With Roe V Wade overturned recently, this seems a bit tone deaf.
The beliefs are being much more than represented, they’re being mandated and legislated and protected unfairly.
Nobody has opposed the existence of churches or religious institutions in any major political setting for a long time. That’s what representation means, that their right to exist and operate is protected. It’s not being attacked.
I’m a devout follower of Neaus Christ, but calling myself a Christian in modern America makes me absolutely sick to my stomach these days. I’m nearly ashamed of what that means for this country.
> With Roe V Wade overturned recently, this seems a bit tone deaf. The beliefs are being much more than represented, they’re being mandated and legislated and protected unfairly.
This is actually the opposite of reality. Roe was the mandate of one belief over the entire country, legislated from the bench no less. Overturning it is a return to federalism, and allows each state to decide which beliefs it wants to uphold.
We probably shouldn't turn this into a Roe v Wade thread, but perhaps they were talking about the state legislation released by the court, which is applied equally to the people who want or don't want it and is not a result of a popular vote.
> We probably shouldn't turn this into a Roe v Wade thread
Yes, you're probably right. It's not likely to be productive.
> ... but perhaps they were talking about the state legislation released by the court, which is applied equally to the people who want or don't want it and is not a result of a popular vote.
Perhaps, but it doesn't read that way. Even if it were, that would just be lamenting representative democracy. Maybe a better point than the one that actually seems to have been made, but also probably not a particularly productive conversation.
Even a direct democracy can violate the rights of 49% of its voters. That's why we have a concept of inalienable rights and a semi-aristocratic branch of government that is supposed to be a check on violations of them.
Ironically, the way the phrase is applied depends on the time period. Historically, federalism meant what you're saying. That is to say Jay and Hamilton were Federalists, and advocated a strong federal government.
In modern parlance Federalism generally means the opposite: being strongly in favor of states rights. You'll also see this called "new federalism". The explanation for this is that Federalism is about balance of power, and the phrase is generally used to indicate policy that would return a stronger balance. Currently (since the Civil War in particular) the federal government is extremely strong, whereas historically, in the time of the Federalist Papers, it was extremely weak.
Well shit, why stop there then? Let’s peel back the FDA and let the state decide what food is safe. Let’s peel back the DMV and just let states decide who is fit to drive and let each state run their own database. While we’re at it, let’s go ahead and lose the IRS and let states collect our taxes up.
Serious question: are you joking or is this sarcasm?
The states can and do regulate food safety. The states, not the federal government, govern motor vehicle licensing. And finally the states do collect taxes. In fact the constitution even permits the federal government to levy an apportioned tax on the states and leave it up to them on how to come up with the money.
Let’s peel back the FDA and let the state decide what food is safe
For many foods, we still do. It's why you sometimes see "Registered with the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture" printed on packages. (Usually abbreviated to something like "Reg. Penna. Dept. Agr.")
Sometimes particular states set standards that all the other states, or an entire industry, follows.
When they (used to?) give away cars on TV game shows, the announcer always lists "California emissions" in the description of the car.
This is embarrassing to post. Just say you have trouble relating to people, it’d come across better.
Devout is about dedication, not visibility. My journey has nothing to do with how I portray myself and behave in social settings. Very few of my coworkers even know I attend church and do mission work. I don’t have to wave a flag out of my ass to worship the Living God, unlike the majority of phony half-believers keeping pews warm Sunday mornings. They leave church filled with impatience and anger, and treat those less fortunate as a filth and a burden despite being commanded by God to serve THEM!
All that said, I’m not at all shocked you don’t understand. Good luck.
Nobody stated that you have to "wave a flag out of [your] ass." I merely pointed out that "devout" has a particular meaning that seems to be in conflict with the notion of being "sick" to admit that you're Christian.
In my (Roman Catholic) theology classes, and many decades of religious study, I was always taught that part of being Christian is to not be afraid of what other people think of you being a Christian. That accepting persecution for your faith is a very basic act of faith.
I merely suggest you use a word other than "devout" to describe your relationship with your faith. "Adherent" might work. But as there are many different types of Christianity, perhaps your line requires less devotion, or a different type of devotion than mine.
I'm not sure what a "journey" is, but I wish you well with your life and your interest in improving your relationship with God.
The beliefs are being much more than represented, they’re being mandated and legislated and protected unfairly.
Nobody has opposed the existence of churches or religious institutions in any major political setting for a long time. That’s what representation means, that their right to exist and operate is protected. It’s not being attacked.
I’m a devout follower of Neaus Christ, but calling myself a Christian in modern America makes me absolutely sick to my stomach these days. I’m nearly ashamed of what that means for this country.