I agree with the bolded, if and when it actually happens, though I'd broaden that to include "disparate treatment depending on your race, religion, gender, economic means, fame or power...and politics".get it to x wrote: ↑Wed Oct 12, 2022 11:04 amVersus a purposeful and deliberate attempt to intimidate a pro life citizen (and like minded people) by sending 30 FBI agents with automatic weapons and shields when the attorney for the accused offered a quiet surrender at the nearest FBI office. The hostility to religion on the left is breathtaking. The disparate treatment depending on your politics is a threat to a civil society.MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 12, 2022 10:22 am Apparently there is a vicious anti-white racial bias at work among Democrats and apparently people like me.
We're the true racists.
The Fox piece is nonsensical logic, but of course, there are many who eat it up.
No migrants were struck by the reins being whirled, according to the Border Patrol, which may or may not be true (let's assume true)...but that's not the necessary point of what bothered folks. Riders on horseback don't use that motion to control their horses, they do it when they're herding cattle. The whirling reins are scary to the animals being herded, not the horse. Likewise, the use of the horses was the same as when herding cattle.
This needn't mean that the BP riders were conscious that what they were doing had the look of treatment of cattle...or slaves...nor that they themselves have any individual racial issues...but the appearance of the use of power in that way was indeed alarming and offensive. Not ok.
Some of the hyperbolic reaction was indeed over the top (IMO) but sentiments about how people were being treated at the border, without dignity, run hot.
By example, is anyone "above the law"?...well, we've seen disparate treatment demanded by certain powerful, rich, connected, or famous people...and sometimes they even get such disparate treatment. I assume you agree that's also a "threat to civil society"? And we know that the quality of defense is highly dependent upon economic means. Is that not too a "threat to civil society"? And, yes, we see rather significant disparate treatment based on gender and race, sometimes statutorily, sometimes in de facto practice. These too are "threats to civil society" yes?
I quite disagree that "The hostility to religion on the left is breathtaking." Of course, there are indeed those who are "hostile to religion"...for all sorts of quite valid reasons, ranging from extremist terrorism (of a variety of sorts), to child abuse, to perpetuation of sexist and even misogynistic practices and social constructs, to rank hypocrisy...and, of course, the insistence by some that the State should be subservient to the Church...in America. A demand for theocracy. I don't think one has to be on the "left" to find these abuses of "religion" for power to be antithetical to what all of the major religions actually call for at their core. So, "left" or "right", we can and should call out such abuses.
Now as to what particular example you are referring to, I'd be happy to look at the facts of an instance in which the FBI took an aggressive stance toward someone that went much too far...because of their religion or religious/political views. Certainly we have plenty of history of FBI over reach towards all sorts of groups and people, including on the "left", so it's entirely possible that such might occur again with someone deemed dangerous, though not actually dangerous.
But how that refutes the particular point about Border Patrol agents whirling their reins to intimidate migrants, I don't "get it to X".