The Constitution and Bible are on our side!

[Crazy Lee]

Haven't you ever noticed that a lot of right wingers invoke either the Bible or Constitution as justification for their beliefs or actions? They certainly seem to have a hard-on for old unchangeable texts, as if their lives are ruined without some sort of bedrock of written word to support their fragile egos and shitty lives. I don't get it. I certainly don't need such things, I have my morals, ethics, my life, my will, my dreams to sustain me.

 

If you're wondering what I'm rambling about, it's about the Oregon cowboys and their takeover of the nature site. Brokeback Oregon. Specifically, it's what someone said in this NYT article that caught my attention and prompted this.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/04/us/armed-group-vows-to-hold-federal-wildlife-office-in-oregon-for-years.html

Quote

Mr. Payne, the veteran who is also at the site, said the group was not violent. But he also said members had discussed the possibility that the standoff could turn violent.

Referring to the federal government, he added, “If they think that’s worth bringing their armies in here and harming or fouling that endeavor, we’ll just have to read the Constitution and look at our Bibles and see who’s on the right side.”

Um, wat? Okay, first off, how exactly is the constitution going to show who's on the right side? Right-wingers always want to throw around the Constitution as if the Constitution doesn't allow the US government to write laws and enact departments, WHICH IT DOES. The whole legislative branch is designed to write laws. The whole executive branch has departments under it. Do these people not understand basic civics? It's like the constitution is the choice buzz word for people on the right nowadays to sound smart and on the right side of history. I'm still not sure how it's un-constitutional for the government to own land like these gay cowboys seem to think.

And I'm not even sure I WANT to get into how reading the Bible will show they're on the right side. Seriously. I wish I was there, I'd ask him to elaborate and he'd probably say "Well, you know, right? I don't have to explain it, you should know". Or some other vague answer without details or facts. I WANT to hear him give specific details on how their occupation of a wildlife center is justified by the bible, without vaguely interpreting a random bible verse to fit their needs.

And people wonder why I can't take politics or religion seriously nowadays.

[FenrirDarkWolf]

Jeebus is disappointed in people.

They are using him to kill when all he is is love.

[AshleyAshes]

Bible: I contain lots of stuff on how to treat your slaves!  I used as justification for slavery in America!

Constitution: My 13th amendment says you should NOT listen to what that Bible guy tells you about slavery. D:

Bible: I'll go Old Testament on your ass!

Constitution: Most of the things in your Old Testament aren't constitutional! D:

[LazerMaster5]

Doesn't this belong in Rants and Raves?

[willow]

gee..how long will it take for this thread to turn into another religion vs. atheism pissing contest debate? 

I really don't understand what this whole standoff is about though. all I know is that it's about some unrest over the government and taking back the land from them, but other than that I don't get it. but right wingers like to throw around the Constitution and the Bible because tradition or something along those lines. it wouldn't be so bad if people like, actually read the either of those two things and really knew what they meant.

[Vallium]

MODS!!1!

[Zeke]

13 minutes ago, WolfNightV4X1 said:

MODS!!1!

No. 

 

Lol @ y'allqaeda. They were also caught burning down government owned land and poaching because they were butthurt that their great-great-great granfer's land didn't transfer over to them.

[PastryOfApathy]

43 minutes ago, willow said:

gee..how long will it take for this thread to turn into another religion vs. atheism pissing contest debate? 

I really don't understand what this whole standoff is about though. all I know is that it's about some unrest over the government and taking back the land from them, but other than that I don't get it. but right wingers like to throw around the Constitution and the Bible because tradition or something along those lines. it wouldn't be so bad if people like, actually read the either of those two things and really knew what they meant.

That's the hilarious part, they really don't either.

To give a sorta TL;DR 'history' of this comedy of errors, this shit all started when a couple of chucklefucks (a father and son) were charged for arson for causing a fire on federally-owned land to allegedly cover up their blatant poaching activity. They were convicted and eventually released, however were given extended sentences and were scheduled to serve more jail time since the judge thought the initial sentence "was too short", or something to that effect.

This caused a bunch of self-proclaimed "oathkeepers" (for those not from the US, they're basically a bunch of racist hicks with a lot of guns, booze and a tenuous grasp of the US constitution) led by members of the notoriously nutty Bundy clan to storm and occupy a local, federally owned wildlife refuge to do...something. Seriously, even the people they're allegedly fighting for have no idea what the fuck they're doing as they've already given themselves up without a fuss.

Now we've gone into borderline-parody territory where the feds have just decided to let them circlejerk in a freezing-ass cabin (I believe there's a blizzard in the forecast) after cutting of all the utilities and politely asking them to leave as opposed to having the epic Waco/shootout power fantasy they've been jerking it to. I would recommend looking into it because it's honestly hysterical.

Also this happened which is honestly a work of art. #daddysworeanoath

 

Seriously this better not turn into a bunch of shit-flinging because this whole incident is hilarious and deserves better.

 

Edited January 7, 2016 by PastryOfApathy

[willow]

7 minutes ago, PastryOfApathy said:

That's the hilarious part, they really don't either.

To give a sorta TL;DR 'history' of this comedy of errors, this shit all started when a couple of chucklefucks (a father and son) were charged for arson for causing a fire on federally-owned land to allegedly cover up their blatant poaching activity. They were convicted and eventually released, however were given extended sentences and were scheduled to serve more jail time since the judge thought the initial sentence "was too short", or something to that effect.

This caused a bunch of self-proclaimed "oathkeepers" (for those not from the US, they're basically a bunch of racist hicks with a lot of guns, booze and a tenuous grasp of the US constitution) led by members of the notoriously nutty Bundy clan to storm and occupy a local, federally owned wildlife refuge to do...something. Seriously, even the people they're allegedly fighting for have no idea what the fuck they're doing as they've already given themselves up without a fuss.

Now we've gone into borderline-parody territory where the feds have just decided to let them circlejerk in a freezing-ass cabin (I believe there's a blizzard in the forecast) after cutting of all the utilities and politely asking them to leave as opposed to having the epic Waco/shootout power fantasy they've been jerking it to. I would recommend looking into it because it's honestly hysterical.

Also this happened which is honestly a work of art. #daddysworeanoath

 

Seriously this better not turn into a bunch of shit-flinging because this whole incident is hilarious and deserves better.

 

the video started to give me a headache so I had to stop watching. the only crime I think the government should be accused of in this situation is withholding proper education from the people.

[Rassah]

Think of it this way. If someone breaks the law, and the law has a minimum sentence of 5 years, but the judge thinks that sentence is too harsh, do you believe we should stick to the law? Or give a lower sentence?

If you think we should stick to the law, that's how these guys guide their lives and actions by sticking to the bible or Constitution.

[willow]

12 minutes ago, Rassah said:

Think of it this way. If someone breaks the law, and the law has a minimum sentence of 5 years, but the judge thinks that sentence is too harsh, do you believe we should stick to the law? Or give a lower sentence?

If you think we should stick to the law, that's how these guys guide their lives and actions by sticking to the bible or Constitution.

at least if you're going to live your life by either of those things, you should actually try to understand what it says and like I said so many people misinterpret what both the Constitution and the Bible actually say, mostly to fit their own agendas. that's not really the same as a judge looking at a case and possibly lightening the sentence to a few years.

especially when there are way more variables that affect a sentence. 

Edited January 7, 2016 by willow

[Rassah]

It's not so much understanding it, as refusing to waver on what you think it says or intends. That's conservatism for you.

 

What really weirded me out was seeing so many people on Facebook who are anti-gun, anti-war, anti-violence, and anti-police brutality, wishing so much gun violence and police brutality on these old geezers.

Edited January 7, 2016 by Rassah

[Terminal7]

So where do I buy my ticket to hell? 

[Zeke]

12 minutes ago, Rassah said:

It's not so much understanding it, as refusing to waver on what you think it says or intends. That's conservatism for you.

 

What really weirded me out was seeing so many people on Facebook who are anti-gun, anti-war, anti-violence, and anti-police brutality, wishing so much gun violence and police brutality on these old geezers.

No matter a person's political leanings, there are still those who wish for "an eye for an eye", especially when calling for an unbiased version of it 

[PastryOfApathy]

Just now, willow said:

the video started to give me a headache so I had to stop watching. the only crime I think the government should be accused of in this situation is withholding proper education from the people.

It's even funnier when you realize all the little ways the government has been more or less humiliating them. For example the guy in the video and closest non-Bundy representative for these people was actually kicked out of both the Marines and the 'Oathkeepers' for being a complete nutcase. Also he has a long history of making an ass out of himself on national television, threatening to arrest senators somehow, protesting local mosques for existing, and just overall being a walking parody of a human being.

And outside of the aforementioned utility-cutting, they're now apparently running out of food since their initial plan was to have food mailed in via the US Postal service which while technically independent, has zero reason to give these nutcases their mail. Also apparently at some point someone was allowed to run out and grab "snacks", in case you wanted a nice mental image.

Finally, on top of everything else they've made a deliberate effort to hide the feds by bringing in cops from around the state as a way to shit on their stupid "evil government standoff" fantasy they thought was gonna happen because they're a bunch of wannabe martyrs. Also just to add insult-to-injury, the face and voice of the police in this whole shit show is the local sheriff. That doesn't sound significant, but in the bizarre revisionist history filled "lore" of these self-proclaimed patriots they place this especially high reverence and authority on the local sheriff who depending on who you ask, can do anything from get rid of "unconstitutional" laws whenever he wants to turning water into cheap shitty beer. Just to make that shit sting a little extra bit.

Nutty constitutionalists/sovereign citizens are some of my favorite people man. They never stop being funny.

[Zerig]

i admire their spirit

but they kind of fucked up tbh

[FenrirDarkWolf]

1 hour ago, Terminal7 said:

So where do I buy my ticket to hell? 

Come this way my child.

there is much yiff, rave, weed and booze in hell

[PastryOfApathy]

1 hour ago, Zerig said:

i admire their spirit

but they kind of fucked up tbh

Yeah.

They should have brought another bowflex.

[Khaki]

I don't understand, why are they occupying a building because someone got arrested for starting bush fires?

[Rassah]

They're protesting because someone was tried for accidentally setting a fire under anti-teerorism laws, the judge initially gave them what he thought was a fair sentence, but a new judge decided that sentence was not long enough and that they should go back to jail to serve the minimum required.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/01/oregon-mandatory-minimums/422433/

[Khaki]

11 hours ago, Rassah said:

They're protesting because someone was tried for accidentally setting a fire under anti-teerorism laws, the judge initially gave them what he thought was a fair sentence, but a new judge decided that sentence was not long enough and that they should go back to jail to serve the minimum required.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/01/oregon-mandatory-minimums/422433/

Yeah that doesn't make much sense, for negligent arson and the extent of the costs of the damages and services used to put out the flames, would have thought at most 

about 2 months and a fine covering the costs would have been a more logical and suffice prosecution.

[Zeke]

It's against the law to let a controlled fire burn uncontrollably without abating it's spread. (chapter 477.064-100)

it has heavy repercussions if you let something like that get out of control, especially during the dry seasons when fires are more likely to happen.

[Crazy Lee]

On 1/7/2016 at 10:42 PM, LazerMaster5 said:

Doesn't this belong in Rants and Raves?

It started out as a neutral post but got kinda ranty after a minute there. I didn't expect it to get that way. Doesn't matter.

 

On 1/7/2016 at 11:48 PM, Rassah said:

Think of it this way. If someone breaks the law, and the law has a minimum sentence of 5 years, but the judge thinks that sentence is too harsh, do you believe we should stick to the law? Or give a lower sentence?

If you think we should stick to the law, that's how these guys guide their lives and actions by sticking to the bible or Constitution.

I think they should stick to the law. And I get where you're going, but the law's a bit different than the Bible or Constitution (although the Constitution is PART of the law). Plus, in this nation, the law trumps the Bible. Sorry. You follow the law of the land, not your religion if it goes against the law. Don't like it, get out.

That being said, I am no fan of mandatory minimum sentences whatsoever, and it's possible they gave them too harsh of a sentence, but thank "Tough on crime" politicians and the failed war on drugs for those.
 

On 1/7/2016 at 11:13 AM, Rassah said:

They're protesting because someone was tried for accidentally setting a fire under anti-teerorism laws, the judge initially gave them what he thought was a fair sentence, but a new judge decided that sentence was not long enough and that they should go back to jail to serve the minimum required.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/01/oregon-mandatory-minimums/422433/

From everything I've heard, it was arson. Deliberately set fires. Depending on witnesses who said it was deliberately set to cover up illegal poaching, or the people who were convicted who claimed they were set as controlled burns to prevent wildfire from affecting their property, but they were still set on purpose. It's important to note that one of the fires burned over 100 acres of public land, which is a pretty large fire. That could have easily caused damage to people's property, like houses or businesses burned. Fire is no joke, especially in a dry prairie. 

[Rassah]

The first one was the "alleged" deer cover-up. They served/paid for it already.

The second one, the one they got sentenced for in this case, they deliberately set a controlled fire to their own property, as a backburn to stop the fire already raging on federal land from going farther into their own property and destroying their farm, and that backburn fire they started got out of control and escaped their property into a federal area they didn't intend to burn.

 

I'm not sure if you got where I was going, based on your reply, but where I was going was that words written on paper, whether that paper is a part of a holy text, the Constitution, or a law book, are not absolute, are not "the truth," and are not the definitive statement of what is moral, ethical, just, or whatever. Some people think, "Well, it's the law, so we must follow it" despite having doubts or cognitive dissonance in their heads, same as some people think, "God said its the way it has to be," despite also having doubts or cognitive dissonance. Some claim those things even without any doubts.