Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about.
From a conservative perspective, having a secular society is "placing the boots on the necks" of all of the good, God-fearing Christians. It's infringing on the conservative definition of "religious freedom" to say that churches can't have a say in public policy. Meanwhile to the left, separation of church and state is as absolute as the right to bear arms is to the right.
Except that "separation of church and state" exists nowhere in the US Constitution.
Most of the polarization in our country right now go back to division on these three issues.
No, it's about 20% loony lefties vs 80% sane people. That 80% includes a lot of "normie" Democrats; it's not a D/R thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bawac34618
Religion: The left believes in absolute, two-way separation of church and state. The right believes in one-way separation, in which the government should stay out of the church but that the church can and should have a voice in how society is governed. Which is it? This question is the cornerstone of our culture war, which is the elephant in the room that impacts almost every political issue we currently face.
Societies are built on moral foundations. Morals come from religion. You can't separate the two, nor can you have a civilized society without morals, and you can't have morals without religion.
John Adams said, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." By that, he meant that only a moral and religious People could be self-governing, because it requires a certain level of self-discipline of the People in order to function. People who think they're supreme over nature tend to think they're supreme over other people, too, and tend to be somewhat ungovernable.
[Side note for the ASSumers out there: I'm agnostic.]
Quote:
Originally Posted by bawac34618
Speech: Both sides hold different standards for speech they agree with vs that they don't. There's no way to defend either party on this. That said, are there certain things that are over the line, especially when it comes to speech that could put others in danger? What about hate speech?
Free speech absolutist. All speech is legal. Only actions are illegal. If I incite a riot, incitement is the charge. I'm not charged with speaking forbidden words. Understand the difference.
There's no such thing as "hate speech." There's only speech that YOU hate. Try not to hate so much. It's an extremely negative emotion and will destroy you, eventually.
Speech is an extension of thought - we think by collecting information and evaluating it, and quite a lot of that collection process involves talking with other people. Ideas are combined and create an ideas greater than the sum of their parts. This is how we grow and thrive as a society. Restricting ANY speech is restricting thought. There's no difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bawac34618
Right to bear arms: The right believes in an absolute right to bear arms no matter the cost to society or human life.
That's not true, AT ALL.
Every death is tragic. The double digit numbers coming out of Chicago every weekend are awful. What's more awful is that they're ignored by the people who claim to stand for those victims, while they try to strip me and my friends of our lawfully purchased and owned private property. I would engage them, if they weren't so nakedly disingenuous.
That said, BY FAR, governments have killed more innocents than all gun crime in U.S. history, combined.
One might say that I should give up my guns because someone in Baltimore or Fresno will somehow be safer for it. Any evidence provided will be thin and obviously cherry picked. It's the pattern of how these things go.
I say that we're ALL safer when the People are armed, and my evidence is the history of the 20th century.
The way you phrased the question and presented "both" sides the answer should be obvious. Absolutely not. As what you are basically saying is that ideas that would be considered more "Conservative" no longer have a place and we need a more "Liberal" Constitution so that everyone can just get along.
Well, this document worked well for over 200 years, and other than perhaps having people getting a refresher in its meaning it doesn't need to be changed.
I am sure in the "Oh can't we all just get along" world..it makes total sense to clarify something that doesn't really need clarification. But since you feel the left and right can't agree, how exactly do you think there would be any agreement on any sort of clarification? Perhaps you think it may take a neutral Country to help us clarify our Constitution...Canada? Mexico? How about Iran or China?
The Democratic Party leadership, and the looney left, want to replace the language in the Constitution with Marxist language. Sure, the dems admit all those other Marxists failed in the past, but that's because those socialists, Communists, Fascists and Marxists did it wrong. The modern day Democrats have a new and improved American version, a neo-Marxism, and this time the people will prostate and submit before government, and they will have their Utopia. Rinse, repeat.
Most of the polarization in our country right now go back to division on these three issues. Until we settle these questions, I don't think there's any pathway back to civility in our politics. Would you support amending the constitution to clarify these issues and why or why not? What are your positions on them?
Religion: The left believes in absolute, two-way separation of church and state. The right believes in one-way separation, in which the government should stay out of the church but that the church can and should have a voice in how society is governed. Which is it? This question is the cornerstone of our culture war, which is the elephant in the room that impacts almost every political issue we currently face.
Speech: Both sides hold different standards for speech they agree with vs that they don't. There's no way to defend either party on this. That said, are there certain things that are over the line, especially when it comes to speech that could put others in danger? What about hate speech?
Right to bear arms: The right believes in an absolute right to bear arms no matter the cost to society or human life. The left believes that changing times require changing perspectives and what worked in the 18th century may not be the best for today. I personally can see the arguments for both, but we will never settle this issue with the Second Amendment as it's currently written.
So federalize the police and elections, open the borders, stack the courts, indoctrinate the children, and purge the government and institutions of dissidents.
And now you want to limit the constitution which you hate anyways.
Good luck.
Last edited by BigJon3475; 06-29-2021 at 05:10 PM..
There should be no free speech exceptions except those already in the amendment. I’d be okay with preventing violent criminals from owning guns but that’s the only exception.
Better add the mentally deranged. Don’t you think ?
No, it's about 20% loony lefties vs 80% sane people. That 80% includes a lot of "normie" Democrats; it's not a D/R thing.
Societies are built on moral foundations. Morals come from religion. You can't separate the two, nor can you have a civilized society without morals, and you can't have morals without religion.
John Adams said, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." By that, he meant that only a moral and religious People could be self-governing, because it requires a certain level of self-discipline of the People in order to function. People who think they're supreme over nature tend to think they're supreme over other people, too, and tend to be somewhat ungovernable.
[Side note for the ASSumers out there: I'm agnostic.]
Free speech absolutist. All speech is legal. Only actions are illegal. If I incite a riot, incitement is the charge. I'm not charged with speaking forbidden words. Understand the difference.
There's no such thing as "hate speech." There's only speech that YOU hate. Try not to hate so much. It's an extremely negative emotion and will destroy you, eventually.
Speech is an extension of thought - we think by collecting information and evaluating it, and quite a lot of that collection process involves talking with other people. Ideas are combined and create an ideas greater than the sum of their parts. This is how we grow and thrive as a society. Restricting ANY speech is restricting thought. There's no difference.
That's not true, AT ALL.
Every death is tragic. The double digit numbers coming out of Chicago every weekend are awful. What's more awful is that they're ignored by the people who claim to stand for those victims, while they try to strip me and my friends of our lawfully purchased and owned private property. I would engage them, if they weren't so nakedly disingenuous.
That said, BY FAR, governments have killed more innocents than all gun crime in U.S. history, combined.
One might say that I should give up my guns because someone in Baltimore or Fresno will somehow be safer for it. Any evidence provided will be thin and obviously cherry picked. It's the pattern of how these things go.
I say that we're ALL safer when the People are armed, and my evidence is the history of the 20th century.
I think things have gotten completely out of control. We should have had regular constitutional conventions where things were amended and changed. It wasn't meant to be like the 10 commandments.
The left and the right cannot agree on what those words mean. With that in mind, I do think some clarification is necessary if we are to restore civility in our politics.
There is no “Civility” when Leftists openly label White People who are Conservatve/Republican Voters as Racist White Supremacists. “clarify” the plain language of our Founding Charter if the Leftists think they can pull it off.
Only Despots attempt to disarm the Citizens - our Founders knew that, which is why these are the #1 & #2 Amendments to our Constitution.
They can’t do it by Amendment ( it would never pass)…… they can only do it by illegal force. Go for it
I gave two options, choose one. Clarification is not an Option. The US Supreme Court as ruled that many times.
The words are few, they are clear and they are what every Government Official takes an OATH to uphold.
Right to bear arms: The right believes in an absolute right to bear arms no matter the cost to society or human life.
Can you show me one example of a gun that got up by itself, consciously pointed its muzzle at an intended victim, and pulled its own trigger? I don't even recall that ever happening even in a Stephen King novel. When will you leftists actually blame the root cause of the gun violence death? The man or woman who pulled the trigger?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
