If our Constitution made liberalism, in effect, illegal what should we do with them?

They had a choice; no one has no choice in ending their own life.

 

never happen or republicans would get the bill for the two 10+ year wars

but I agree, both parties are moving further left and right, this is bad for America, we are all Americans, they have to work together where they can for the benefit of all Americans

I believe people should make the choice to own a gun or not

I believe people should decide to have a baby or not

some on both sides want a nanny government to take away our freedoms and decide for us

I am really against republicans making Marijuana a scheduled one substance when they know it has medical uses - though some republicans are coming around

if the government wants to make ads educating the country on smoking, I am fine with that, but against over taxing cigarettes to force Americans to choose the way they want them too, educate the people, don't take away their freedom and try to force them to believe as they do

 

but there is no common sense here, many terminal patients are denied assisted suicide rights and forced to suffer needlessly, let the people decide, not the government decide for them

I oppose the government pushing the belief in a God or telling the people a God doesn't exist - let the people decide for themselves

 

Agreed @TOG 6
the most direct way I've ever seen this stated was under the Veteran Party of America, that had on its front page "all social legislation is unconstitutional."
I can't find that now, so maybe their site was updated, but that's the best statement I ever read on this!
http://www.vpofa.org/party-platform/

As for the most diplomatic way to say it,
it's "discrimination by creed" to push socialism as a belief through govt,
and compel citizens to pay for it against their beliefs, and/or penalize them for refusing to comply!

This could be called "no taxation without representation"
but since Liberals only understand Civil Rights, and not religious freedom
they don't think applies to their political beliefs, then I would ENCOURAGE
people to demand an end to political discrimination by CREED unlawfully pushed by Govt!

 

Yes and no @james M
Selfishness is what causes humans to sin by our ego and need to defend our own interests.
We are all BIASED and not able to "love all our neighbors equally"
as God knows understands and loves us. We aren't omniscient
nor all forgiving, but biased who we forgive and who we don't.

Thus we all as humans FAIL to be as perfect as Jesus Christ is
who gave of himself for ALL people EQUALLY. That's why we sin.
None of us is perfect, we all fall short of God's perfect love and truth that includes all people.
We don't.

 

(I)
Dear @Giftedone: I think we mostly agree on the above, just don't agree on WHY it goes wrong and HOW to fix it.
A. where it goes wrong is that people are selfish and get sidetracked and caught in their own biases.
After dealing and debating in depth with both right and left on their beliefs and views,
I find that many do not even RECOGNIZE they are imposing beliefs. They are not aware
that their bias is anything but "the whole truth" and think they are representing that, not a belief.
This is where things go wrong with well minded people who fully intend to follow laws
and don't intend to violate establishment principles or discriminate by creed.
Very very few people recognize political beliefs including their own!

B. where it can be corrected
by holding each person or party to their own principles.
When this is done in a concerted orchestrated manner, then the rebuke is received.
People accept correction.

So @Giftedone the correction is not done by condemning and throwing out a whole
group or ideology for being flawed. Such as for putting God above govt in order to put THEIR beliefs about individuals rights and choice above govt.
The content of the person's beliefs is not the problem in itself
but their imposition of one groups priorities above the others.
That favoring of bias is the problem.

Yes it can be corrected, but not by blaming the group or ideology.
Just urging and compelling all such groups not to impose on each other!

Where we agree, as your example seems to point out, then we can have agreed public laws
whether one person attributes it to God or govt or people as the church or the state or whatever.

We are still basically respecting consent of each person, so they are welcome to put God first or whatever
so long as we agree what is going to be made into public law. If we don't agree, no amount of blaming
each other's beliefs or priorities is going to change the fact we don't agree. We just have to work
around those beliefs and find where we DO AGREE and MAKE THAT the basis of the law,
not pushing the points we don't agree on.

(II)
RE:
Now regardless of what I think or what you think - The founders wanted essential liberty to be outside the legitimate authority of Gov't.

How about protecting the FREE CHOICE of believing essential liberty is independent of Govt
Are you okay with just protecting the FREE CHOICE of this belief?
I find it contradictory otherwise, that you can FORCE someone to believe in this
and then argue that govt and laws should not dictate religion and choice.
These laws cannot very well contradict themselves.
So at some point, it becomes key to recognize the whole process depends on people's
faith and belief that can't be forced by govt or its "self contradictory"

As my Muslim community leader friend said: faith can't be forced or it is fake.
It must be someone's free will for it to be a real belief.
So whether people believe in authority of laws coming from Nature/God ie inherent in man
or they come from Govt, or they come from people independent of either God or govt,
to treat people equally means none of this can be forced on people.

Are we okay with this?
It's perfectly fine if you hold the founders to be self-contradictory
by imposing this natural laws belief system on others through govt against their will,
but this makes no sense to me as it is obviously nonsensical if that's what they meant.

But if others believe they were being oppressively exclusive of other beliefs,
sure, I accept if that is what you believe about the "initial intent" .

I just think we are mean to go further and finally come to terms with
political beliefs instead of ramming one or the other down each other's throats
arguing for freedom from the tyranny of the other group's abuses.

(III) Would it help to delineate between three different scenarios and
what is mean by consent of the governed, or violating consent

(a) when one party violates the consent of the other and thus finds
themselves deprived but argues to defend their consent anyway
(b) when both parties respect each other's consent, and in that context,
work out terms of policy or agreement between them, but conflicts come up
(c) conflicts of beliefs (where violations are not intended)
when parties DON'T respect each other's beliefs, and try to use the law
to defend theirs from imposition by the other, and they don't recognize
the valid consent or beliefs of the other group they THINK is trying to do (a) to them.

I want to make sure we don't mix up the right of consent in (b) where the intent is lawful
vs. the unlawful intent in (a) that is either by incompetence or deliberate but it involves
secular/external violations and not internal violations of equal exercise of beliefs and creeds
as in (c)

When people have equal right of consent, I mean as in (b) where no violations have occurred
to deprive one or the other of equal liberty and say in the contractual agreement or policy/decision.
That is the ideal.

For (a) We normally understand that once a violation occurs, whether civil or criminal, the party in the wrong
is going to be compelled to satisfy law or corrections/restitution for the imposition on the other party.
So this person is going to be limited or conditioned to meet certain terms, based on the degree of the wrong
for which penalty or restitution is owed, which imposes on their will and consent.

The problem I would like to address is (c)
When people don't realize their beliefs are imposing unfairly on the beliefs of others,
some people react as if those opponents are TRYING to commit wrongs as in (a)
so this is where all the attacks, defenses, bullying and political competition kicks in.

I would like to address this first, and delineate from when people ARE trying to
abuse law to commit violations deliberately as in (a).

I believe "consent of the governed" needs some delineation between "beliefs" that
are not deliberate attempts to violate rights of others, but just inherently how people's minds
believe and perceive, which can get in conflict with how others naturally believe or perceive.

This is where I think you and I may disagree on if the intent is deliberately to bypass checks or protections for others.

I think you are saying these beliefs are being abused and/or could be helped or changed
"in order to solve the problem of putting God/individual rights above govt"
I am saying people cannot help having these beliefs, and the proper way to check
it is to let groups govern themselves independently, and only base public laws
where we AGREE on policy. So NO they don't have to "change these beliefs on how they prioritize
God or govt" in order to stop imposition: we have to change how we configure these groups,
whether they govern for themselves where needed, and only where all groups AGREE then those
become public laws or policies/programs that represent everyone, since we all consent to those.

Now, in order to have fully informed consent by educated free choice,
we'd have to educate and train all citizens and taxpayers on the
laws, the differences between civil and criminal, between state and federal etc.
And I fully recommend and urge training and offering assistance in
conflict resolution that RECOGNIZES political beliefs as well as diverse
psychology of how people perceive and communicate information.

This I find necessary if we are going to go by "consent of the governed"
instead of bullying; otherwise, we can't tell which people much less trust
which are going to respect mutual consent as in (b) or confuse conflicts
as in (c) with either negligent or deliberate intent to violate, deprive or deny rights
of others as in (a).

Do you see what I mean, that it is a key step to recognize
people who do not MEAN to impose beliefs to violate rights of others,
but truly don't see how it can be any other way! So this is either out of
ignorance or negligence, or defense if they feel others are doing this deliberately.

I find the people who ARE aware of beliefs on this level tend to be so
intellectually advanced, they have no DESIRE to violate rights of others who have no ill intent either.
So I find it's mostly out of FEAR or IGNORANCE, not understanding why people
keep insisting on their beliefs, that makes people react to defend themselves,
and inadvertently impose on each other's beliefs. It's not intentional, people
just don't get it, and either feel the other person is CHOOSING to believe
something to be abusive or oppressive, or their beliefs are invalid and not real to begin with anyway!

So that's what I'm trying to address first.
As to how consent by the governed has gone wrong.

If we can agree to that, then does it matter if someone puts
God before govt or govt before God. If we only go by where
we agree and consent, then this shouldn't be an issue as it is now.

 

I think we are on exactly the same page ( and the same page as the founders).

The whole point of putting individual liberty "Above" the legitimate authority of Gov't was to prevent people - via Gov't - from being able to force their personal or religious beliefs on others.

These rights are supposed to be outside the legitimate purview of Gov't - with respect to making laws which violate these freedoms.

These safeguards have been removed on the basis of two main justifications. .

1) Religious justification - the religious right seeks to put "God's Law" above "Man's Law" - They will generally cloak their desire to control others by trying to find other justifications rather than arguing "God Says so" directly but this remains the main impetus.

The founders vehemently disagreed with this justification for law.

Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch toward uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one-half the world fools and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth.
-- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781-82

Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind.
-- John Adams, "A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America" (1787-88 ) , from Adrienne Koch, ed, The American Enlightenment: The Shaping of the American Experiment and a Free Society (1965) p. 258

As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?-- John Adams, letter to FA Van der Kamp, December 27, 1816

When philosophic reason is clear and certain by intuition or necessary induction, no subsequent revelation supported by prophecies or miracles can supersede it.-- John Adams, from Rufus K Noyes, Views of Religion, quoted from from James A Haught, ed, 2000 Years of Disbelief

2) The main "Legal" justification is Utilitarianism and/or Fallacious Utilitarianism.

Utilitarianism is a theory where laws are justified on the basis of "the collective good" "increasing happiness for the collective". This justification for law completely ignores individual rights and freedoms in favor of " collective happiness". This justification allows for an end run around the main principle on which this nation was founded and by doing so allows for totalitarianism/tyranny.

Another problem with this justification for law is .. "who gets to decide" one mans treasure is another mans trash.

I never liked this theory simply on the basis that it completely ignores rights of the individual. Fallacious Utilitarianism is worse ... it uses bad arguments dressed up like they are for the collective good.


For example " If it saves one life" or "Harm Reduction" as justification for making some law or regulation. These arguments are very insidious as they sound good on the surface - "who does not want to save one life" ?

Is this however, valid justification for law ?

IF "if it saves one life" is valid justification for law then should we not ban skiing tomorrow - would this not save one life/reduce harm?

What about boating - that is really dangerous - one could drown ? Driving a car ? Forget it --- banned. In fact one should probably not rise from bed in the morning as one might fall and break neck.

In a free society one has the right to subject themselves to a reasonable amount of risk of harm.

Take Pot vs Meth - remembering that the bar for messing with individual liberty is "Overwhelming majority" at least 2/3rds.

Good luck getting 2/3rs to agree that Pot is so dangerous that the Gov't should be able to use physical violence (Law) to punish people for smoking the stuff - especially in light of the fact that alcohol is more dangerous and is legal.

Meth on the other hand is a different story - that stuff is so dangerous that an overwhelming majority would likely consent.

We have a great system if we would just follow it ... but we don't.

As it sits - every sitting member of SCOTUS should be dismissed for dereliction of duty - failing to interpret law and the Constitution on the basis of the founding principle and also the Rule of Law - we do not even follow that anymore.

Education

12 years of school and we fail to teach a kid the "basic" principles on which this nation was founded - individual liberty, legitimacy of authority, consent of the governed, tyranny of the majority, constitutional republic and so on.

12 yeas of school and we fail to teach a kid "the basics" of Philosophy (Logic, Logical Fallacy, what constitutes a valid argument and so on).

Without these basic tools - how is a citizen supposed to wade through the cacophony of bad argument and fallacy that rains down on them on a daily basis from Politicians and the MSM.

 

Totally absurd.

 

I fully agree with you.

I have a question: many countries (mostly in Europe) have banned wearing a burka. I support than ban, but I still have a problem finding the right justification for the ban, given that it restrains individual liberty. What's your view on that one?

 

The problem is that the MSM refuses to use proper terminology so that the people can understand the difference between a Muslim and an Islamist.

An Islamist - by definition - wants Strict Sharia to be the law of the land/ political system. Sharia Theocracy. They hate individual liberty and want to force their religious beliefs on others through physical violence (Law).

The main principle on which this nation was founded was respect for individual liberty. "Individual liberty was put ABOVE the legitimate authority of Gov't.

The Gov't is then to have no authority to make any law messing with individual liberty (of its own volition) never mind one based on personal or religious belief.

So then - why would we let someone into this nation that - by definition- hates the founding principle. They come here for our freedom but hate freedom ?

This is not a religious test. I don't care what religious someone is - if they have no respect for individual liberty - they should not be allowed in. Not all Muslims are Islamist's. Not all want "theocracy" or to force religious beliefs on others through law.

The Burka - is wearing a billboard stating "I am an Islamist" - I hate individual liberty and want to use physical violence (Law) to force my religious beliefs on everyone.

1) we should not even be having this conversation - how the did these people get let in to begin with ?? Seriously - someone shows up at the boarder and states "I hate individual liberty" How the fk do they get in.

2) that our uneducated idiocy allowed for these people to come in is a different story. If they are not yet citizens - they should be told to either learn and accept the founding principle or go back to their country of origin. In the case of those that managed to become US citizens - we are kind of hooped.

If we were to start educating people properly - 12 years of school and we manage not to teach the founding principle - and the MSM refused even to use the term Islamist never mind teach people what it means - the problem would solve itself.

Most of the women wearing the burka are not even aware of what it represents. They do not understand the founding principle. How is it that people get into this nation without learning the founding principle ?

 

Okay yes we agree on this.
However RE:These safeguards have been removed on the basis of two main justifications. .

I basically agree these arguments "have been used" but it's not because that's their justification.
It's that they are protesting the abuse of law to violate their beliefs, and this may be how they express them even if they are flawed.
In other words, they mainly get pushed into making such faulty justifications because they were put in a defensive position to begin with.
So that's not their real motivation, but it comes out that way when they are forced to justify and cannot explain it well.

They shouldn't NEED to explain or prove they have the right to their beliefs.
Because that sidetracks and defeats the whole purpose!
They have the right to their beliefs in themselves, so these justifications should not be the argument or become the problem.

But I agree with you, bringing this into the picture just befuddles it more.
You do express where their beliefs are coming from,
and I agree both should be checked by the same laws from extremes by the other.

I agree MORE with what you say here:
"We have a great system if we would just follow it ... but we don't"

I say we address each member of SCOTUS on this issue of beliefs. Give them a chance to correct themselves first!

I like how you stated it above, and maybe we can summarize that more or put it in side notes for those who need it explained as you provided so well.
With two of us asking for corrections of this practice, maybe we can call them out and others too in the legal and judicial system to consider this!
Thank you, two witnesses help hammer the points home. I back you up and believe we are on the same page on this.
We can write and edit rebukes together, perhaps one general statement about political beliefs and then take point by point
on cases that involve and affect various issues with respect to political beliefs and creeds and free exercise of religion applied to all views equally.

ABSOLUTELY agree on this
Civics Education as part of Constitutional duty of all citizens
equally as govt and military and police especially. This would protect
all teachers and police and help them protect all students and residents in safe environments.

[/quote]
@Giftedone
Ralph Nader ran for President with Civics Education in his platform.
Look up Joe Orsak's civil discussion show that is open for public interaction.
He also agrees with what you and I are saying about Constitutional and Civics education.
I think he and his closest friends are more Libertarian in views.

I mentioned to Joe and others the idea of celebrating the First through Tenth Amendments
on December 10 through 24, and then the Fourteenth Amendment on Equal Protections
or "Equal Justice Under Law" as the secular meaning of Christ Jesus on Christmas Day.
So people who don't follow Christianity can celebrate Restorative Justice and its the closest
secular meaning to the message of Christ Jesus and saving all humanity from war and hell.

Do you like this idea of teaching and celebrating Constitutional principles and history
for each of 10 days in December, starting with the date the BOR was ratified and
celebrating that Christ Jesus Means Peace and Justice on Christmas Day?
If you like this, please contact me by PM. we can plan with others who like this
and ask all people to join in and quit the hate baiting and respect political diversity.
Teach respect for equal protection inclusion and representation, and
let's set goals like they do with Kwanzaa principles and celebrate progress each year!

 

Three Cheers Totally AGREE @Giftedone
I only heard ONE conservative commentator, a fill in host for Hannity
say this on the air:
To DISTINGUISH between
Muslims
Islamists
Jihadists

Thank you very much.
Islamists believe in mixing religion with govt and this causes oppression and they want to evoke that level of power.
Jihadists want to act as judge jury and executioner and take law and justice into their own hands, specially Retributive Justice.

As for Muslims
* some are Christian and Bible adherents, who respect civil authority, rule of law due process, and believe in Peace and Justice
* some are SECULAR and believe in natural laws of peace and justice, but may or may not understand Christ authority as the key to Justice for All

The real issue, whether Christian Jew or Muslim, Secular Gentile Atheist or Buddhist under natural laws,
Constitutionalist or utilitarian egalitarian humanist or liberal feminist:
Do we include all people in Justice and Peace
Do we believe in Restorative Justice for all or Retributive Justice for Some?

The people I know who are INCLUSIVE in seeking peace and justice can forgive and work with anyone on corrections.
They don't seek to cut anyone out of due process and redressing grievances, but treat both sides of conflicts equally with respect!

That's what it means to put faith in Christ Jesus or Restorative Justice, whatever name you use to mean this same thing.

Muslims are called to receive or respect all sent by God, including Jews Christians and Muslims
living by the Torah and other Bible Scriptures included.

So that's the true Muslim believers, who are either fellow Christian believers
or at least respect both Christian and civil laws as part of their obedient duty to God.

 

I once had a conversation with a devout Muslim woman who stressed over and over "there is no coercion in Islam" but believed in Sharia.

Obviously these two positions are a complete contradiction and fortunately this was a rational individual. The problem was that she did not understand that "LAW" - by definition - is allowing the Gov't to use physical violence to punish offenders.

Many do not make this connection. The question of a referendum is not "do you like alcohol". The question of a referendum is "do you have sufficient and VALID justification to force others not to drink alcohol - through physical violence" - the "Heavy hand of the State"

The problem with the justification "God says so" is because it is simply not valid. Proof: "Prove you know what God says and thinks". Obviously this can not be proven.

Even from a religious perspective - Muslims belief in the first 5 books of the Bible. The YHWH of the OT is the Allah of Islam.

OK ... Numbers 18

Again in Numbers 29

Then there is my favorite - Deuteronomy 14

So if you are too far from the place of worship - take the tithe money and have a big party and be sure to make a few cheers to God !

Muslims belief that the Torah (At-Taurah) was inspired by Allah here are many references in the Quran to the Torah

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torah_in_Islam

So both from a secular or religious perspective the claim "God says so" is complete nonsense.

 

HI @Giftedone I have to run off soon so sorry if this is cut short.
I trust you and I will be sharing in length over a long time if this keeps up! Thank you!

1. My friend Mustafaa Caroll of CAIR also cites and lives by Mohammad's teaching
"there is no compulsion in religion"
He explains this is the same natural law given by God's wisdom as "religious freedom"
but it's expressed slightly differently, the law it refers to is the same one as our First Amendment refers to.

2. he says it this way:
for faith to be real, it must be by free will and choice, not by force.
If it is forced then it is fake, it is only because of the pressure from outside.
So that is contradictory and cannot be real faith of that person.

3. As for debating over "what God says"
Matthew 18:15-20 instructs us how to resolve conflicts
in testimony between neighbors where we agree and establish truth between us.
We do not force or punish people, we resolve the conflict by agreement in Christ.
This is how we receive God's truth and wisdom.
God's truth would not contradict itself.
so if both people are believers, as Muslims and Christians both submit to scriptural
authority, we agree to follow this passage and resolve the matter by establishing agreed truth!