I thought this was the new Democratic Underground!
- Thread starter DonP
- Start date
- Status
dd-b
Member
You said "if the foundation is secure, the building is safe". I was giving a (rather emotionally loaded) example of a case where the foundation was secure, and in fact survived, yet the building was not safe.
I think you overestimate the importance of foundations.
So long as men disagree on what the law says, pure rule of law is impossible, though. Men wrote the laws, men interpret the laws, men change the laws.
DonP
Member
THR is a very worthy successor to TFL, I has decreed it!
Wow, I post a "howdy" with a mild tongue in cheek comment about the Democratic Underground and about how nice it is to see so many familiar names etc.
The next thing I know its a three page long thread with detailed, intelligent, and above all "polite" discussions about the B of R.
Yup this isn't the DU.
Good work Oleg.
Don P.
Wow, I post a "howdy" with a mild tongue in cheek comment about the Democratic Underground and about how nice it is to see so many familiar names etc.
The next thing I know its a three page long thread with detailed, intelligent, and above all "polite" discussions about the B of R.
Yup this isn't the DU.
Good work Oleg.
Don P.
redneck2
Member
It seems rather obvious...
that the 1st referred to "mass media"...whatever that was at the time. Back-up to this line of reasoning would be the right to assembly
the liberals have somehow twisted it to mean pornography.
Since many of the founding fathers were ministers, and regular Sunday church services were held in (gasp!) the Capitol Building (presided over by the writers of the Constitution), I can't see it as a big stretch when Christmas programs are held today on public property.
You still have freedom of religion. Go to church, mosque, temple, whatever you want or not go at all. Amazing that so many non-Christians still have tons of lawn ornaments, lights, and presents under Christmas trees, but they don't want religious holidays "forced" on them.
According to the Indiana Constution, I am a member of the Indiana Militia. Seems pretty clear that my right to firearms shouldn't be infringed, though that's not the liberals way of thinking because it doesn't support their end goal.
The real telling moments came during the last election, when the liberals replaced Torcelli in NJ and put Fritz in Minn. Absolute total and complete violation of the law, but as long as they have a majority, the "law" is whatever they want.
It amazes me that John Ashcroft is so vehemently attacked by the liberal media, yet he has to be one of the most sincere, honest, and caring individuals in public service.....oops, forgot, he's a devout Christian so of course he's suspect. Compare him to Janet Reno....man what a piece of work she was.
that the 1st referred to "mass media"...whatever that was at the time. Back-up to this line of reasoning would be the right to assembly
the liberals have somehow twisted it to mean pornography.
Since many of the founding fathers were ministers, and regular Sunday church services were held in (gasp!) the Capitol Building (presided over by the writers of the Constitution), I can't see it as a big stretch when Christmas programs are held today on public property.
You still have freedom of religion. Go to church, mosque, temple, whatever you want or not go at all. Amazing that so many non-Christians still have tons of lawn ornaments, lights, and presents under Christmas trees, but they don't want religious holidays "forced" on them.
According to the Indiana Constution, I am a member of the Indiana Militia. Seems pretty clear that my right to firearms shouldn't be infringed, though that's not the liberals way of thinking because it doesn't support their end goal.
The real telling moments came during the last election, when the liberals replaced Torcelli in NJ and put Fritz in Minn. Absolute total and complete violation of the law, but as long as they have a majority, the "law" is whatever they want.
It amazes me that John Ashcroft is so vehemently attacked by the liberal media, yet he has to be one of the most sincere, honest, and caring individuals in public service.....oops, forgot, he's a devout Christian so of course he's suspect. Compare him to Janet Reno....man what a piece of work she was.
grampster
Member
dd-b,
Enjoyed our reparte'. I think we will just agree to disagree on whether the Constitution is a "Living" document. I believe it is only within the parameters that it describes regarding the ability to modify it. I do not believe it is a document to loosely intrepret and go around with court decisions or legislation that obliquely changes its intent, or to somehow misinterpret to allow for things that are not contained within it. The Constitution is sometimes regarded as a "framework" which alludes to the fact that it "contains" things as a picture frame "contains" the art. Framework can be made larger to contain a larger piece of work, but one needs to follow the instructions that are contained in the original "art" . Imho the original framers left instructions within their work of art to change, enlarge or enhance it. Those instructions should be followed. An example that would be germain are all the thousands of gun laws, many of which skirt or outright violate the 2A. Attempts to control ammo would fall in this category as well.
If the 2A is distastefull to the majority of our citizens, then work toward the passage of a revocation or modification of it. It takes 2/3's of the states to ratify an amendment, which tells me the high regard that the framers had for the general satisfaction for their work and worry that it could be easily undone. But it still can be undone if most of us agree. I object to the lack of regard given the importance of this "foundation" by many citizens today. I do not at all overestimate its importance. I do think that many underestimate it.
Best wishes for you and yours for the New Year.
Grampster
Enjoyed our reparte'. I think we will just agree to disagree on whether the Constitution is a "Living" document. I believe it is only within the parameters that it describes regarding the ability to modify it. I do not believe it is a document to loosely intrepret and go around with court decisions or legislation that obliquely changes its intent, or to somehow misinterpret to allow for things that are not contained within it. The Constitution is sometimes regarded as a "framework" which alludes to the fact that it "contains" things as a picture frame "contains" the art. Framework can be made larger to contain a larger piece of work, but one needs to follow the instructions that are contained in the original "art" . Imho the original framers left instructions within their work of art to change, enlarge or enhance it. Those instructions should be followed. An example that would be germain are all the thousands of gun laws, many of which skirt or outright violate the 2A. Attempts to control ammo would fall in this category as well.
If the 2A is distastefull to the majority of our citizens, then work toward the passage of a revocation or modification of it. It takes 2/3's of the states to ratify an amendment, which tells me the high regard that the framers had for the general satisfaction for their work and worry that it could be easily undone. But it still can be undone if most of us agree. I object to the lack of regard given the importance of this "foundation" by many citizens today. I do not at all overestimate its importance. I do think that many underestimate it.
Best wishes for you and yours for the New Year.
Grampster
Last edited:
Re: It seems rather obvious...
Weren't most of our Founding Fathers Masons?
Anyhow, I do agree, even as a non-religious person, that our freedom of religion is pretty much intact. I believe that the current amount of religion being "pushed" upon us is mostly society, and that is something you can't escape. I do not feel that the government is endorsing any religion; however it is obvious that most of our officials are Christians (or at least claim to be... practice? heh, no). Is that bad? Nah, not really. Other than Jehova's witnesses and an occasional Mormon at my door, I don't feel religion is being pushed on me.
Weren't most of our Founding Fathers Masons?
Anyhow, I do agree, even as a non-religious person, that our freedom of religion is pretty much intact. I believe that the current amount of religion being "pushed" upon us is mostly society, and that is something you can't escape. I do not feel that the government is endorsing any religion; however it is obvious that most of our officials are Christians (or at least claim to be... practice? heh, no). Is that bad? Nah, not really. Other than Jehova's witnesses and an occasional Mormon at my door, I don't feel religion is being pushed on me.
2nd Amendment
member
Re: Re: ...wildly in violation of...
Does a congressional prayer in any way affect or control your personal religious choice? No. Thus it has nothing to do with an Official State Religion.
You only have two types of holidays: Religious and government. The religious ones are the only ones that garner any public interest. If the government failed to recognize these holidays(and you might want to consider the word "holiday" itself) there would be hell to pay. Plus, again, does the recognition of these Holy Days in any way determine YOUR personal choices? Again, no and thus they have nothing to do with the issue.
Again, it is freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM it. noplace and in no way can you in any fashion whatsoever demonstrate in the vaguest fashion that Christianity is being enforced on you or any of the other relatively small number of non-Christians. you're free to do what you will. Sadly, though, you have taken that freedom to mean you have the right to control what the majority of us do.
Since it is the leftists who keep referring to the Constitutional Republic as a mob-rule Democracy it appears to me there's a serious dose of hypocricy here, since we're the far bigger "mob" than you.
Does a congressional prayer in any way affect or control your personal religious choice? No. Thus it has nothing to do with an Official State Religion.
You only have two types of holidays: Religious and government. The religious ones are the only ones that garner any public interest. If the government failed to recognize these holidays(and you might want to consider the word "holiday" itself) there would be hell to pay. Plus, again, does the recognition of these Holy Days in any way determine YOUR personal choices? Again, no and thus they have nothing to do with the issue.
Again, it is freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM it. noplace and in no way can you in any fashion whatsoever demonstrate in the vaguest fashion that Christianity is being enforced on you or any of the other relatively small number of non-Christians. you're free to do what you will. Sadly, though, you have taken that freedom to mean you have the right to control what the majority of us do.
Since it is the leftists who keep referring to the Constitutional Republic as a mob-rule Democracy it appears to me there's a serious dose of hypocricy here, since we're the far bigger "mob" than you.
2nd Amendment
member
Furthermore, it was understood from the beginning to protect political opinion and polemic at least as much as news reporting, empirical evidence that the founders didn't think it meant what you say.
Perhaps I missed something or perhaps you left out a piece of your post. How is the fact the Founders intended the 1st to protect a broad range of speech evidence they didn't think it went beyond a simple press? And where is most political speech offered? The media, which was progressing then and which you would have to assume the Founders were ignorant of, of course.
Perhaps I missed something or perhaps you left out a piece of your post. How is the fact the Founders intended the 1st to protect a broad range of speech evidence they didn't think it went beyond a simple press? And where is most political speech offered? The media, which was progressing then and which you would have to assume the Founders were ignorant of, of course.
- Status
