SCOTUS Justice Alito: "Religious Liberty Is In Danger Of Becoming A Second-Class Right"

[pogi]

8 minutes ago, CV75 said:

You are confusing the purpose of my old evidence. 

Whatever.  It is non sequitur. 

9 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I'm not sure what you referring toby anecdotes. 

You mentioned 3 anecdotes from Alito's piece as evidence of trends. 

9 minutes ago, CV75 said:

But I am sure you can find the actual trends you are looking for!

You are the one making the claim.  Back it up. 

[CV75]

1 minute ago, pogi said:

No you were talking my words out of context and answering them with unrelated polls.

Trump has not yet been in office for 4 years.  One republican, right-leaning, religious liberty loving president slightly increasing use of executive orders (which he harshly criticized Obama for)does not represent a trend in "attitudes" about executive orders.  It represents a change in 1 person's attitude.  It is a blip.  A trend would require several presidents increasing use of executive orders over time.  A one term president doesn't represent a trend.

Yes, less than 4 years for Trump, plus some of Obama's second term: a 5-year trend! And yes, as long a you acknowledge that things can change quickly, a term, whatever, can show a trend. If you want to accept what you acknowledge...

[CV75]

1 minute ago, pogi said:

Whatever.  It is non sequitur. 

You mentioned 3 anecdotes from Alito's piece as evidence of trends. 

You are the one making the claim.  Back it up. 

Now you're playing semantic games and getting bossy. which is OK I guess but not effective.

[CV75]

3 minutes ago, california boy said:

Clearly religion has lost its grip on vilifying homosexuals and women having equal opportunities to pursue their goals as me.  That is what the data says that you yourself pointed to.  

Is that a bad thing?

Decline of Christianity is also continuing at a rapid pace as reported in this Pew Study.  Do you think those two things might just possibly be related? 

We already had this conversation in this thread and finished it. Are you that desperate?

[california boy]

22 minutes ago, pogi said:

Again, CFR about my so called "assertion".  Talk about a strawman!

I have no idea what you are talking about or where you are going with this.  

I must have missed the data for a 4-5 year trend in executive orders being up.  Can you please repost it?

Decrease in religiosity is not the same as a decreasing trend in favoring religious liberty.  I don't know of anyone who has become inactive who doesn't still favor religious liberty.  You are falsely assuming that one needs to be actively religious to support religious liberty.  That is called a non sequitur. 

Furthermore, from your link (no major trends that I can see in religiosity):

America Remains a Religious Nation

 

Call it what you will, but it is true.  It is what it is...speculation without evidence. 

It is funny, because I am the only one who has provided data regarding executive orders, all you have provided is polemics and unrelated data. 

What the Pew charts are showing is that religion is not decreasing in this country.  What is rapidly decreasing is trust in religious organizations.  Those are the numbers that are really dropping as noted in the Pew study I referenced above.  People are walking away from organized religion.  And it is these same religious organizations loosing memberships that are now demanding the right to gather into super spreader congregations while the country is in its worse health environment in our lifetime.  

Organized religion is its own worse enemy.  I can't for the life of me see how organized religion making these kinds of demands in the mist of this pandemic, knowing the result of those demands means more sickness and death is going to endear others to join their congregations.  

[california boy]

8 minutes ago, CV75 said:

We already had this conversation in this thread and finished it. Are you that desperate?

Evidently not, since you keep insisting that the best thing for religious organizations is to be able to gather in super spreader groups.  And if they aren not allowed, then government is attacking religion.  You obviously don't see that your very demands are just a string of attitudes religion insists upon which increases further animosity towards it.  

What I am saying is that YOU should be smart enough to figure out that the worse thing you could be doing is your continued insistence that government policies are a threat to religion when in fact, it is religion itself and demands like the ones that you are insisting upon is the biggest threat.  That is what the data is showing.

[pogi]

42 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Yes, less than 4 years for Trump, plus some of Obama's second term: a 5-year trend! 

Obama's use of executive orders decreased in his second term from first term.  And his use of executive orders is a decrease from Bush, which is a decrease from Clinton, which is a decrease from Reagan, which is a decrease from Carter.  Nope, the trend (if that is what you want to call it) did not start with Obama.  It is not a 5 year trend.  A one day increase in Covid cases does not represent a trend.  Neither does a one term president in a pandemic represent a concerning trend in executive orders. The only thing that is concerning about it is that he bashed Obama so badly for using them and ended up using way more than him, starting a concerning "trend" for some right wing conservative religious liberty people.  You can thank only one man for that concerning "trend".  This fear of religious liberty being in threat ironically comes in part from a right wing religious liberty lover.  This just tells me that your fears are misguided and baseless.  These are right wing moves, not left wing attacks on religious liberty. 

 

Edited November 17, 2020 by pogi

[pogi]

31 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Now you're playing semantic games and getting bossy. which is OK I guess but not effective.

I am just asking you to back up your claims.  Your say-so is not convincing.  That is what is less effective. 

[Calm]

33 minutes ago, CV75 said:

was paraphrasing of course, but the meaning is the same

I very much disagree. The meaning is very different. He was referencing one case and not attitudes in general nor did he imply directly or indirectly because it hadn’t changed much recently, it couldn’t change quickly in the future. 
 

Honestly both of you seem to be misreading the other based on different assumptions of what the conversation is about. I am having a hard time following it because there is a disconnect....but the above “meaning is the same” jumped out at me and I felt what I see as an error big enough and easy enough to spot to comment on. 

[CV75]

36 minutes ago, california boy said:

Evidently not, since you keep insisting that the best thing for religious organizations is to be able to gather in super spreader groups.  And if they aren not allowed, then government is attacking religion.  You obviously don't see that your very demands are just a string of attitudes religion insists upon which increases further animosity towards it.  

What I am saying is that YOU should be smart enough to figure out that the worse thing you could be doing is your continued insistence that government policies are a threat to religion when in fact, it is religion itself and demands like the ones that you are insisting upon is the biggest threat.  That is what the data is showing.

Huh?

[CV75]

29 minutes ago, pogi said:

Obama's use of executive orders decreased in his second term from first term.  And his use of executive orders is a decrease from Bush, which is a decrease from Clinton, which is a decrease from Reagan, which is a decrease from Carter.  Nope, the trend (if that is what you want to call it) did not start with Obama.  It is not a 5 year trend.  A one day increase in Covid cases does not represent a trend.  Neither does a one term president in a pandemic represent a concerning trend in executive orders. The only thing that is concerning about it is that he bashed Obama so badly for using them and ended up using way more than him, starting a concerning "trend" for some right wing conservative religious liberty people.  You can thank only one man for that concerning "trend".  This fear of religious liberty being in threat ironically comes in part from a right wing religious liberty lover.  This just tells me that your fears are misguided and baseless.  These are right wing moves, not left wing attacks on religious liberty. 

The trend as I described it, increasing from Obama forward, is what I am basing my observations on that there is a 5-year trend for increasing executive orders. It doesn't matter who started the trend, but that it exists. Love of liberty and religious liberty is not limited to political ideology. Are you tryin to virtue signal, or get me to?

[pogi]

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

This is extremely interesting.  I wonder why the increase, then subsequent decrease of executive orders by early 20th century presidents (T Roosevelt, Taft, Harding, Coolidge).  I would assume many of Wilson's had to do with WWI.  I wonder if he issued any in response to the Spanish Flu.

I would be interesting to do some research on.  One interesting bit of trivia from it is that Franklin Roosevelt has the record for most executive orders per year (307) which smashes previous records, AND has the record for most years served (12.12 years - the only president to serve more than 2 terms).  Giving him a grand total of 3,721 total executive orders during his presidency!  That is astounding!  The next closest is Wilson with 1,803.  With limiting service to 2 terms, and with current trend in executive orders, I don't think that is a record that will ever come close to being broken.  To beat it , a president would have to average 465 executive orders a year during a 2 term presidency.   We are currently trending in the 30's, 40's, and 50's. 

[CV75]

37 minutes ago, pogi said:

I am just asking you to back up your claims.  Your say-so is not convincing.  That is what is less effective. 

Given the way you've responded to me. I'm not sure you understand what I am claiming. You responses seem to be off by just a few degrees of relevancy. Maybe you can rephrase what you think I am claiming and I can confirm one way or another. That is probably more important, for starters at least, than understanding how I use the data.

[pogi]

26 minutes ago, CV75 said:

The trend as I described it, increasing from Obama forward, is what I am basing my observations on that there is a 5-year trend for increasing executive orders. It doesn't matter who started the trend, but that it exists.

That is a manipulation of numbers.  You know for a fact that Obama has nothing to do with the trend.  A trend doesn't start until after a change in direction.  That change started with Trump, not Obama.  No 5 year Trend.  Obama was trending downwards until the end of his presidency. The upwards shift started with Trump. 

26 minutes ago, CV75 said:

It doesn't matter who started the trend, but that it exists. Love of liberty and religious liberty is not limited to political ideology. Are you tryin to virtue signal, or get me to?

I don't know what you are talking about virtue signaling. Of course the love of religious liberty is not limited to one political ideology - that is why I am not concerned!  It is embraced by both sided.  I am simply observing the fact that your concerns about religious liberty being in threat due to "trends" in executive orders ironically are coming from a strong defender of religious liberty.  Is Trump the boogeyman behind the threat to religious liberty we should all be afraid of? It seems to be that is what you are suggesting.  I don't see anyone else behind any supposed trend.  I will be interested to see if the "trend" continues beyond Trump. If not, will you still call it a "trend", or a blip?

Edited November 17, 2020 by pogi

[pogi]

54 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Given the way you've responded to me. I'm not sure you understand what I am claiming. You responses seem to be off by just a few degrees of relevancy. Maybe you can rephrase what you think I am claiming and I can confirm one way or another. That is probably more important, for starters at least, than understanding how I use the data.

Here is how I see your position:

Religious liberty is being threatened due to "trends" in attitudes towards religious liberty and executive orders.  

You have failed to provide one shred of evidence (other than 3 anecdotes by Alito - and an unrelated poll) of attitudes unfavorably trending in relation to religious liberty and executive orders.  

Edited November 18, 2020 by pogi

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I very much disagree. The meaning is very different. He was referencing one case and not attitudes in general nor did he imply directly or indirectly because it hadn’t changed much recently, it couldn’t change quickly in the future. 

Honestly both of you seem to be misreading the other based on different assumptions of what the conversation is about. I am having a hard time following it because there is a disconnect....but the above “meaning is the same” jumped out at me and I felt what I see as an error big enough and easy enough to spot to comment on. 

By asking, “Where is the trend?” he is asking me to show how “One little blip [a four-year period, five if you include the last year of Obama’s 2^nd term] by the current President” represents a trend in attitudes. My answer is that it reflects the attitudes of the President and his supporters over that short period – changing quickly -- and to assert that it does not, or that only the longer timeline he provided (a longer trend of decrease in attitude) is valid in this assessment, is “false.” And it doesn’t matter who the President is or whether he and his supporters are characterized as “left” or “right.”

[pogi]

23 minutes ago, CV75 said:

By asking, “Where is the trend?” he is asking me to show how “One little blip [a four-year period, five if you include the last year of Obama’s 2^nd term] by the current President” represents a trend in attitudes. My answer is that it reflects the attitudes of the President and his supporters over that short period – changing quickly -- and to assert that it does not, or that only the longer timeline he provided (a longer trend of decrease in attitude) is valid in this assessment, is “false.” And it doesn’t matter who the President is or whether he and his supporters are characterized as “left” or “right.”

You have clearly forgotten what went down.  Let me refresh your memory.

You posted a link to 23 year old data showing changes in peoples attitudes towards religious stuff (not liberty) in response to some apparent "assertion" that I made that "attitudes can't change quickly" (an assertion I never made about attitudes in general or even specifically about the topic at hand).

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

The link shows that there were significant drops in 4-5 years to counter your false assertion that attitudes do not change quickly.

 How does this counter any "assertion" I ever made?  It doesn't.  I never made the assertion.  This link was a distraction from the topic at hand.  A red herring.  I am still confused as to why you posted it and how it answers my question about "where is the trend? (in relation to executive orders)"  Totally unrelated!  Again, where did I ever say that attitudes can't quickly change?  Secondly, how does one religious liberty loving president's slight increase in executive orders constitute a troubling "trend" in attitudes towards executive orders which threaten religious liberty?  It is nonsensical!  If Trump and his campaign are the only attitudes that you have evidence of changing in this regard, then you have no evidence to suggest that there is anything to fear in regards to religious liberty, and no evidence of concerning general trends. 

Edited November 18, 2020 by pogi

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

I was paraphrasing of course, but the meaning is the same. "One little blip [5 years from the end of Obama's second term] doesn't represent a trend in attitudes." Well, it, it represents a 5-yaer trend in attitudes about executive orders, so "false."

To have a trend it would have to last longer than a single term. There was an increase in the current administration but I have followed this administration pretty closely and can say that there was an increase in low-power executive orders for lack of a better term. There is a slight disproportionate increase in the last year but some had to do with Covid, the protests, and the weird social media situation. None that I can see had any impact on religious liberty unless you consider things like foreign ownership of telecommunication resources, drug prices, and the calling up of a limited number of the national guard to combat narcotics trafficking and the like to involve that.

The battle for religious liberty is unlikely to be decided in the courts or congress. I think those will last as long as the nation does. The worry is that social stigma could curtail what we see as liberties (operating tax-free, joint projects with local governments, release time seminary working with school systems, and getting zoning permits) could fade if organized religion comes to be seen generally as a nuisance in the minds of the public. The defense of religious liberty in the broader sense will be fought in city councils and neighborhoods and not in legislatures. If we get to the point that governments want to actively curtail religious liberty (not talking about cakes here) it will be because either the people largely want it or the people put some kind of faction in power that wants it.

[The Nehor]

Okay, I finally got a chance to read up on the speech a bit and I think the OP's article understandably overemphasized religious liberty (it is a religious publication). Most of the other articles saw it more as a general push towards weakening executive power on the state and federal level.

The cynic in me questions the timing on this. I also expected and have heard a large increase in political discourse (I predicted this to some friends a month ago) about government fiscal responsibility. I suspect the push on executive responsibility and deficit hawkism both stem from the same source and we can expect the volume to increase. I remember a similar trend in 2008. History doesn't repeat but it loves to rhyme.

Enjoy some parody of Schoolhouse Rock about executive orders.

 

Edited November 18, 2020 by The Nehor

[CV75]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Here is how I see your position:

Religious liberty is being threatened due to "trends" in attitudes towards religious liberty and executive orders.  

You have failed to provide one shred of evidence (other than 3 anecdotes by Alito - and an unrelated poll) of attitudes unfavorably trending in relation to religious liberty and executive orders.  

This is what I am claiming: We are facing an increasing threat to religious liberty as a consequence of one, individual and societal attitudes towards religious expression and practice; and two, increasing reliance on executive orders to get things done, which brings this threat into the realm of codification.

You do not agree with the conclusions I have drawn from the data I shared, and I am satisfied with that.

[CV75]

21 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

To have a trend it would have to last longer than a single term. There was an increase in the current administration but I have followed this administration pretty closely and can say that there was an increase in low-power executive orders for lack of a better term. There is a slight disproportionate increase in the last year but some had to do with Covid, the protests, and the weird social media situation. None that I can see had any impact on religious liberty unless you consider things like foreign ownership of telecommunication resources, drug prices, and the calling up of a limited number of the national guard to combat narcotics trafficking and the like to involve that.

The battle for religious liberty is unlikely to be decided in the courts or congress. I think those will last as long as the nation does. The worry is that social stigma could curtail what we see as liberties (operating tax-free, joint projects with local governments, release time seminary working with school systems, and getting zoning permits) could fade if organized religion comes to be seen generally as a nuisance in the minds of the public. The defense of religious liberty in the broader sense will be fought in city councils and neighborhoods and not in legislatures. If we get to the point that governments want to actively curtail religious liberty (not talking about cakes here) it will be because either the people largely want it or the people put some kind of faction in power that wants it.

Everyone has their own terms for a trend.

[The Nehor]

Just now, CV75 said:

Everyone has their own terms for a trend.

Even if one administration did demonstrate a trend (it doesn't) what about a marginal increase is a threat to religious liberty? How many executive orders infringed religious liberty? By the standards you set FDR eviscerated religious liberty during the second World War but I think you would be hard-pressed to find evidence of this suppression.

[CV75]

44 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Even if one administration did demonstrate a trend (it doesn't) what about a marginal increase is a threat to religious liberty? How many executive orders infringed religious liberty? By the standards you set FDR eviscerated religious liberty during the second World War but I think you would be hard-pressed to find evidence of this suppression.

I'll ask you to read my previous posts to find that out, as I've bored myself with too much repeating already. The bolded part, as I also already pointed out elsewhere, is not at all what I've suggested. 

[The Nehor]

5 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I'll ask you to read my previous posts to find that out, as I've bored myself with too much repeating already. The bolded part, as I also already pointed out elsewhere, is not at all what I've suggested. 

Yeah, that the prevalence of executive orders is worrying even if they do not threaten anything. I find that proposition insanely paranoid.

[kllindley]

On 11/16/2020 at 4:10 PM, pogi said:

then we can talk.    

Then it will be too late.