Um
as far as I know the Supreme Court is not uniformly liberal.
"A year after R. A. V., the Supreme Court unanimously upheld, in Wisconsin v. Mitchell, a statute that imposed stiffer sentences for racially-motivated assaults than for other types of assaults. The Court reasoned that the statute did not violate the First Amendment because it was aimed primarily at regulating conduct, not speech."
So your argument that it is "liberals" imposing this on you, is trash. You can, of course, imagine that it is liberals- but it obviously isn't. As for the global warming "suggestions"- that's not the law, so until it is it's just someone's opinion. As such, it has not "intruded" upon your freedom. Unless someone merely uttering the idea is your version of "intrusion". So this is all quite problematic for your argument.
McCain Feingold? You are blaming liberals for McCain's bipartisan reform act? Are you serious? 'Nuff said. I can't believe you tried that.
I have noticed cities regulating things like transfats. What I have not noticed is that only liberals are doing this. Is your argument that only liberals care about food quality and food ingredients enough to regulate them? Can you prove this?
I find all sorts of intrusions in to my liberties by religions. I don't want God on my money. I don't believe in God. What the heck is it doing on my money? I don't want God in the pledge. I'd like to be able to say the pledge- but that "under God" part we added in the 50's, to distinguish ourselves from the commies, is coercive. Why should I be forced to say an oath I do not believe in- and my only other choice be silence? How about a pledge everyone can say?
When I was a child we had to pray in school. Ick. I was the child of atheists. I'm glad that went by the wayside.
When I was young the abortion laws had only recently changed- much against the cries of the religious, who are against abortion because of their religious beliefs- and who are still militating to have the laws changed back. If they have such beliefs, I'm totally for them not having abortions- but what I do with my body and fetuses, and what my neighbor does, none of your damn business. Hard for me to figure that your imagined "liberal" thought police, and your false attribution of McCain Feingold to the liberals, outweighs decades of Christian religious hegemony (state displays of religious themes, public school religious plays and songs and prayer), and the interference with women's bodies and self determination.
I have been forced all my life to do things I find repugnant by the religious factions in our country. You have not noticed these things because to you they are probably invisible. But in order to evaluate the fairness of something, you need to try to see it from the oppressed minorities eyes- and the non-religious in this country have always been oppressed by the religious majority. I don't expect you to care. And I'm not sure you'll even see it. But don't expect me to buy your weak arguments when you ask how the freedom of the non-religious has been intruded upon.
And btw - the reference to imaginary friends is important. When you regulate in the name of religion, you reference and imaginary friend. Not everyone has the same imaginary friends- and some people don't want any imaginary friends- so there's a problem trying to use religion to foist laws on a population. When you use science, or the public interest, everyone can evaluate that the same way. We may not all agree on what these things are, but at least they don't involve invisible beings that aren't really part of the debate for everyone. See how that's important? |
