The New Totalitarians Are Here

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

"Totalitarians want their rule, and their belief system, to be accepted and self-sustaining - even if it takes bludgeoning every last citizen who disagrees"

Americans are becoming way too comfortable with thought control...

thefederalist.com/2015/07/06/the-new-totalitarians-are-here/#

Simply put, authoritarians merely want obedience, while totalitarians, whose rule is rooted in an ideology, want obedience and conversion. Authoritarians are a dime a dozen; totalitarians are rare. The authoritarians are the guys in charge who want to stay in charge, and don’t much care about you, or what you’re doing, so long as you stay out of their way. They are the jefe and his thugs in a brutal regime that want you to shut up, go to work, and look the other way when your loudmouthed neighbor gets his lights punched out by goons in black jackets. Live or die. It’s all the same to the regime.

Totalitarians are a different breed. These are the people who have a plan, who think they see the future more clearly than you or who are convinced they grasp reality in a way that you do not. They don’t serve themselves—or, they don’t serve themselves exclusively—they serve History, or The People, or The Idea, or some other ideological totem that justifies their actions.

They want obedience, of course. But even more, they want their rule, and their belief system, to be accepted and self-sustaining. And the only way to achieve that is to create a new society of people who share those beliefs, even if it means bludgeoning every last citizen into enlightenment. That’s what makes totalitarians different and more dangerous: they are “totalistic” in the sense that they demand a complete reorientation of the individual to the State and its ideological ends. Every person who harbors a secret objection, or even so much as a doubt, is a danger to the future of the whole project, and so the regime compels its subjects not only to obey but to believe.

[djAdvocate]

rubbish.  the SCOTUS ruling about marriage effectively gets government OUT of the marriage business.

this is a step BACKWARDS for totalitarianism, not forward.

we can now be DISOBEDIENT about marriage, wheras before, we had to obey proscribed rules.  this is a victory for liberty, not a defeat.

edit: THIS is where the OP goes totally off the rails:

That’s what makes totalitarians different and more dangerous: they are “totalistic” in the sense that they demand a complete reorientation of the individual to the State and its ideological ends. Every person who harbors a secret objection, or even so much as a doubt, is a danger to the future of the whole project, and so the regime compels its subjects not only to obey but to believe.

what has been totalized in the SCOTUS ruling is the equal opportunity for adults to marry.  thus, the STATE can no longer TELL THE INDIVIDUAL what can or cannot be done along those lines.  the STATE has had it's power to make those decisions REMOVED.

you don't have to believe in gay marriage.  you can have your big fluffy conservative hetero wedding, just like always.  your PRIVILEGE to do so still exists.  you, with the STATE to back you up, simply can no longer deny that privilege to others.  tough beans.

[djAdvocate]

PS-  i agree that totalitarianism is rare.  rare enough that it should not be bandied about every time someone has their privileges given to everyone.

[djAdvocate]

PPS- the phrase "bludgeoned into enlightenment" is very revealing.  nothing short of a beating will get the right to think, i guess. 

[djAdvocate]

yes- us new totalitarians want liberty and justice for all.

BOW DOWN BEFORE US! 

[dondub]

The usual barnyard poopycock from the failing authoritarians. <yawn>

[bean29]

Jul 8, 2015 13:19:55 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

you don't have to believe in gay marriage.  you can have your big fluffy conservative hetero wedding, just like always.  your PRIVILEGE to do so still exists.  you, with the STATE to back you up, simply can no longer deny that privilege to others.  tough beans.

Some republicans or some of the "religious right" are claiming the intent of the ruling is to destroy religion.  They say now gay couples are going to go to the churches and demand a church marriage and if the church does not comply they will be shut down.

I personally think that is ludicrous - they have the right to be married civilly, but they can not demand a church wedding if the church does not agree that they meet the criteria to get married in the church.

To get married in the Catholic church you need to be baptized and confirmed, go to classes, meet with a priest etc.  The church always could deny you the right to be married.  The state granted the right for your church marriage to be recognized by the state, the church did not recognize a civil marriage as valid unless it was "blessed" in the church.  If you got divorced in the Civil court, you still needed to go through the process of dissolving your marriage via an annulment.  KWIM?

[djAdvocate]

Jul 8, 2015 14:27:30 GMT -5 bean29 said:

Jul 8, 2015 13:19:55 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

you don't have to believe in gay marriage.  you can have your big fluffy conservative hetero wedding, just like always.  your PRIVILEGE to do so still exists.  you, with the STATE to back you up, simply can no longer deny that privilege to others.  tough beans.

Some republicans or some of the "religious right" are claiming the intent of the ruling is to destroy religion.  They say now gay couples are going to go to the churches and demand a church marriage and if the church does not comply they will be shut down.

first of all, i have to say that the right is not thinking this through.  on the one hand, they claim that liberals hate religion, and on the other that they want church weddings.  which is it?

but furthermore, this ruling does nothing to undermine the authority of private enterprises like churches to do whatever they wish.  at least that is my interpretation of the ruling.  we will have to see where it goes.  but even if it were possible to do such a thing, i don't think gays are likely to do it.

reiterating: this is a ruling against state power, not for it.

[weltschmerz]

You're slipping, Paul. You forgot to sprinkle your OP with the word "caliphates".

[Deleted]

Jul 8, 2015 14:27:30 GMT -5 bean29 said:

Jul 8, 2015 13:19:55 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

you don't have to believe in gay marriage.  you can have your big fluffy conservative hetero wedding, just like always.  your PRIVILEGE to do so still exists.  you, with the STATE to back you up, simply can no longer deny that privilege to others.  tough beans.

Some republicans or some of the "religious right" are claiming the intent of the ruling is to destroy religion.  They say now gay couples are going to go to the churches and demand a church marriage and if the church does not comply they will be shut down.

I personally think that is ludicrous - they have the right to be married civilly, but they can not demand a church wedding if the church does not agree that they meet the criteria to get married in the church.

To get married in the Catholic church you need to be baptized and confirmed, go to classes, meet with a priest etc.  The church always could deny you the right to be married.  The state granted the right for your church marriage to be recognized by the state, the church did not recognize a civil marriage as valid unless it was "blessed" in the church.  If you got divorced in the Civil court, you still needed to go through the process of dissolving your marriage via an annulment.  KWIM?

I think if preachers or priests are acting for the state then they should not be allowed to discriminate.  If they want to discriminate quit  being a functionary of the state.  There should be separation of state and church.  Government or people working for the government should not discriminate while doing government work.

[mmhmm]

The state issues the marriage license. It's then up to the couple whether they wish to have a religious ceremony or a civil ceremony. At that point, the state's involvement has ended as far as the couple getting married. They can get married anywhere they like that is willing to marry them. They can get married at the local supermarket if the supermarket is willing and they have someone to officiate, religious or otherwise.

[Tennesseer]

It is really very simple.  Everyone can now marry the partner of their choice.  No more government getting in the way.  

If a church is willing to have a blessing ceremony, great.  If not, the couple moves on  elsewhere, be it a heterosexual or homosexual couple.  There are plenty of non-denominational ministers more that willing to officiate religious ceremonies for all outside of a church facility.

[Deleted]

Jul 8, 2015 13:44:09 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

yes- us new totalitarians want liberty and justice for all.

BOW DOWN BEFORE US! 

But only if you want to... because... liberty and justice and all that stuff, of course.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 8, 2015 20:58:07 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Jul 8, 2015 13:44:09 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

yes- us new totalitarians want liberty and justice for all.

BOW DOWN BEFORE US! 

But only if you want to... because... liberty and justice and all that stuff, of course.

it is so great to be understood. 

[fairlycrazy23]

[OldCoyote]

Wow, just think,  If it can cost a couple $135,000 for not baking a cake,

Think what it will cost a church for refusing to preform a marriage!

[Tennesseer]

Gazillions of dollars.  Gazillions.  $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

[grumpyhermit]

Or maybe zero dollars...

The state's Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI) contends the bakery owners violated the state's anti-discrimination laws because the shop is not a registered religious institution.

... pretty sure most churches are registered religious institutions.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3148472/Anti-gay-bakers-ordered-pay-135k-lesbian-couple-refused-wedding-cake-say-fine-ruin-financially-despite-raising-100-000-GoFundMe.html

[djAdvocate]

Jul 9, 2015 9:44:38 GMT -5 OldCoyote said:

Wow, just think,  If it can cost a couple $135,000 for not baking a cake,

Think what it will cost a church for refusing to preform a marriage!

given that churches are exempt, zero. 

you, and it seems like half this board, are unclear on the concept.  there are two parts to the law in Oregon.  the first is discrimination, which you are obsessing over (rightfully so).  the second is PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION, which neither you, nor anyone else here, seems to understand.  many of us have tried to explain this over and over again, but you, and apparently half of congress, are not getting it, so please read THIS:

www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/04/public-accommodations-and-private-discrimination/390435/

here is a relevant excerpt for you:

Most of the furor surrounding the Indiana and Arkansas statutes has concerned “public accommodations,” meaning certain businesses holding themselves open to the public. Since at least the sixteenth century, English courts required certain businesses—inns, stagecoaches (and then railroads), companies that carried goods, surgeons, and even blacksmiths—to serve any customer who could pay. The rationale, according to Harvard Law Professor Joseph Singer, was that by “holding themselves open to the public,” they offered a binding contract to everyone, and had to honor it.

cakes = public accommodation
churches = private accommodation

capice?

[weltschmerz]

Jul 9, 2015 9:44:38 GMT -5 OldCoyote said:

Wow, just think,  If it can cost a couple $135,000 for not baking a cake,

Think what it will cost a church for refusing to preform a marriage!

Don't be absurd! How many Catholic churches have been sued for refusing to marry a Catholic to a Jew?

Are the courts jammed up trying to get through all these lawsuits? Nope. They have every right to refuse. The refused me, and I didn't get my knickers in a knot.

[dondub]

I continue to find it quite odd that so many seem to support businesses discriminating against any group based on Christian religious beliefs not espoused by Jesus. The Jesus I was taught about for so many years was all in.

[Deleted]

Jul 9, 2015 9:44:38 GMT -5 OldCoyote said:

Wow, just think,  If it can cost a couple $135,000 for not baking a cake,

Think what it will cost a church for refusing to preform a marriage!

Won't cost them a dime.

Separation of Church and State. The bakery wasn't a church.

[mmhmm]

Jul 9, 2015 9:44:38 GMT -5 OldCoyote said:

Wow, just think,  If it can cost a couple $135,000 for not baking a cake,

Think what it will cost a church for refusing to preform a marriage!

It will cost nothing.

[djAdvocate]

ok, so maybe it is less than half of us that don't get it. 

[OldCoyote]

Jul 9, 2015 13:26:05 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

Jul 9, 2015 9:44:38 GMT -5 OldCoyote said:

Wow, just think,  If it can cost a couple $135,000 for not baking a cake,

Think what it will cost a church for refusing to preform a marriage!

Don't be absurd! How many Catholic churches have been sued for refusing to marry a Catholic to a Jew?

Are the courts jammed up trying to get through all these lawsuits? Nope. They have every right to refuse. The refused me, and I didn't get my knickers in a knot.

You could have had a Gazillions of dollars. Gazillions. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

[OldCoyote]

Cool, if I declare that I am a church I can discriminate .

[dondub]

Sure!

[Tennesseer]

Jul 9, 2015 20:34:07 GMT -5 OldCoyote said:

Cool, if I declare that I am a church I can discriminate .

Here is the church.  Here is the steeple.  Open the doors and see all of Oldcoyote's fingers.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 9, 2015 20:34:07 GMT -5 OldCoyote said:

Cool, if I declare that I am a church I can discriminate .

good luck with that.  i am betting that racists and tax evaders are trying that EVERY DAY.

[weltschmerz]

Jul 9, 2015 20:34:07 GMT -5 OldCoyote said:

Cool, if I declare that I am a church I can discriminate .

Of course! However, you will no longer be able to discuss politics, as per the Johnson Amendment.