abell, beckett, cruz, faith, free speech, Heathen, Pagan, politics, Religion, sanders, scalia, supremem court, trump
So we’re actually going “in depth” today on an article by Beckett. While I do talk about politics on this blog some, he doesn’t. However, Beckett did this time and I want to drop some response to the things he said here. Why? Maybe because I’m feeling a little vindictive over Beckett trying to purge Heathenism and it’s representatives from Patheos and Paganism over false claims of “racism.” I’m sorry Beckett, but you decided that freedom of speech was something you were willing to sacrifice in the name of political expediency.
So let’s talk politics. I bring you Beckett’s 6 Thoughts on Scalia, Trump, and American Politics
I’m having trouble composing blog-length pieces right now. I suspect a steady diet of cold medication has a lot to do with that, but fatigue is involved too. So here are a few random thoughts that may not be fully developed but I’d like to share anyway.
I am sorry to hear you’re sick, Beckett. However, as hard polytheists we must wonder if the things in our lives are natural forces or divine intents. Given how you recently dishonored two heathen leaders, I am left to wonder if Hela, Goddess of the Dishonored (and sickness) is not exacting a toll for your deeds.
Still, we do not revel in the illnesses of our enemies, but accept them as the will of our Goddess here.
1. I take no pleasure in the untimely death of a man who, from all accounts, was a good person who served his country according to the dictates of his conscience. But Antonin Scalia was a disaster for this country and I’m very glad he’s no longer on the United States Supreme Court.
I once would have taken this statement at face value. Now I begin to wonder. Frankly, I am neither happy nor sad that Scalia is no longer on the Supreme Court. I’m not a Conservative, so loosing a conservative judge is not as big a deal for me. On the other hand, Scalia was a Constitutionalist, from what I can put together, and very much held that the Court should not over step its bounds or mandate. And he rightly pointed out that the recent ruling by the SC about Gay Marriage essentially opened the gates for every religion to be listed as a Hate Group if it didn’t change religious doctrines to suit GLBT desires or definitions of marriage.
So there is that.
When a society begins to recognize that it is not living up to its fundamental principles and is excluding entire classes of people from full and equal rights, the proper response is to say “we’re sorry, we’ll fix that now.” Yet to Justice Scalia, intimate relations between gay couples (much less marriage) was as appropriate for legislatures to decide as the tax code or water policies. His fetishization of “original intent” would freeze the law in the 18th century and ignore trends and situations the founders could never have imagined.
Actually, this “fetishization” is in fact the lawful way of things.
Beckett here can grouse about how Scalia wanted the states to have the right to decide their stances on Gay Marriage. This is because, in the Constitution, any power not explicitly given to the federal government was by law to be the domain of the States to rule for themselves.
Given that it was not stated anywhere that the Federal Government had the right or lawful authority to change the definitions of marriage, or even create them, this power by law fell to the states to decide as they pleased.
What the SC did, in it’s ruling, is violate the rights of the states to decide, and the people to have a democratic process to decide what laws they decided they want. The SC, instead of allowing for democratic votes…engaged in an act of oligarchical authoritarianism. Pretty much the complete opposite of a Democracy or a Republic.
And no, the Founders couldn’t have “imagined” gay marriage being an issue. But they did leave the door open for the people to democratically choose to adapt to new, “unimagined” situations via voting. But the Supreme Court didn’t let that happen, over Scalia’s objections, did it?
Funny, how when the law is the way you like it, it’s good. But when the law isn’t the way you like it, but someone still sticks to it, it’s a”Fetish.”
The judicial career of Antonin Scalia stands as a perfect example of how intelligence and wisdom are two very different things.
The blog post of Beckett is a perfect example of how intelligence, wisdom, and knowledge are three very different things.
Also, just because you feel that your position is the correct one, and that the other guy’s position is the wrong one, doesn’t make you “wise.” Given the dangers of allowing an oligarchical body to gain supreme legal power over the legal rights of the people, I would say that Scalia’s position on trying to protest against such founding actions is in fact the wiser choice.
2. President Obama has a constitutional obligation to appoint a replacement justice, and Republican Senators’ vow to not confirm any appointment is blatantly irresponsible. The first priority of all government officials is to do their damn jobs and keep the government working, not to score political points for their party.
Hey Beckett, perhaps you’ve heard of the Vice President?
I do love delicious, delicious irony. In fact, I read somewhere that back in the 60’s, the Democratic party put forth legislation to prevent a president from appointing a judge during his last year in term.
It is the job of politicians to do their job. However, when that job is preventing a president from apointing to the highest legal body a person who will vote their political biases for the next 30-40 years (a body which has shown many times it will over rule the will of the people for it’s own ends) it is not an act of earning political points so much as it is attempting to prevent the appointment of a person who will not represent the will of their voters.
I.e. doing their job.
The President should appoint a moderately liberal judge and the Senate should confirm him or her. If they do not, that gives Bernie or Hillary more ammunition for the general election.
Beckett, why should he appoint a moderately liberal judge to the board? Why not a moderately conservative one? Oh heck, a hard core conservative one like Scalia, to maintain the balance of represented views upon this most august body of legal judgments?
It seems that Beckett has no problem with stacking the deck in favor of his views, but not so much in allowing those who have different views to be represented in our Supreme Court. And damn the Republicans who might want to have representation upon that court. They’re just not doing their damn jobs by following the president’s wishes. Of course, I suspect that if Trump was in office, a much different song would Beckett sing.
3. I voted for Bernie Sanders in the Texas primary early voting. He represents the closest thing to a true progressive who has a chance of getting elected. However, if Hillary wins the nomination, I will support her in the general election. Mind you, I don’t want Hillary to be President. I just want any Republican a whole lot less.
“the closest thing to a true progressive that has the chance to get elected.”
Well, Beckett is not wrong here. Of course, the “closest thing” is much different from the “actual thing” when it comes to progressives. For example, actual progressives like #BlackLivesMatter, who graciously used Sander’s own platform.
Now, Sanders has some mighty deeds to his name, and I have much respect for his civil rights work. Especially from back in the day. But when the “closest thing” isn’t even on the radar of respect for the “real thing” and he can’t even hold onto his podium…presidential gravitas and will I see not in this man.
But hey, I can fully support voting for Sanders when your other option is Hillary Clinton, a woman who if she were anyone else would already have been drummed out politics, if not out right in prison, for her misdeeds.
Still…you would vote for a known law breaker simply because you don’t want a “republican” to be president. You know Beckett, for a man so stridently against “racism” your attitude here is…well, almost racist. Admittedly, it’s over political ideologies rather than skin color, but you are judging a person for what they are (politically), rather than their honor, integrity, lawfulness, or merit as an individual.
Intelligence vs Wisdom.
4. In 1984 and 1988, civil rights leader Jesse Jackson ran for President. Comedian Richard Pryor had a joke about a bunch of white racists who got drunk and thought it would be funny to go vote for Jesse… and then woke up the next morning screaming “what do you mean Jesse Jackson is President?!”
Uh…okay? I guess this happened. Not sure the point of it. Beckett you’ve generally started with a point this is just…mean humor.
Idk, it was acceptable in the 80’s?
I’m starting to wonder if the Republican party is going to sober up in time. Donald Trump is a fascist and Ted Cruz is a theocrat. Marco Rubio and John Kasich would make lousy Presidents, but at least they’re sane.
Okay, do you have evidence of this “Fascism?”
I mean, don’t get me wrong, I am no fan of Trump at all. But he’s not a fascist. I’ve studied fascism in history. Trump…isn’t one. But while we’re speaking of fascists here, Beckett, you’re voting for Sanders…a Communist.
Well, Socialist, techically, but the only difference between a socialist and a communist is generally the direction the gun in their hand is pointing and how polite they are while holding it. And speaking of fascists, I would like to point out the most famous of fascist groups was the National Socialists. I.e. the Nazis.
Now, is Cruz a “theorcrat?” No idea. He might be religious, but are we as religious men really going to hold that against him, Beckett? Frankly, I like Rubio, but he’s not doing well in the polls.
But wondering if the Republicans are going to wake up in time is halarious to me. I mean, look at the choices on the democratic side. A career criminal and a socialist who can’t even control his own microphone! No one has stellar candidates this time around. Say what you will about Trump, but at least in a conversation with Putin he wouldn’t bend over and accept it in his butt like Sanders would have to. 😛
I still think Rubio will get the nomination, but I’m shocked Trump won South Carolina.
Which shows how little you understand those with political views different from your own. Trump is many things, and many of these things I do not care for, but he is a man who speaks his mind and represents well the feelings of all those people running to him.
But that is a failing of your own understanding Beckett (along with the Republican party who was just as shocked), not a mark against Trump or South Carolina.
5. Our political process has been greatly damaged by perpetual campaigning. Nothing is done for the good of the country, but rather for whether or not it will get votes and campaign contributions. I’d like to see a ban on all campaigning more than 90 days ahead of an election. After you’re in office, you spend your time governing, not running for re-election.
Eh, i could go for this too. Why we are starting over a year before the elections to do this…I have no idea. Especually in this age of instant information. I could understand when you had to go around via trains, but yeah, these days…meh.
But on the other hand, the long runs do give us time to clear out the field. After all, the Republicans started with over 20 candidates and it took how long now to narrow it down to 6? If we started 90 days from election, I don’t know that the republicans could have managed anything. But perhaps that is what Beckett wants, given the lack of division in his political party of choice. Of course, he would have ended up instantly with Hillary, but hey, victory with an evil king is better than giving your foes the chance to fight, I guess.
Of course, so much of the campaining is so people can push what they think “is for the good of the country.” After all, Beckett, good is a matter of perspective. What is good to one man is not good for another.
Some might say that discrimination against sexual orientations is bad for the country and we should stop doing so. Others point out that Pedophilia is one of those sexual orientations that expeiriences discrimination against. To end discrimination in this case would be good for the pedophile…but not so good for the child they take as a lover. What then, Beckett, is in the greatest good for the country? To end discrimination, or to preserve it? This is why we have campaigns and elected representatives, to decide these things regardless of how long the process takes. Even if you consider it a distraction from “doing good.”
Intelligence vs Wisdom.
6. An anonymous quote often attributed to Plato says “One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors.” Politics is too important to leave to politicians and their wealthy benefactors. If you can do nothing else, vote.
At the same time, no society can be fundamentally transformed by politics alone. Last year’s Obergefell case legalizing same sex marriage nationwide was ultimately not a political revolution but a judicial recognition of a change in society. This is why I am not an activist but a Druid and a priest. My primary goal is not to change laws but to change relationships. It is through our relationships with each other, with the natural world, and with the Gods and Their virtues and values that we will move from fear, control, and exploitation to love, acceptance, and sustainability.
In fact, Obergefell was both political revolution and recognition of a change in society.
In it, the Supreme Court stated they had the right to write into the Constitution itself what they deemed it should say. They did this because society, at least a very vocal part of society, stated that they no longer had a desire for democratic process, of votes and the will of the people, but for the authority to shape things into their image and desire over the beliefs, rights, and voices of those who disagreed with them. It violated the letter, and spirit, of the Law.
I am Cultor and Deus. My primary goal is not to change the law, or to change relationships. My goal, is to uphold the law, to uphold the traditions and wills of the Gods (and my nation) to the best of my ability.
Beckett speaks of working with the Gods to change the world so that we need not live with fear, control, and exploitation. But there are Gods of those things. Does Beckett then act against Gods he does not like, as thusly has acted against men and laws he does not like?
Beckett votes for Sanders because Sanders is a Progressive. But Progressives as a political ideology are marked by their need for authoritarian control over everything, they use fear to make people obey them, and they exploit the differences between peoples to set them against each other to gain greater control via fear. It has always been so.
Beckett, you are human. All too human. You see yourself as righteous, and your foes as fools or villains. The truth is, you are no different from they. Your actions are no different. You say you wish to end fear, but you call your foes Fascists and speak of how they will grind all under their boots if they win. You say you want acceptance, yet you sought to control the speech of Abell and ban him from Patheos. You say you are against exploitation, but you vote for a Socialist who would insist on exploitation of one group to give to another.
Behold, then, the difference between Intelligence and Wisdom, Beckett.
I’m still waiting for any evidence that religious marriage rites must be changed to conform with marriage equality. The ruling requires state-sanctioned marriages to do so, yes, but if the tenets of a religion include such bigotry, the consequence will be fewer members.
I spent the last 15 minutes trying to find an article written by John Michael Greer, Archdruid of the Ancient Order of Druids in America (AODA). In this article he spoke on the power of words, and how just saying certain words shuts off all conversation, even if the words in question are not being used correctly. Words like Nazi. Fascist. Terrorist. Communist. Etc. Mostly the first two though. It applies in this situation as well. Beckett is using words in a way he KNOWS is incorrect but the feelings those words convey to his readers is what he wants to stir. “Fascist” means simply “he makes me uncomfortable!” Or something along those lines. Never mind, found it: Wednesday February 12, 2014 entitled “Fascism and the Future, Part One: Up from Newspeak” can’t copy and paste the link because new computer and don’t know how to…
Jön Upsal's Gardener said:
I am continually amazed at the insistence that in order to keep the US Constitution current with modern mores and values that we need to alter the plain meaning of the words, or invent new rights and concepts where they never existed before.
There is already a mechanism for the Constitution to grow and adapt to changes in society. It’s called the amendment process (or more radically, a constitutional convention). It really does seem that the only reason this mechanism isn’t used more is because the progressive left is afraid the result won’t come out the way they want it to (i.e., the ERA, which has been bouncing around since 1923).
Irked that society isn’t changing rapidly enough to suit their wishes (and thus amend the Constitution along the lines they would want to see), they are forced to use the courts to redefine the Constitution, because they don’t have either the patience or strong enough arguments to make the case to the people.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pingback: 9(ish) Reasons Why Intelligence isn’t always Wisdom. | Son of Hel