Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito is heard questioning whether compromise between the left and right is possible in a conversation posted on social media Monday. The conservative justice is also heard agreeing with a woman who says the United States should return “to a place of godliness.”
The audio was posted on X by liberal filmmaker Lauren Windsor. She said it was recorded at the Supreme Court Historical Society’s annual dinner last week.
“One side or the other is going to win,” Alito said. “There can be a way of working, a way of living together peacefully, but it’s difficult, you know, because there are differences on fundamental things that really can’t be compromised.”
Windsor then told Alito: “I think that the solution really is like winning the moral argument. Like, people in this country who believe in God have got to keep fighting for that, to return our country to a place of godliness.”
“I agree with you,” Alito responded.
Again freedom of religion includes freedom FROM religion. And these nut jobs. The big difference is that sane people are willing to allow these people to believe what they want but they (religious extremists) are intolerant of others thinking differently from them.
Removed by mod
The solution to the paradox of tolerance is looking at it as a social contract. If one person tries to use your tolerance to violate your, or others rights, they are no longer protected by the agreement and do not get to benefit from it.
I wish I could find the article about it, but I can’t seem to find it now. Sorry.
It’s simple to answer “Do you owe respect to someone else’s beliefs?”
Just ask, “Do they respect my beliefs?”. There’s your answer.
Removed by mod
Well, you do also have what you could call atheist extrimists. Richard Dawkins is pretty well known for his lack of tolerance towards religion that in my opinion isn’t much different in its intensity from religious extrimists’ opposition to non-their religion. Don’t get me wrong, I’m an atheist myself, I’m just saying that I don’t think that the complete lack of tolerance to the opposing world view is a problem confined to the religious right.
Religious extremists: everyone should follow my religion, beliefs, morals, and rules or be punished
Atheistic extremists: religion is dumb and should not have their beliefs taught as facts (creationism not evolution, etc), but people can believe what they want. Also, don’t give religious people preferential treatment (tax-free churches, absolved of crimes for being a “good Christian”, etc)
I think “you must believe only my stuff” is intolerant, but “believe what you want, just don’t push it on others” is only intolerant because religion wants to be pushed on everyone else
Not sure I’ve ever heard Dawkins say religious people shouldn’t be allowed to get married or have kids… Let alone imprisoned or stoned to death
Atheists don’t want Christians jailed, or tortured, or killed for being Christian the way Christians want to do to us.
Atheists don’t want to change the laws making it a crime to be a believer the way Christians want to change the laws to make America’s official enforced religion to be Christianity.
Atheists don’t have a broze age set of arbitrary rules that they demand all of society obey under threat of violence. They don’t tell their neighbors that they deserve external hellfire for disobedience to mystical authority.
We may be loud and cantankerous at times, but we don’t want to hurt you, or take away your rights and freedoms.
Atheists just disagree with Christians (and other faiths) on their steadfast belief in magic / the supernatural that is required to believe in skydaddy.
You can believe in whatever stupid thing you want. We don’t want to take that from you. Just let us have the freedom of speech to say how fucking stupid you are, and stay the fuck out of our way with your occult nonsense.
In the same way that I think the quickest way for stricter gun control laws to be passed is for minorities to start open carrying firearms en-masse, I think the best way to educate Christian nationalists on the importance of the separation of church and state is for everyone to start attending their local mosque and preaching the virtues of Islam when discussing politics. Conservatives are incapable of understanding the negatives of any policy position until they experience them personally. Force them to experience what it’s like to be a religious minority and they will change their tune very quickly.
But then these minorities that are disproportionately very poor would have to go through the expense of actually getting a gun, the gun itself, permits, checks and licenses etc
Don’t use Islam, use the Satanic Temple. It’s entire purpose is to reinforce the separation of church and state in political situations. It’s a non-theist organization, and they do a lot of good work.
Hail Satan
I think that’s too far out in left field from these people’s perspective for it to be as effective as Islam would be. They need to think they’re being outcompeted by a legitimate religion. Maybe I’m giving them too much credit but I think enough people would see that as an intentionally contrarian organization and not as a competing religious ideology. I don’t think that would evoke the genuine fear of becoming a religious minority. Maybe I’m wrong about that but that’s my take at least.
The Black Panthers open carrying is exactly what led California governor Reagan to enact the strictest gun laws in the country.
Of course compromise is impossible when you’re a hardliner who refuses to engage in good faith.
How is this for a compromise. All the churches have to start paying all the taxes a person has to pay. Property and taxes on income would soften the blow of them getting all that welfare to build their ever increasing in size golden calf facilitates.
No more tax breaks for people who pay their religion fee’s at the alter. Then we get to see the true believers real numbers.Alito is basically a Christian Taliban.
Fucking filmmakers. Lauren Windsor reminds me of Frank Schaeffer, the wannabe filmmaker and author of 1,000 Dolls, which kickstarted the abortion movement in the 70s.
You are a special kind of stupid
Awesome people!
Removed by mod
Of course one of the American Mullahs wants a theocracy. What else would he want?
He would be just another religious zealot, but he wields a tremendous amount of power that can’t be removed, and he’s not bound by any set of ethics. That’s what makes him so dangerous, and how he’s already hurt so many people.
