Search results

Fine. This is your personally held religious belief. But you would be foolish to demand all people in a secular country based on a constitution to accept this as a legal determiner of rights and freedoms. Do to so would be to alienate such a significant number of them that it might quickly...

A quote, probably butchered: to be given tolerance is to be tolerant. To be visited oppression is to accept oppressions. What we do to others, we reap as a consequence. It's something like that. Freedom is the only reason we are able to talk right now as nonbleiever and Christian. Without the...

I don't like abortion, because the idea of an unborn human resonates with me. I don't like gay marriage, because of several reasons like marriage isn't a state purview anyway. I don't like the idea of restricting people's freedom either. I've never owned slaves. I've never wanted might to be...

I ask you humbly to take that road. Without any moral superiority or any ability or desire to make you into me. Just, be my countryman again. Seriously. Be my countryman. Be my ideological partner. Because we both have far more in common than we have in differences.

Look, I can't pretend to know what any God wants because my sense of logic prevents me from fully embracing one. But I can say that I completely agree with everything you say about the danger of tolerance and the point at which that tolerance bites you in the ass. I don't agree with pronouns...

Well while I disagree, that is absolutely fine. We are all allowed to make value attributions. Free debate is priceless. And disagreement is par for the course.

A genuine question: can you describe to me your perspective on how you feel it isn't being followed, with quotes from the actual document? Because you clearly know more about it than me. So I want to understand and learn.

No he didn't, that's true. But the continual repitition of the quote seems inadequate and boorish when the basis of debate lies upon constitutional matters of importance, since the quote isn't constitutional. Either he makes a constitutionally weighty argument or an unconstitutional and limp...

But then you must also admit that we need greater documents than static constitutions to maintain stable countries. Because clearly it isn't working.

I agree partly. Welfare is an instrument of destruction of families, but not the only one. I would point the bigger finger at neofeminism and neomarxism in general.

I would agree. But the constitution is the legal basis for America's great debates. I said years ago the constitution was inadequate. It's writers themselves intended it to be revised and reformed continually. But, since it is indeed the legal basis for American polity scrutiny, and the basis...

Ok so we agree if a person uses the constitution as politically weight in a debate, this quote is not part of the actual contents of the constitution, right?

This is actually a good point, if I may expand. Population is an issue in the US, as is divorce, because it destroys economic stability (mostly for men) and creates a mass housing issue. 60% divorces means huge numbers of men homeless or looking for new homes.

Well, in all my experience in conflicted countries (and I've travelled a lot) I've never seen one with a schism as large as the US that didn't have some kind of nationalist movement within it. As you wrote, the constitution states mankind within US constitutional law is right and moral to...

Not in the constitution, mate. Seriously. It's not there.

I think the greater point of the constitution, from reading some of it, seems to be self determination even if it means a national split. The quote that you quote again is not in the constitution. But self determinate rights are. So I will end my investigation there.

Thank you again! So essentially states and groups will decide their will for themselves and go their separate ways if necessary. That seems democratic and fair.

Right, but it doesn't say that in the constitution. Again, this is the document that people are using to found their legal and political footing on. And it doesn't mention religious preference. At all.

Individualistically and democratically, but not authoritatively. Essentially, it seems to me that it comes down to state votes.

So people have a democratic vote within states. Fair. Thank you!