rode_kater wrote: ↑Thu May 05, 2022 11:44 am
People like the idea of human rights for themselves but are wary of the idea of granting them to others.
You just defined American politics in one simple statement.
And if I may, let's just shoot straight for a moment, the biggest reason for flame wars here is because someone eventually says something that triggers another, and rather than just letting it go, or at the very least engaging a simple debate about the matter, they pull rank and want to have the thread locked.
Abortion doesn't have anything to do at all with skirts, aside from perhaps sounding the alarm that if the SCOTUS is about to overturn Roe, other rights may be on the chopping block. The concern is certainly justified, make no mistake, we're toying with flat out fascism across the world and in the U.S., and it seems both sides are in on it. The left just wants to run the world their way, and the right wants to run the world theirs. Both sides seem equally opposed to personal liberty, each side wants to silence the other
I don't see how the SCOTUS could rule that any governing body (local, state, or federal) could prohibit crossdressing (yes that legally applies to us), or just men wearing skirts in general because to do so would violate the 14th Amendments equal protection clause-- that is unless that governing body also legislated that women aren't allowed to wear skirts either. Now, that says nothing for private entities. The right to wear a skirt at the office comes down to a law (the Civil Rights Act of 1964), that can certainly be overturned or amended, and I've voiced this concern before on this website, to which Dave informed me that it's VERY unlikely for rights long since established to be overturned... Well, here we are, Roe is all but overturned.... Never say never Dave. It's a hell of a lot easier to overturn a law than to amend the constitution.
Of course, getting back to the 14th, while in theory (and text) you'd think that it would protect male skirt wearer's... not so fast... apparently though it doesn't say so in the text, "equal protection" does not apply to gender or sex. You'd think it would, but if so, then why can't women go around topless in certain areas that a man can?
It's hard to say where this will go. The Evangelical
the American Taliban, make no mistake, and despite only making up for about 25% of the overall population, have an enormous amount of political sway, especially among red states, but even in moderate (purple) ones too. If the Evangelicals have their way, it will be illegal for a man to wear a skirt
. I'm not saying that's what I predict, but I do know that's among the many things they want. They also want state enforced obedience towards their God, and they want the United States to be declared an official "Christian Nation". I'm not sure what they intend to do with all the non-Christians in this world they're trying to create. They want all children to be required to pray to the Christian God in public schools, they want mandatory teaching of biblical principles in schools, they reject theory of evolution and want creationism taught exclusively.
They. Want. OBEDIENCE, because in their view that's what God wants.
Thankfully most Christians in this country are not religious extremist, and realize that if one person's freedoms are trampled on, then all freedoms are at risk, and that true religious freedom can only be achieved when the state stays out of the personal convictions of the people's individual souls. This is where I'm at. Frankly I would imagine that God would want people to come to them under their own free will, not because national extremist forced them to.
Men wearing skirts is liberal. You couldn't do this [openly] in the 1950's, you know... that decade that many conservatives and evangelicals want us to return to?
Does abortion have anything do to with men in skirts? No. Is it a slippery slope to the nixing of other rights? Maybe... it's too early to tell.
crfriend wrote: ↑Fri Apr 29, 2022 1:04 pm
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.
They got us kids to recite it before we were really old enough to think about what we were saying. Thankfully in most circumstances a child can not enter into a legally binding contract. It's kind of odd that the Christian right would hold so much emphasis on the pledge of Allegiance. You'd think that a God fearing Christian would pledge Allegiance to Christ.. full stop. If one really believes in God in that way, then they'd have to agree that God is bigger than America, and so is Christ. No, modern right wing Christians square the pledge under some sort of Christian nationalism, which makes absolutely no sense. Why would Christ be a nationalist?? It's like the concept of a libertarian dictator, the two are in conflict!
I'm not alone with this line of thought. One of the main reasons we have the religious freedom we enjoy today is thanks in no small part to the Jehovah's Witnesses refusal to say the pledge. It would seem they truly place God before country (it seems as a proper Christian should) This is a matter that has went before the Supreme Court.  A fascinating read by the way... check out Justice Frankfurter's dissenting opinion....
"Otherwise each individual could set up his own censor against obedience to laws conscientiously deemed for the public good by those whose business it is to make laws.
... and this man actually opposed a child's right to not
recite the pledge... It's kind of ironic considering where we are at today with regards to people's desire to skirt law on the grounds of "religious freedom". It seems freedom... is always a double edged sword... oh the tangled web we weave!
 West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette