's what makes them harmless in that arena.

So, Engardio's point - that Mormons or any other unpopular minority are shooting themselves in the foot and diminishing their own rights by working against another minority - is a valid one. It's not all that hard to imagine the worm turning, I mean, if we're already imagining pioneers lobbing rocks through our windows.

but groups are made up of individuals, and if we're learned anything recently it's that extremists tend to be attracted to extreme groups. Abortion clinic bombers don't attend UU churches, for example. They seek out groups that reinforce their beliefs and justify any actions as god's will.

Do most Witnesses pose a threat? I don't think so. But I'm sure there are enough individuals in the association that, given immunity from their actions, would gladly go old testament on some people- maybe stopping short of murder but assault is definitely within their comfort zone. I can think of a couple that I attended meetings with as a matter of fact.

-Craig

But, is that really what this toolish guy is saying? I think the only place he talked about an intersection of JWs with the law is that they don't count on government to enforce their moral code, or something like that. And, I can't think of an instance that disproves that assertion.

They're kind of like the Against Abortion? Don't have one bumper sticker. They have their own weird ways, but they're not pushing for legislation to make their weird ways everyone's weird ways.

I'm still reading him as saying something like it's shortsighted for a minority group to get anti-minority legislation passed, because that kind of thing will bite you in the ass.

Maybe I'm reading the wrong article?

I just disagree with it.

For the record I don't necessarily agree with the Mormons either, but they are entitled to their beliefs, have a right to speak about them, and will get to live with whatever consequences acrrue to them. And I think they know this. What would you have them do, sacrifice their principles on the alter of self-interest?

What do you mean by their "principles?" And what are the "self-interests" you're referring to?

I keep feeling like we're not talking about "exactly" the same thing, although we must be, yes? Just to be extra-certain, let me tell you what I'm talking about.

Mormon principle: Marriage = one man + one woman.

California court: Marriage may = some other combination.

Mormon action: Raise $millions to advertise for and convince voters to vote against the then-existing rights of a minority.



JW principle: Marriage = one man + one woman.

California court: Marriage may = some other combination.

JW action: Wail about the "last days" and preach.


Both principles are the same. Self-interest? I'm not sure what that is in either case. Nobody wants to make either group perform gay marriages. Nobody wants to make either group accept gay marriage. Inside each little world, things rock on pretty much the same either way.

I just think he's painting them as victims too much, but your italicized sentence is correct.

-Craig

If they weren't encouraged to feel put-upon by the majority there would be nothing to fuel their martyrdom.

it's shortsighted for a minority group to get anti-minority legislation passed, because that kind of thing will bite you in the ass.


So it is short sighted for poor people (a minority) to get higher taxes on the rich (a minority) passed?

Are you worried about degradation of the upper class's civil rights? Maybe so. It may be that we should start a grassroots movement for the preservation of the historically beleaguered rich.

The right to be secure in your property is one of the things we fought a revolution to make sure we had. I think we are in danger of losing it, as it has already been severely eroded (see Kelo v New Haven). If you can't keep what it is rightfully yours, you can't keep ANYTHING.

Eminent domain and taxing the rich.

Maybe it doesn't matter, and maybe it's okay if we drop it. It would be cool if we just disagreed, but I feel like we're each using the same alphabet, just assembling different languages with it. We're not connecting on basic interpretations.

Thanks for the engagement, though. I enjoyed it.

Roxi

Everyone is taxed equally, the rich aren't taxed any differently than the poor. Everyone pays the same amount of tax on every dollar they earn at a given dollar amount.

So a poor person and a rich person both owe the same amount of tax (assuming no loophole here) on, say, the first $30,000 of earned income. The poor person just has to stop counting there, while the rich one can continue upwards on the charts.



-Craig

Look up "marginal tax rate." The more you make, the more proportionally that you pay.

But everyone pays the same for a given dollar amount earned.  We all pay the same on the first $30,000 we earn no matter how much we might ultimately end up making.

Proportionally, you pay more if you make more.  That is true, but that has nothing to do with equality.  If people were taxed differently on a given amount of earned income then that would more like "seperate but equal."  

-Craig