Thoughts Re: Protocols Inspired by the “Tennessee… “ Thread

[Pdxfashionpioneer]

Carl was good enough to give a very complete answer to my inquiry. Except he forgot to tell me suggestions belong in this area. So, in the spirit of my suggestion and in the interest of letting the Tennessee thread die its overdue natural death I’m crossing the T of my suggestion.

Carl also said that asking the volunteer moderators to move threads is asking more than is reasonable so, that’s answers that. Nonetheless, I feel that when a discussion of a fashion question drifts into a political debate, one or another of the debaters should take the debate to the Off Topic area.

He also said the consensus among the moderators was that it felt to them like taking such a step would squelche conversation. I don’t see it that way at all, to me it would be a matter of moving an off-topic conversation to another room so those who wanted to finish the original discussion could while making room for the other conversation.

Because it will be a participant moving the conversation no one should feel they are being squelched. In fact, I submit quite the opposite will occur. It seriously like every time a question of social or political policy comes up someone complains about the division the debate is creating. If 2 or more are off in the “anything goes” corner, that concern should go away.

Finally, I wasn’t suggesting that all conversation creep be moved anywhere else, just those that become political.

[crfriend]

Here is my original reply to PDX, in its entirety, and I believe it answers the questions and presents the reasoning behind it:

This has been mooted in the past, and has come in for some serious consideration. Each time the consensus decision was that (a) it'd be a whole lot of extra work and (b) that it'd break the normal functional model of conversation-drift as it happens in the real world. Thus, each time, it has been put down as being impractical and confusing.

Discussion and debate on controversial ideas are a core part of what it means to be a free society. Thus, we really cannot stifle those and, given how pervasive they are in the Brave New Order, it's more important than ever. There's a reason why we try to use a "light touch" -- and also why I try to spread the consensus of the moderation staff as far and as wide on the globe as I can.

If we are personally affronted, we have the absolute right to defend ourselves in the public light where the offence occurred. Personal affronts on-line are frowned upon as largely unnecessary at best, and cowardly at worst. Do not commit them if you expect to remain respected. Ideas, theorems, and hypotheses however, are fair game as are policies. Yes, this opens the door to political discussion, but given how things have gotten in the past 40 years, we cannot exactly detach political policies and dogma from our own personal lives because of the intrusion of said policies and dogmas into our personal lives.

The above having been said, it's important that we retain respect for each other, and for the views we may hold -- at least publically. That's the primary ask here.

[Bodycon]

I enjoy a debate, but agree when it starts getting overly personal it's time to walk away.

I don't agree that moving posts is a good idea, however similar to this thread, surely those posting could do the same without needing mod input (other than as a warning that it is all going a bit wrong)? That allows the original thread to get back on track and a new thread to take on the niggle, or the niggle to go away.

If you move politics, do you then move religion, royal families, gun control etc. etc. all too complicated. Save for the odd thread, it all works well.

[Pdxfashionpioneer]

My suggestion was, and still is, that when participants in these online discussions turn a discussion on say Freestyle Fashion or whatever into a political discussion that they announce they are taking that discussion to Off Topic, which is where political discussions belong.

What made me think of this is that it seems like every time a thread moves into politics someone objects that: no one is interested (Really? Then why is the thread still getting views and postings?), that it's divisive (Only if one or another of the participants is making ad hominen arguments rather than using facts and logic.) or totally irrelevant.

Unfortunately, in today's political climate, world-wide, politicians are basing their platforms on regulating or banning private behavior and personal choices. And don't think that just because some of us insist on calling ourselves Men-In-Skirts and therefore wholly separate from the folks in the LGBTQ+ community the hate mongers are going to condone our preferences. They don't. They lump us in with the Queer community. Look at what right-wing commentators had to say when Harry Styles made the front cover of Vogue.

[Pdxfashionpioneer]

Carl said,

Nope. It guarantees freedom "of" religion, and prohibits the establishment of a State religion. Only one Constitution in the world has guaranteed a freedom from religion, and that was the one of the now-defunct Soviet Union.

Supreme Court decisions have made it clear that the clause prohibiting the establishment of a State religion also prohibits the State from supporting, let alone requiring, specific religious practices and doctrines, such as Christian prayer in schools. So, the US Constitution very clearly gives us freedom from religion.

In addition, while it may be a common belief, it is not accurate to say that our country was founded on Judeo-Christian values, much less that we are such a nation. The majority of the Founding Fathers were not Christians; there was quite a bit of diversity in their religious beliefs. The largest percentage of them were Deists; that is, those who believe that there is no God outside of the totality of creation. Or in modern parlance, the Universe. For the record, I learned this in 6th or 7th grade from the books in my school library that I used for reference in one of the papers I wrote for my History class.

They were also heavily influenced by the ideas embodied in The Enlightenment. Interestingly, those ideas were originated by Native Americans; talk about philosophical ping pong. I recently learned this very interesting bit of history from The Dawn of Everything: A New History of Humanity by Graeber and Wenbrow. It was reviewed by The Atlantic magazine and highly recommended by a friend of mine. I've only gotten a few chapters into it because it is a book that I feel has to be read one chapter at a time. Its concepts are that profound.

[Bodycon]

Is the USA not fundamentally creationist going as far back as the Declaration of Independence and the birth of the nation?

Whichever particular religion or doctrine the founders followed there is clearly the ideology of subservience to a creator which exists to this day through your (USA) society and its institutions. With the Pledge of Allegiance "one nation under god" addition in the 1950's this was reinforced further.

If your nation is founded as creationist and continues in that way, anyone who has different views is an outsider, who cannot fully pledge allegiance, as the words are beyond their conscience. So, no matter what the constitution may or not say, religion is built in.

The USA is not much different to any other country in that respect, however it is a good example.

[crfriend]

Whichever particular religion or doctrine the founders followed there is clearly the ideology of subservience to a creator which exists to this day through your (USA) society and its institutions. With the Pledge of Allegiance "one nation under god" addition in the 1950's this was reinforced further.

And the Supreme Court is likely going to erode the protections "from" religion soon under the guise of praying at school "athletic events".

As far as that idiotic McCarthy-era add to the "Pledge of Allegiance" (Does any other country have an analogue to that?) goes, I simply omit those words as being (1) irrelevant, (2) offensive, and (3) coercive.

If your nation is founded as creationist and continues in that way, anyone who has different views is an outsider, who cannot fully pledge allegiance, as the words are beyond their conscience. So, no matter what the constitution may or not say, religion is built in.

"Built-in" is a good analogy. Organised religion is so tightly intertwined with the government -- especially the newer incarnations of it -- that it's impossible to get rid of or get away from.

[rode_kater]

Supreme Court decisions have made it clear that the clause prohibiting the establishment of a State religion also prohibits the State from supporting, let alone requiring, specific religious practices and doctrines, such as Christian prayer in schools. So, the US Constitution very clearly gives us freedom from religion.

I think part of the problem is that the US Constitution is quite old and tries to do a lot of heavy lifting in one sentence. The 1st amendments tries to cover, in one go, essentially Articles 9 (Freedom of thought, conscience and religion), 10 (Freedom of expression), 11 (Freedom of assembly and association) and 13 (Right to an effective remedy) of the ECHR and doing it badly, requiring creative interpretations by the Supreme Court. For example the right privacy (Article 8 ECHR) exists in the US only as a creatively interpreted constitutional right.

It would have been nice if sometime in the last 200 years the US had gotten around to a Constitutional Convention to break out the 1st amendment into separate parts and actually write out what it means and vote on that in a democratic way. Then you wouldn't be so reliant on the interpretations of courts. However, I estimate the chances of that ever happening somewhere between zero and nihil.

[Myopic Bookworm]

Is the USA not fundamentally creationist going as far back as the Declaration of Independence and the birth of the nation?

Whichever particular religion or doctrine the founders followed there is clearly the ideology of subservience to a creator which exists to this day... With the Pledge of Allegiance "one nation under god" addition in the 1950's this was reinforced further.

I would point out that "creationist and "believing in a creator" are not at all the same thing. American creationists do not just believe in a creator, but have very fixed ideas about exactly how this creator operates, based on a more or less literal reading of Hebrew scripture. In the UK, by contrast, the mainstream churches tend to believe in a creator, but to reject the literatalist view, and take evolution to be the mechanism of creation just as they take gravity to be the mechanism of the solar system. It is not "creationism" that is embedded in the American constitution- depite the best efforts of extremists to argue this - but either "deism" (belief in a creator, not necessarily a personal God) or possibly "theism" (belief in a personal creative God).

[Bodycon]

Is the USA not fundamentally creationist going as far back as the Declaration of Independence and the birth of the nation?

Whichever particular religion or doctrine the founders followed there is clearly the ideology of subservience to a creator which exists to this day... With the Pledge of Allegiance "one nation under god" addition in the 1950's this was reinforced further.

I would point out that "creationist and "believing in a creator" are not at all the same thing. American creationists do not just believe in a creator, but have very fixed ideas about exactly how this creator operates, based on a more or less literal reading of Hebrew scripture. In the UK, by contrast, the mainstream churches tend to believe in a creator, but to reject the literatalist view, and take evolution to be the mechanism of creation just as they take gravity to be the mechanism of the solar system. It is not "creationism" that is embedded in the American constitution- depite the best efforts of extremists to argue this - but either "deism" (belief in a creator, not necessarily a personal God) or possibly "theism" (belief in a personal creative God).

Whatever any particular American, or any other subset of Creationists believe, is beside the point and has no bearing on the words' meaning as of today (that meaning, may, of course, change in the future). All the dictionaries I have referenced, and even Wikipedia agree with that, so I feel (somewhat - not being any kind of expert) confident in saying that what you are describing above are factions of creationism, which are not fundamentally different in the core belief.

Wikipedia says - Theistic evolution can be described as "creationism" in holding that divine intervention brought about the origin of life or that divine laws govern formation of species, though many creationists (in the strict sense) would deny that the position is creationism at all.

I suppose, in simple terms, we end up at three options: Created, Not created, Don't know. With maybe a fourth, Don't care.

Above all, believe what you feel is right for you.

[Coder]

I think the trouble too lies in how words are used in the news and politically. Usually when the news reports on creationists they are using it as a pejorative. Usually the term is applied to people who want the biblical version of how the world was created taught in public school classes, and they are a specific subset of creationists, ie, literalists. Bodycon is right in that there are variations / subsets of creationists, but in my opinion the term is generally used to demean people and to insinuate they don't believe in science, and create a "right think" and "wrong think" division between folks -> that they are neanderthals and have no place in society.

This seemed to be a real hot topic years ago, I don't think it gets a lot of press nowadays - but I've also been paying less attention to the news for the past few years.

Ultimately all I can say is, whatever. The biggest mind F for me is sitting on my couch, thinking about where it all came from, how things just "popped" into existence" - I mean even the mere existence of stuff. I believe in god - this is more just how does something exists which didn't exist, couldn't exist (matter, energy, etc...) without being create by something, but even the thing that created everything needed to be created... I mean in all seriousness there should be nothing, period. No matter, no energy, nothing - just a void. Even there being a void sometimes gets to me - in order for their to be a void there has to be a contrast to that void... anyhow this illustrates #1 why I'm not a philosopher (my ideas stink) and #2 why I avoid any drugs whatsoever (psychedelics, weed, etc...).

[Myopic Bookworm]

Wikipedia says - Theistic evolution can be described as "creationism" in holding that divine intervention brought about the origin of life or that divine laws govern formation of species, though many creationists (in the strict sense) would deny that the position is creationism at all.

I suppose, in simple terms, we end up at three options: Created, Not created, Don't know. With maybe a fourth, Don't care.

Above all, believe what you feel is right for you.

I once spent a lot of sweat on that Wikipedia entry myself, before giving up in the face of a wave of theological superficiality, unsophistication, and sheer blockheadedness. Many liberal Christians (and Unitarians and Jews) simply accept (a) evolution as a fact and (b) divine action/law as a part of how the world is, not an "intervention". But conservative believers would typically regard such as theologies as deeply heretical. I did personally come to find the concept of a pre-existent creator barely tenable, but Darwin had less to do with that than Hubble, really.

[rode_kater]

Supreme Court decisions have made it clear that the clause prohibiting the establishment of a State religion also prohibits the State from supporting, let alone requiring, specific religious practices and doctrines, such as Christian prayer in schools. So, the US Constitution very clearly gives us freedom from religion.

Not so clear apparently. A leaked Supreme Court opinion states that if a right isn't explicitly listed in the Constitution then it doesn't exist. And there's no problem overriding previous Supreme Court decisions to correct these "errors".

I can understand their position that it's not the court's job to create rights, but it's been more than 50 years since the last amendment. Since it's apparently nearly impossible to add new rights to the Constitution via the normal amendments, I also think it's short sighted to take the literalist view on this.

But I'm not a women living in America, so what do I know.

[Bodycon]

I once spent a lot of sweat on that Wikipedia entry myself, before giving up in the face of a wave of theological superficiality, unsophistication, and sheer blockheadedness. Many liberal Christians (and Unitarians and Jews) simply accept (a) evolution as a fact and (b) divine action/law as a part of how the world is, not an "intervention". But conservative believers would typically regard such as theologies as deeply heretical. I did personally come to find the concept of a pre-existent creator barely tenable, but Darwin had less to do with that than Hubble, really.

I sympathise, these questions can be overbearing if you spend too much time on them, but kind of needs to be done to find peace with yourself.

I have no intention of becoming any kind of expert on the subject, but consider that integration of religions and politics, as a form of population control, by many organised religions and subsets has caused so much damage to our world and its inhabitants that we would be better off without them. Just believe what you want to believe and leave everyone else alone.... OR.... Just wear what you want to wear and leave everyone else alone.

[Pdxfashionpioneer]

rode kader said,

A leaked Supreme Court opinion states that if a right isn't explicitly listed in the Constitution, then it doesn't exist.

Close, but no cigar (prize). (Sorry, it's an old American colloquialism.) So far, it's only a leaked Supreme Court draft decision. The reason drafts are kept secret is that they're subject to scrupulous review and often rewriting.

In fact, in the case of one landmark decision, the Justice tasked with writing the opinion after the decision was made came back to "the Brethren" (as the Justices sometimes refer to themselves) and said, "The decision just won't write." What he meant was that he couldn't make a coherent case in defense of the decision and argued that they had made a collective mistake. In due course, they voted against their original decision and came up with a coherent opinion to defend their new decision. So, as the Great Yogi (Berra, a beloved NY Yankees catcher) said, "It's not over until it's over."

Sit down for this one, I have to agree with at least part of the current Court's draft reasoning, namely that Roe v. Wade showed at least a poor choice of words if not poor logic when it said, "the right to privacy is somewhere in the Constitution." What? The author of the opinion couldn't find a copy to refer to? Or didn't he have the time to read it word for word?

That said, there are two critical counterarguments. One, the Founding Fathers* did not even try to list all of the freedoms implied in citizenship because they knew that someone in the future might try to argue that something that wasn't listed that common sense would say is a right could be abridged because it wasn't specifically enumerated.

The other, which is what I think the author of Roe v. Wade meant is that the right to privacy is woven into the warp and woof of the other enumerated rights: the protection from seizure of one's personal papers, freedom of thought and religion, and so on are all private matters.

This rationale is sufficiently compelling that the Florida Constitution protects the right to an abortion because nothing could be more personal.


* That is, the members of the Second Continental Congress, which approved the final revision of the Declaration of Independence, the members of Constitutional Convention, which wrote the Constitution, the authors of the Federalist Papers, which explained the Constitution, and the First US Congress, which wrote the first 10 approved Amendments that are commonly called the Bill of Rights. The common people who fought and died in the Revolution in the general use of the term "Founding Fathers" are not included.

Another couple of points, at the time of the Revolution the majority of Americans did not belong to an organized religion so there is no telling what their beliefs were.

Rhode Island was the first colony founded on the principle of religious freedom for all.