The Perils of Political Propaganda: Mass Hysteria over Indiana

[GFR7]

The religious freedom bill is not unprecedented. So why then the uproar over it? :think:

It’s fine for people to express disagreement with the Indiana RFRA—if they know what’s in it. We must not allow ourselves to be manipulated by political propagandists into mob hysteria.

As you may have heard, the State of Indiana just passed a Religious Freedom Bill. It’s based on a similar federal statute that was passed in 1993 and signed into law by then-President Bill Clinton, and it is nearly identical to the laws in nineteen other states. Because of state court decisions, nearly identical protections exist in ten additional states. The law simply prohibits substantial government burdens on religious exercise unless the government can show that it 1) has a compelling interest in burdening religious liberty and 2) is doing so through the least restrictive means possible.

Oddly, people across the country are reacting as though Indiana did something utterly unprecedented and unspeakable. Instead of calling it a “religious freedom law,” it is being described as an “anti-gay bill,” even though the words “gay,” “homosexual,” and “marriage” never show up anywhere in the law.

This is troubling—and not just for the reasons you might guess. It’s not because I think everyone should agree with this law. On its substance and wisdom, I think honest people can disagree. What’s troubling is the emotional virulence with which people are reacting to this particular law, when it is identical to protections offered in thirty other states and in the federal government. Indiana is just playing “catch up” here, legally speaking. We usually want states to offer legal protections roughly equivalent to those offered by the federal government. So why the uproar in this case?

Again, it’s fine for people to express disagreement with the law—if they know what’s in it. What I’m worried about is the single-minded, narrow, largely uninformed, self-righteous prejudice of those who are furious with the “bigots” that are assumed to live in Indiana and the glee with which they are welcoming the hysterical reactions against the state. “I’ve never been so ashamed to be from Indiana,” wrote a friend of mine on Facebook. Really? Nothing else was more shameful? Not the Indian massacres, not the popularity of the KKK right up through the 1920s, not the lynching of black men? The mayor of Seattle has banned all official travel to the state of Indiana. How about to any of the other thirty states that have nearly identical religious freedom protections?

This reaction is clearly being driven by one-sided media presentations of what’s happened in Indiana. What’s especially disturbing—and dangerous—is the degree to which Americans are showing themselves to be susceptible to the panderings of the crassest forms of political propaganda. A stable, vibrant democracy depends crucially upon its people’s ability to recognize and resist the allure of political propaganda.

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/04/14733/

 

[WizardofOz]

Does anyone want to actually read SB 101?

 

[GFR7]

Does anyone want to actually read SB 101?

Thnx for that :e4e:

 

[CabinetMaker]

I find it interesting that a bill to protect religious freedom actually discrimates against people who object to homosexuality on religious grounds.

 

[Granite]

Religious freedom wasn't endangered in Indiana (or anywhere else in this country).

If you're going to be a bigot just be honest. This law only exists to prevent bigots from getting sued. Quit screwing around with the excuses.

 

[GFR7]

Religious freedom wasn't endangered in Indiana (or anywhere else in this country).

If you're going to be a bigot just be honest. This law only exists to prevent bigots from getting sued. Quit screwing around with the excuses.

I don't care for excuses; but the litigation should stop. Gays are so favored in this culture, there are tons of businesses and corporations for them to choose from. Why target Christian businesses?

 

[Nazaroo]

Those opposing the legislation and driving the media,
are in fact multinational corporations,
and they are using the threat of pullouts and cancellations to force legislators
to alter the bill to protect LGBTBDSM explicitly.

Why?

Because the CEOs of all major corporations are
uber-rich homosexual pedophiles.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_Df3hZAhfQ

http://radaronline.com/exclusives/2015/02/jeffrey-epstein-secret-clinton-donation/ Billionaire Pedophile Jeffrey Epstein Sent Bill Clinton $3.5 Million From Secret Swiss Bank Account Posted on Feb 10, 2015 @ 10:27AM Billionaire pedophile Jeffrey Epstein sent $3.5 million to Bill and Hillary Clinton‘s foundation after an underage sex slave probe began, according to secret Swiss bank records leaked by a whistleblower. As RadarOnline.com has previously reported, Hillary Clinton is reconsidering her 2016 presidential bid because of fears of the embarrassing revelations that could emerge in the coming months about Bill Clinton’s dealings with Epstein. Sworn statements from Virginia Roberts — the woman who claims she was a teen sex slave forced to have sex with Prince Andrew — also includes the allegation that she saw the former president on Epstein’s “orgy island.”

Jeffrey Epstein: the billionaire paedophile with links to Bill Clinton, Kevin Spacey, Robert Maxwell Many A-list celebrities broke off links with the businessman after he was conviction of having sex with an underage girl A list of people who have associated with Jeffrey Epstein over the years would take in the world of celebrity, science, politics - and royalty. Over the years, the casually-dressed, globe-trotting financier, who was said to log more than 600 flying hours a year, has been linked with Bill Clinton, Kevin Spacey, Chris Tucker and Manhattan-London society figure Ghislaine Maxwell, daughter of the late media titan Robert Maxwell. Epstein reportedly flew Tucker and Spacey to Africa on his private jet as part of a charitable endeavour. Clinton, meanwhile, flew on multiple occasions in the same plane to Epstein’s private Caribbean island, Little St James, between 2002 and 2005 as he developed his philanthropic post-presidential career. It would later be alleged in court that Epstein organised orgies on that same private island in the US Virgin Islands.

 

[GFR7]

Naz may indeed be right..... :think:

Now that I see this article, I wish I had posted IT as a thread, instead of the one I did: :doh:

Gay Totalitarianism and the Coming Persecution of Christians

Hatred of the Gospel is boiling over into the vilification of Christians. State violence won't be far behind, history teaches.

https://stream.org/gay-totalitarian...l&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

 

[GFR7]

I find it interesting that a bill to protect religious freedom actually discrimates against people who object to homosexuality on religious grounds.

Me, too :think:

 

[CabinetMaker]

Religious freedom wasn't endangered in Indiana (or anywhere else in this country).

If you're going to be a bigot just be honest.

What makes one a bigot? On the one hand, if a person is homosexual, it really does not bother me. But when they come to me ask to support an activity that God says is wrong, is it bigotry on my part to say, no, I don't support that?

 

[TracerBullet]

The religious freedom bill is not unprecedented. So why then the uproar over it? :think:

As you may have heard, the State of Indiana just passed a Religious Freedom Bill. It’s based on a similar federal statute that was passed in 1993 and signed into law by then-President Bill Clinton, and it is nearly identical to the laws in nineteen other states.

1. Is this the same law as the federal RFRA and versions in other states?

The answer is no, for a couple of reasons. First, there's the intent. When the federal RFRA was passed in 1993, no one was talking about gay marriage, and it wasn't about how private individuals deal with each other. The law was spurred most directly by a case called Employment Division v. Smith, which concerned whether two Native American workers could get unemployment insurance after they had been fired from their jobs for taking peyote in a religious ritual. It was that kind of private religious conduct that the debate revolved around at the time.

But more importantly, the Indiana law is different from other laws in its specific provisions. It not only explicitly applies the law to for-profit businesses, it also states that individual can assert their religious beliefs "as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding." [emphasis added] The federal law, and most of the state laws, only concern instances where the government is forcing a person to do something or not do something; the Indiana law directly covers disputes between individuals. The Washington Post

 

[Lon]

I don't care for excuses; but the litigation should stop. Gays are so favored in this culture, there are tons of businesses and corporations for them to choose from. Why target Christian businesses?

1) Because this country favors 1 in 100 minority at present. Why? Because we are stupid en mass. Or easily duped by media-what have you.

2) Because that community isn't done. They will push until they can push no more, even if the right they seek is absurd. They know they won't get it all, they just want to see how far it will go to favor them. It is in their best interest.

 

[GFR7]

1) Because this country favors 1 in 100 minority at present. Why? Because we are stupid en mass. Or easily duped by media-what have you.

2) Because that community isn't done. They will push until they can push no more, even if the right they seek is absurd. They know they won't get it all, they just want to see how far it will go to favor them. It is in their best interest.

I know. They began modestly enough in the '70s, but after the AIDS crisis, something changed. They became aggressive and power-hungry. lain:

 

[GFR7]

1. Is this the same law as the federal RFRA and versions in other states?

The answer is no, for a couple of reasons. First, there's the intent. When the federal RFRA was passed in 1993, no one was talking about gay marriage, and it wasn't about how private individuals deal with each other. The law was spurred most directly by a case called Employment Division v. Smith, which concerned whether two Native American workers could get unemployment insurance after they had been fired from their jobs for taking peyote in a religious ritual. It was that kind of private religious conduct that the debate revolved around at the time.

But more importantly, the Indiana law is different from other laws in its specific provisions. It not only explicitly applies the law to for-profit businesses, it also states that individual can assert their religious beliefs "as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding." [emphasis added] The federal law, and most of the state laws, only concern instances where the government is forcing a person to do something or not do something; the Indiana law directly covers disputes between individuals. The Washington Post

OK, but as gays are so favored now on a huge, massive, corporate and cultural scale, these provisions are needed. :jawdrop:

 

[Granite]

I don't care for excuses; but the litigation should stop. Gays are so favored in this culture, there are tons of businesses and corporations for them to choose from. Why target Christian businesses?

Because Christians declared war on them a long time ago and tormented them for years. What's unnerving to you guys is that a minority is actually, finally, fighting back. You're not used to that.

 

[Granite]

OK, but as gays are so favored now on a huge, massive, corporate and cultural scale, these provisions are needed. :jawdrop:

And what did you make of the Hobby Lobby decision, friendo?:think:

 

[PureX]

It's impossible to explain the principal and importance of equality under the law, to bigots, because they fundamentally do not believe in it. They believe they should have the right to mistreat others according to their liking, because they believe they are the superior beings, and as the superior beings, they have the right to do as they please to their inferiors. And what's surprising is that they don't even see this in themselves. The presumption of their own superiority is so complete that it's invisible to them, like the air they breath.

 

[The Barbarian]

Because of increasingly strident attacks on homosexuals, there's been a massive backlash against the people behind the attacks, and some overreach. That always happens, eventually.

Those who are most upset about it, need to consider whether or not they were the ones who facilitated that backlash.

Thanks a lot, all of you.

 

[TracerBullet]

It's impossible to explain the principal and importance of equality under the law, to bigots, because they fundamentally do not believe in it. They believe they should have the right to mistreat others according to their liking, because they believe they are the superior beings, and as the superior beings, they have the right to do as they please to their inferiors. And what's surprising is that they don't even see this in themselves. The presumption of their own superiority is so complete that it's invisible to them, like the air they breath.

Thank you for summing it up so well

 

[Lon]

Because Christians declared war on them a long time ago and tormented them for years. What's unnerving to you guys is that a minority is actually, finally, fighting back. You're not used to that.

No, true. I was used to them hitting on me as a ten to 14 year old and definitely gay, not just pedophiles. I didn't mean to be 'tormenting' them by running home and trying to avoid them.

In high school, I didn't mean to be declaring war on the two I knew, by talking about Christ with them and hanging out with them everyday.

I didn't realize that meant war.

You are correct, I am unnerved they are fighting back from all of that.