pogi Posted January 21, 2022 Author Posted January 21, 2022 1 hour ago, T-Shirt said: You will have to provide examples of what you are referring to, I have not looked closely into his history. That being said, there is a huge difference between naming politicians who are actively opposed to your cause and calling people bigots, homophobes and other unsavory names for the soul purpose of shutting them up. The truth of these unfair epithets is irrelevant in the playbook, all that matters is if they are effective in shutting down the opposition. The first is an acceptable and necessary tool in a political campaign, the second is dishonest and despicable, yet highly effective. Is ok to name and shame so long as you don't call people mean-names then? I provided examples of them naming and shaming already. He was the President of the institution running these naming and shaming campaigns with the intent to "shut them down" Cancel culture hard at work in the name of religious liberty, A behind the scenes look at their strategic planning of cancel culture through shame: Quote Is there a way that Commerce or USCIRF can shame those companies by exposing them to the American people? Because I think the reaction among the public would be, would be quite damaging to more than just those companies' reputation.
sunstoned Posted January 21, 2022 Posted January 21, 2022 5 hours ago, Stormin' Mormon said: I would agree that religious people and institutions have no right to impose their religion on others, if only that accusation was not so profligately thrown around. A family-owned business declining to cover certain types of birth control methods in their health care coverage (not all, just the ones they consider to be abortifacients), is not forcing their religion on their employees. We can go down a rabbit hole on this (again), but yes. Denying medical services to employees based on your own religious belief is not freedom of religion.
T-Shirt Posted January 21, 2022 Posted January 21, 2022 18 minutes ago, pogi said: Is ok to name and shame so long as you don't call people mean-names then? First of all, it was the author of the article that used this term. Secondly, you will have to define the term in order for anyone to answer this question. Quote I provided examples of them naming and shaming already. He was the President of the institution running these naming and shaming campaigns with the intent to "shut them down" Quote Cancel culture hard at work in the name of religious liberty, A behind the scenes look at their strategic planning of cancel culture through shame: You will have to show me again, because I don't see any of what you claim. Promoting candidates who are friendly to religious liberty is not, "naming and shaming". 2
bsjkki Posted January 21, 2022 Posted January 21, 2022 19 minutes ago, T-Shirt said: First of all, it was the author of the article that used this term. Secondly, you will have to define the term in order for anyone to answer this question. You will have to show me again, because I don't see any of what you claim. Promoting candidates who are friendly to religious liberty is not, "naming and shaming". Plus he is conflating two different groups. Illogical. 1
Stormin' Mormon Posted January 21, 2022 Posted January 21, 2022 43 minutes ago, sunstoned said: We can go down a rabbit hole on this (again), but yes. Denying medical services to employees based on your own religious belief is not freedom of religion. Declining to pay for something is not denying it. The employees are perfectly free to obtain whatever medical service they desire and their employer will not even attempt to stop them. There is no limiting principle here. By this definition, everybody everywhere is imposing their religion on me by not providing me with goods and services. 1
The Nehor Posted January 21, 2022 Posted January 21, 2022 8 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said: Declining to pay for something is not denying it. The employees are perfectly free to obtain whatever medical service they desire and their employer will not even attempt to stop them. There is no limiting principle here. By this definition, everybody everywhere is imposing their religion on me by not providing me with goods and services. Except there being no realistic way to get affordable health insurance except through an employer. Decoupling health care from employment somehow would be a wonderful change. I like to think if employers post-WWII who though up insurance as a way to attract employees would have chosen differently if they had known what they were creating. 1
bsjkki Posted January 21, 2022 Posted January 21, 2022 6 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Decoupling health care from employment somehow would be a wonderful change. I completely agree with you on this. Tying your healthcare to your job/employment is a terrible thing.
Stormin' Mormon Posted January 21, 2022 Posted January 21, 2022 9 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Except there being no realistic way to get affordable health insurance except through an employer. Decoupling health care from employment somehow would be a wonderful change. I like to think if employers post-WWII who though up insurance as a way to attract employees would have chosen differently if they had known what they were creating. I agree with you. There IS no realistic way to get affordable health insurance except through an employer. But we're talking about a company not covering a very tiny portion of a very tiny part of the overall health coverage (that is, a small portion of drugs will not be part of the prescription coverage, which in turn is a small part of the overall coverage). There actually are several realistic ways to get affordable Plan B pills (according to a quick and unscientific Google search). But I ask again: what is the limiting principle? Can I ask my employer to provide an extra $10/month stipend so I can buy garments? If they don't are they restricting my freedom of religion? If an insurance plan includes coverage of blood transfusions, are they imposing their religion upon Jehovah's Witnesses? I honestly don't see my employer's choices about what benefits to offer to be an attempt by my employer to impose upon me their vision of what my life should be. In addition to the benefits I receive, my employer pays me money, and that money is fungible and can be used for all sort of things that my boss or my employer would disapprove of. And you are correct in another regard. This is a rabbit hole that we really don't need to go down. I apologize for bringing up the issue. Nobody anywhere at anytime has ever changed their mind because of an argument made by a stranger on the internet. It's why I haven't posted anything political on my Facebook feed in over a year, and why I usually lurk around these boards. We just end up going round and round and round and round, adding page counts and little else. I'll let you have the last word on the topic and then I'll sit back and watch like I normally do. 1
The Nehor Posted January 21, 2022 Posted January 21, 2022 14 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said: I agree with you. There IS no realistic way to get affordable health insurance except through an employer. But we're talking about a company not covering a very tiny portion of a very tiny part of the overall health coverage (that is, a small portion of drugs will not be part of the prescription coverage, which in turn is a small part of the overall coverage). There actually are several realistic ways to get affordable Plan B pills (according to a quick and unscientific Google search). But I ask again: what is the limiting principle? Can I ask my employer to provide an extra $10/month stipend so I can buy garments? If they don't are they restricting my freedom of religion? If an insurance plan includes coverage of blood transfusions, are they imposing their religion upon Jehovah's Witnesses? I honestly don't see my employer's choices about what benefits to offer to be an attempt by my employer to impose upon me their vision of what my life should be. In addition to the benefits I receive, my employer pays me money, and that money is fungible and can be used for all sort of things that my boss or my employer would disapprove of. And you are correct in another regard. This is a rabbit hole that we really don't need to go down. I apologize for bringing up the issue. Nobody anywhere at anytime has ever changed their mind because of an argument made by a stranger on the internet. It's why I haven't posted anything political on my Facebook feed in over a year, and why I usually lurk around these boards. We just end up going round and round and round and round, adding page counts and little else. I'll let you have the last word on the topic and then I'll sit back and watch like I normally do. Many people who need birth control need it more than once in a blue moon and it is not always because they are sexually active. People who have insurance shouldn’t have to sit down and figure out if their employer objects to whatever is needed to treat something nor should they have to switch jobs because the treatment is unaffordable. 1
pogi Posted January 21, 2022 Author Posted January 21, 2022 (edited) 2 hours ago, T-Shirt said: First of all, it was the author of the article that used this term. And it was all of these same players from the USCIRF that used the tactic. 2 hours ago, T-Shirt said: Secondly, you will have to define the term in order for anyone to answer this question. You name someone, or some entity, and shame them (hence "name and shame") in an effort to generate a reaction from the public that would damage their reputation. 2 hours ago, T-Shirt said: Promoting candidates who are friendly to religious liberty is not, "naming and shaming". Naming and shaming those who are not friendly to religious liberty is "naming and shaming", however. Quote "What a shame to the wonderful Pakistani people. USCIRF calls once again on #Pakistan to repeal its blashemy laws" said US Comission on Internaional REligious Freedom (USCIRF) Commissioner to Tuesday (local time). https://www.aninews.in/news/world/asia/us-rights-commission-calls-on-pakistan-to-repeal-blasphemy-laws20210331110655/ Quote USCIRF Commissioner @JohnnieM: "Shame on #Iran..." https://twitter.com/USCIRF/status/1334554101066162183 The behind the scenes planning: Quote Is there a way that Commerce or USCIRF can shame those companies by exposing them to the American people? Because I think the reaction among the public would be, would be quite damaging to more than just those companies' reputation. https://www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/documents/about-bis/newsroom/2653-testimony-of-acting-under-secretary-for-industry-and-security-cordell-hull-at-the-u-s-commission-on-international-religious-freedom-hearing-on-technological-surveillance-of-religion-in-china/file Their own colleagues and compatriates are calling it "naming and shaming" Quote In practical terms, the International Religious Freedom Act: 1) Created an independent U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) to make recommendations to the president and Congress. 2) Designated an ambassador-at-large for international religious freedom at the U.S. Department of State to lead an Office of International Religious Freedom. 3) Mandated an Annual Report on International Religious Freedom to include every country in the world. 4) Provided a menu of options for U.S. government action to name, shame, and sanction violators of religious freedom, with a special focus on “Countries of Particular Concern’ such as Iran and North Korea. 5) Called for institutionalized training, programming, and recognition for U.S. diplomats engaged in this work https://wng.org/opinions/recommitting-to-a-global-religious-freedom-strategy-1635416662 If this same language and behind the scenes planning was exposed and used against the cause of religious liberty, there would not be this same type of rationalization. No, there would be online riots. Edited January 21, 2022 by pogi
T-Shirt Posted January 22, 2022 Posted January 22, 2022 (edited) 1 hour ago, pogi said: And it was all of these same players from the USCIRF that used the tactic. I'm not sure if you are actually reading the stuff you link to. Quote You name someone, or some entity, and shame them (hence "name and shame") in an effort to generate a reaction from the public that would damage their reputation. Naming and shaming those who are not friendly to religious liberty is "naming and shaming". Okay. Now, is it justified? Is it true? Are they shaming by calling them names or saying things about them that are untrue? Quote The behind the scenes planning: Did you even read this? It is a transcript of a, "HEARING ON TECHNOLOGICAL SURVEILLANCE OF RELIGION IN CHINA" Are you in favor of China surveilling religious activity? The only mention of the word, "Shame" in the transcript, is this: Quote And I guess I would ask something ancillary to the specific thing we're talking about. What about the phenomena in Communist China of people being forced into slave labor in factories there? And there are repeated reports that U.S. companies are, in fact, having some of their products made in those slave labor factories? Is there a way that Commerce or USCIRF can shame those companies by exposing them to the American people? Because I think the reaction among the public would be, would be quite damaging to more than just those companies' reputation. I don't know about you, but I am in favor of American companies, who have their products manufactured in Chinese forced slave labor camps, being named for all to hear. And it should be to their shame. Do you disagree with this? Quote Their own colleagues and compatriates are calling it "naming and shaming" Again, did you read this? The words, "name" and "shame" are the words of the author of the article in an attempt to summarize the tenets of the International Religious Freedom Act. The International Religious Freedom Act does not use those words, nor did this organization you are so concerned about write the International Religious Freedom Act. Quote Is this not clear still? It was always clear. I'm not so sure it was for you though. Edited January 22, 2022 by T-Shirt 2
pogi Posted January 22, 2022 Author Posted January 22, 2022 (edited) 27 minutes ago, T-Shirt said: I'm not sure if you are actually reading the stuff you link to. Okay. Now, is it justified? Is it true? Are they shaming by calling them names or saying things about them that are untrue? Did you even read this? It is a transcript of a, "HEARING ON TECHNOLOGICAL SURVEILLANCE OF RELIGION IN CHINA" Are you in favor of China surveilling religious activity? The only mention of the word, "Shame" in the transcript, is this: I don't know about you, but I am in favor of American companies, who have their products manufactured in Chinese forced slave labor camps, being named for all to hear. And it should be to their shame. Do you disagree with this? Again, did you read this? The words, "name" and "shame" are the words of the author of the article in an attempt to summarize the tenets of the International Religious Freedom Act. The International Religious Freedom Act does not use those words, nor did this organization you are so concerned about write the International Religious Freedom Act. It was always clear. I'm not so sure it was for you though. I noticed that you skipped a couple direct quotes and examples. I will address the rest later. Edited January 22, 2022 by pogi
The Nehor Posted January 22, 2022 Posted January 22, 2022 7 hours ago, T-Shirt said: This is all overhyped BS. It is interesting that you have fully swallowed a dishonest reporter's claims, as if they are true, and pontificate on the foolishness of, "name & shame" when that tactic is the most prominent tool in your toolbox. Heck, I think you might even be the inventor of it. I read the documents. They are going to be targeting people whether they say it directly or not. I don’t feel obligated to pretend I am dealing with honest people. I am hardly the inventor. If you are under the impression I think the tactic of “naming and shaming” is universally shameful and that it should never be used you haven’t been around very long. I have used it. I was minimally involved in both the BLM protests and the terrorist attack on the capitol with identifying people involved who acted badly and “making them famous”. The people I worked with were scrupulous in their identification and well aware they could ruin someone’s life for a time if they got it wrong. Some were less careful. Here it is being used today and kudos to those doing it: Actions have consequences. I don’t think this particular politician knows how to do it correctly (and he will use this tactic) and I don’t think he or those he works with will be scrupulous. On the flip side if he shames people he will probably largely be targeting public figures who know how to handle it. If he doesn’t…..yeah, it could be bad. Also, I am flattered by the stalking but I am just into you. Sorry to crush your hopes and dreams. 1
T-Shirt Posted January 22, 2022 Posted January 22, 2022 16 minutes ago, The Nehor said: but I am just into you. Thanks, but no thanks.
The Nehor Posted January 22, 2022 Posted January 22, 2022 2 hours ago, T-Shirt said: Thanks, but no thanks. So did my being into you crush your hope and dreams? There go mine as well. What a bad day.
pogi Posted January 22, 2022 Author Posted January 22, 2022 17 hours ago, pogi said: I noticed that you skipped a couple direct quotes and examples. I will address the rest later. Here are the facts - I have given examples of friends, foe, and colleagues of the USCIRF all agree that their methods constitute 'naming and shaming'. The friends that I quoted think it is noble, the foe think it is divisive, and the colleagues are hoping for reform away from these unsuccessful and divisive tactics. When friends, foe, and colleagues all agree, it is really hard to dismiss it all and suggest that there is nothing to it. I have provided examples of them naming (Pakistan, Iran) and shaming ('shame on you'). Some colleagues are rightly pleading for a different approach.
bsjkki Posted January 22, 2022 Posted January 22, 2022 1 hour ago, pogi said: Here are the facts - I have given examples of friends, foe, and colleagues of the USCIRF all agree that their methods constitute 'naming and shaming'. The friends that I quoted think it is noble, the foe think it is divisive, and the colleagues are hoping for reform away from these unsuccessful and divisive tactics. When friends, foe, and colleagues all agree, it is really hard to dismiss it all and suggest that there is nothing to it. I have provided examples of them naming (Pakistan, Iran) and shaming ('shame on you'). Some colleagues are rightly pleading for a different approach. And that is not the organization referenced in the OP. 1
pogi Posted January 22, 2022 Author Posted January 22, 2022 2 hours ago, bsjkki said: And that is not the organization referenced in the OP. Yes, you have pointed that out several times now. I will just repeat my answer - Same players, same game, different name.
bsjkki Posted January 22, 2022 Posted January 22, 2022 24 minutes ago, pogi said: Yes, you have pointed that out several times now. I will just repeat my answer - Same players, same game, different name. it seems you have idealogical animus towards Thomas Farr and Senator Brownback. Ideological differences. Farr led the USCIRF from 1999-2003 and Brownback from 2017-Jan 2021. I find it a worthy goal to advance freedom of religion around the world. Pointing out human rights abuses abroad is not a bad thing. But I can agree to disagree but you are smearing a lot of good people. The point of your whole Op is being against that, I thought. Oh well. Did you bother to listen to the speeches?
poptart Posted January 24, 2022 Posted January 24, 2022 Ohh the homophobic Racists are making friends! https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jan/24/white-nationalists-are-flocking-to-the-us-anti-abortion-movement https://www.the-sun.com/news/4515799/march-for-life-tensions-washington-dc-patriot-front/
poptart Posted January 24, 2022 Posted January 24, 2022 On 1/21/2022 at 8:54 PM, The Nehor said: So did my being into you crush your hope and dreams? There go mine as well. What a bad day. Lol you forgot to post no homo....
James 1 5 Posted January 24, 2022 Posted January 24, 2022 On 1/20/2022 at 12:25 PM, pogi said: Former Kansas Governor Sam Brownback was on the former Trump administration working to combat religious persecution abroad. He has now started an organization here in the US with the same intention. On the surface, this sounds like a noble cause, but in reading about the tactics that will be used it sounds like a disaster waiting to happen that will only deepen the divide and exacerbate the tension that already exists. I fear this will only create more hate, more intolerance, and more divisiveness in our country when we really don't need any more of that. from this Deseret News article, Tom Farr complains: Ok, fair points. We shouldn't defame or shame those who simply disagree with us on matters of religion and public policy/morality. It sounds like he is saying that if religious people are disregarding the concerns of people of no-faith or of the LGBTQ community, it is only because of their religious beliefs - nothing personal. People of faith shouldn't be publicly shamed and defamed for this. So, how does this organization intend to combat this? In other words, anyone who simply disagrees with them on matters of faith, public policy, and public morality will be defamed and publicly shamed. Hmmm...what was that they were just complaining about? Do they really not see the hypocrisy in this? Further from the article. Fair points. https://www.deseret.com/faith/2022/1/19/22891381/this-new-group-says-people-of-faith-are-under-attack-heres-how-it-plans-to-help-them-sam-brownback I guess my question is how should we react to this? Will those who have complained about the cancel culture and public shaming tactics we see today stand up against these tactics when they are used for a cause they believe in? What would be a better approach? To go one step better we could just drop the shaming tactics aside from maybe stating what it is that we do not approve of. Mentioning who is doing what, citing their name and position and what they voted for would be or could be good to know.
The Nehor Posted January 25, 2022 Posted January 25, 2022 2 hours ago, poptart said: Lol you forgot to post no homo.... Lying is a sin.
poptart Posted January 25, 2022 Posted January 25, 2022 14 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Lying is a sin. Repent later.
Recommended Posts