Just saw this
No. Altering the law to force everyone to live according to the beliefs of one religion is not fair.
Do note that I said right and fair, not just fair. These people are doing these things (the ones that sincerely believe it, that is) because they think it's right. Demonizing them really isn't going to do anything.
I do my best not to demonize. I have a personal policy about keeping any unflattering comments about any person or group of people to factual content only. I may fail that at times, but I never demonize.
That much is not subjective.
Worth is subjective, therefore fairness is subjective.
I don't see how fairness is tied to worth.
Religious people being able to live according to their beliefs to the extent that it does not infringe on those who do not share their beliefs is fair. This is pretty damn basic. I promote tolerance of religion all the damn time against people who are highly resentful towards it. However, there is a line. Tolerance of religion does not necessitate living according to religious doctrines. They may believe they are doing what is right, and I accept that. I will not concede that they are being fair and responsible.
Because you are arguing from your own stance. This is natural, but not objective. Remember as well that many of these people consider themselves under some form of religious oppression--that their own freedoms are being repressed.
This is actually the main difference between a theocrat and a non-theocrat. A non-theocrat organizes their life on the principle that
their beliefs could be wrong, and thus it is wrong to force one's beliefs onto others. A person who tries to force others to live according to their beliefs does so under the objective
assumption that
only their personal beliefs are infallible. This is an irresponsible attitude and it is unfair that others must defend themselves against it.
And this is not a rant against religion. Plenty of religious people are not theocrats.
IIRC, the distribution of constituents along a political spectrum tends to be normal, so while there are divisive issues, there is quite the majority who aren't as divided as half of what the two-party-politics would lead you to believe--AND are more prone to compromise than either party as well.
And yet civil rights issues (gender, racial, and lgbt equality, abortion, contraceptives, etc) for which compromise is literally impossible (you either have them or you don't) continue to be main talking points at election times that prove quite capable of dividing the country roughly in half. I know quite a few Republican voters, and I can't think of a single one who doesn't base their decision primarily on these issues. Most of the people I know who vote Democrat would prefer to vote third party, but are too afraid of giving power to Republicans
because of these issues.
Anecdote, I know, but any other measure of political climate is an abstraction, which isn't much better.
So why the need to illegally occupy public and private property around the country?
I don't recall them getting a permit and going through the proper channels to hold a gathering on public property. That, and such an extended stay violates the rights of others in the area.
Google: "occupy camp permit" <-- Here you go. Thousands of articles describing the Occupy's movements legal efforts. Every location has made every effort possible to be respectful and legal. Major cities even have teams of dozens of lawyers on hand experienced in activism and civil rights.
Plus
Besides, I think it's unreasonable to nitpick the Occupy movement over legal technicalities, when they are in the process of protesting the institutions responsible for designing and enforcing the law for abusing their positions. Of-fucking-course those legal technicalities are going to be stacked against them.
The whole point of this thing is to call out those in power
because they are supposed to be responsible for upholding the law, and they are using their positions instead to get away with breaking the law or altering it in their favor. What this means is legal channels cannot be counted on as useful for effecting change under these circumstances. If this is unacceptable to either of you, then that's fine. We just won't have anything more to say to each other.
Seriously... I'm happy to answer questions, but accusations that can be debunked with a 5-second Google search are just offensive.
And let us not forget, the OWS started in October, and they finally got around to protesting what you say they are originally for, the better part of 4 months later?
Like I said, there has been a D.C. chapter of the Occupy movement from very early on. I'm not sure what you expect here.
If you're saying that it took too long for them to draw people nationwide for an event in D.C., then my response is that you're being unrealistic. Occupy began with only a couple hundred people taking initiative based on a suggestion posited on a single page of a Canadian magazine targeted at a very niche audience. In just a few months, it's grown to support millions of supporters internationally. This is an incredibly remarkable phenomenon already. It's unprecedented in human history if you think about it, enabled by widespread international availability of mass communications technology that's only been operating at this level of capability for a few years. The world's only been moving at Mach 1 for a little while, and you're already demanding the speed of light.
And like I already said, the problem of corrupt relationships between business and government does not exist only in D.C.. It would make no sense to focus the entire movement in that one spot.