Slashdot Mirror
Subversives In South Carolina Mostly Safe
sabt-pestnu sends in an update on our story about South Carolina and subversives. "According to Eugene Volokh, the Raw Story article has got it backwards. Westlaw says that the cited statute dates back to 1951, when a lot of anti-Communist statutes were being enacted nationwide. What brought Raw Story's attention to it may be that South Carolina is once again trying to repeal the archaic law. And in any event, a half-century-old case (Yates vs. United States, 354 U.S. 298 (1957)) took most of the teeth out of such laws."
How is this law, real or not, any different than thousands of other laws on the books in various states that aim to make something illegal by requiring that you register your 'group', business or service?
Anyone wanting to do something contrary to the morals of the standing legislators is likely to fall foul of one or more laws with the same miasmal qualities. For instance, look at sex laws; they are nothing but attempts to stop 'subversive' elements of local society, or at least make it so you can fine them if they do those 'subversive' things, and generally make them unwelcome in the community.
I say we should hang those that enact such laws if it were not so hypocritical ....
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
Very often laws on the books stop mattering not because they are repealed by the legislature but because they cease to get enforced or get enforced very rarely. The classic example of this is laws against pornography which still exists in many jurisdictions but by and large don't matter since almost no one is prosecuted. Unfortunately, you then get every few years someone like John Ashcroft in charge who decides that prosecuting porn makers should be a high priority of the federal government and then assigns multiple agents full time to prosecute videos made of consenting adults. So getting rid of obsolete legislation when one can is a good idea since it can't come back and bite you when an extremist manages to get elected or appointed to a relevant position.
Prosecutor: Tell the court why you think he is a traitor to this country.
Miss America: I think Mr. Mellish (Woody Allen's character) is a traitor to this country because his views are different from the views of the president and others of his kind. Differences of opinion should be tolerated, but not when they're too different. Then he becomes a subversive mother.
- "Bananas" (1971)
(The oath requires the signer to "support and defend" the California and U.S,. constitutions;
If I had signed an oath like that I would be forced to attempt to overthrow those who claim to be the government, and reinstate a government that actually follows the constitution.
While McCarthy's investigations were quite vile and unconsitutional, they were not witch hunts. A witch hunt implies looking for something that's not there. Oddly enough, most of the evidence that came out after the fact confirmed a great deal of those he investigated to in fact be communists.
You are playing a definition game. McCarthy wasn't simply looking for Communists, he was looking for a threat to the American way of life. Oddly enough, it wasn't there.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
The government should just stop recognizing marriage.
(the big downside there would likely be companies that stopped extending health benefits to families of employees. I can't think of any other real big ones (most other stuff can easily be handled with contracts))
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
This is not quite a dead issue. Quite recently, a Quaker hired to teach remedial math at Cal State East Bay lost her job after somebody noticed that she'd amended the mandatory oath she'd signed when she was hired. (The oath requires the signer to "support and defend" the California and U.S,. constitutions; not wanting to violate her religious principles, she'd inserted the word "nonviolently".)
Personally I find the whole oath thing weird, here in Norway being a public school teacher is just a job not being an agent of the state. It binds you no more or less to uphold the constitution than it should for any other citizen, not that being a citizen is required either. And even for a citizen I find it weird, think of some of the amendments that have been repealed like Prohibition, what if you say "I don't support or defend Prohibition, it is wrong and should be removed"? Such oaths should not infringe on your first amendment rights.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
The witch hunt analogy is very appropriate. In Salem, etc. they persecuted witches (or anyone who wasn't Bible thumpin protestant or they just didn't like). Didn't matter if the witches/communists were actually bad people doing bad things. The possibility that you might be a communist/witch was enough to get you or your career burned at the stake depending on the century. So yes, McCarthy was on a witch hunt. The morality and wisdom of such a hunt is left as an exercise for the reader.
The defendant gives money to the poor and obeys the ten commandments - he must be a filthy commie!
When you expand the definition of Communist to anyone you can harrass if it gets you closer to the White House as McCarthy did then that is a lot of people. He was nothing but an opportunistic scumbag that would have got furthur if he hadn't decided to pretend that the US armed forces from General Marshall down were Communists.
so why the hell do so many americans defy universal healthcare?
It's the irrational fear that somebody somewhere is getting something that they didn't earn or deserve.
Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
Your assumptions and arguments conveniently ignore the U.S. Constitution. You referred to "Americans" in a collective sense, so I'll assume you're talking about the Federal government.
"...a transparent government whose mandate is to keep you alive?"
We haven't had anything close to a "trasparent" government at the federal level in recent history. Furthermore, the government's madate is NOT to "keep us alive" or "keep us safe". Their mandate is to preserve our individual liberty and carry out a very limited and specifically defined set of functions. Providing healthcare is not one of those functions.
"...why the hell do so many americans defy universal healthcare?"
1. It's un-Constitutional (i.e. illegal)
2. The government can't even be trusted with their existing powers. Why do so many Americans want to give them even more?
3. The government's biggest welfare programs are all insolvent. They've clearly demonstrated their unwillingness and/or inability to actually manage welfare programs.
"socialized universal healthcare is not perfect, its simply BETTER than the current retarded system we have. admit it, and lose your ignorant fear of the scary word "socialism".
See #2 above. I'm sure that you're a well-meaning individual, but what you get out of Washingon D.C. is legislation with a nice cover sheet that reads "Healthcare Reform" placed on top of 2000 pages of corporate welfare, tax increases, and expansion of government power. Do you actually believe these people are going to pass a bill that threatens insurance and pharmaceutical company profits?
"...all they do is wind up killing some of their neighbors and friends, the same as they do when they oppose universal healthcare."
Now you're being as irrational as the people who suggest that the government wants to give grandma a lethal injection.
"...same as the mccarthy era- its not based on logic and reason, but based on fear of the unknown."
There is some opposition to government run healthcare that may be due to fear of the unknown, but there are very logical and reasonable arguments for opposing it. Fear of the "S-word" is a fortunate counter-balance to the blind acceptance of the empty promise that government is going to provide free universal healthcare. A promise that they have no intention or ability to fulfill.
so why the hell do so many americans defy universal healthcare?
It's the irrational fear that somebody somewhere is getting something that they didn't earn or deserve.
Everyone I've talked to who opposes universal healthcare believes the government, by increasing restrictions and tightening regulations, will make the situation worse rather than better, being an often poorly run government.
Not everyone who doesn't think as you do is an idiot. There's no need to attack and marginalize people who disagree with you. Hopefully that's not the kind of person you want to be, and you'll re-examine your perceptions in the future.
As a Bible-believing aspiring Christian (one who aspires to being worthy of being called a follower of Christ, not one who claims to have attained that aspiration):
I can agree with a lot of what you have to say - almost all of it really. The failures and weaknesses that people should be most concerned with are their own, which they can control, not other people's, which they can't. (And of course that assumes that we agree with one another what constitutes a weakness or failure in the first place, which, even among Christians, we often don't).
The greatest commandments for any Christian, according to Christ Himself, are: (a) to love God with all our being and (b) to love our neighbor as ourselves. This implies tolerance. It implies that we should not attempt to use force, including the force of a state, to inflict our will upon others. It implies that we can disagree and still be friends and still relate to one another. It implies a moral standard that is more concerned with love than with rigid dogma. It does not imply that we turn a blind eye to sin - especially our own - but rather, that we do all we can with God's help to deal with our own, then offer help (NOT judgment or condemnation) to those around us who may want it.
Now, there is a bit more to Christianity than law. We find that we are unable to keep the law. None of us is free from sin in one sort or another. Few if any of us are totally sexually pure. Few of us are truly un-judgmental. Few if any of us always live up to even our own moral standards, much less God's. So we find that, even if we understand and try to follow God's Law of Love, we still will fall short, and thus will find ourselves in need of His forgiveness. And we find in Scripture that this forgiveness is available to all those who trust in Christ. That is not the same as implying that all those who claim to be Christians possess this forgiveness and the eternal life that follows . . . nor that all those who do not so claim are outside of it. But it is wise to seek it where we know it may be found.
Much of this is summed up in the story of Christ forgiving the woman taken in adultery, whom the "religious" leaders of the day were about to stone to death, in accordance with their understanding of Mosaic law, but also in total hypocrisy, as she had done nothing they had not also done: "Neither do I condemn you;" He said, "go, and sin no more."
I am horrified by how badly many "Christians" treat many members of the LGBT community, how many people get hurt as a result, and how badly the Christian message gets distorted in the process. It isn't "do whatever you want and God will look away" and neither is it "do exactly what we say or God will burn you." It is that "God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that whoever believes in Him will not perish, but have everlasting life." And we are ALL sinners, so we don't have any right to judge anyone else, but we have been given the privilege and responsibility to live according to what we know of God's love (as well as His justice), and also to invite (NOT force) others who are willing to do the same if they wish.
Nonaggression works!