The honest way is to think about what the writers intended and be faithfully truthful to implementation of this intention instead of having your own ideology and deceitfully looking for excuses to read your ideology into the writers intentions.What’s the honest way of reading the constitution? What’s the untruthful way? How do we know what our forefather’s intended? The American Constitution is treated like the ten commandments or the bible. Most importantly, what does this have to do with being Catholic?
Again, it would be helpful if you could cite an example.To some people it is their truth that some people over other races are inferior.
A fact remains a fact even though you find it offensive.To some people, minorities are the problem with society and they use statistical evidence to prove their points.
I’m fine with the definition you’ve cited. But you’ve not demonstrated that it’s a real belief that people actually hold.I think we differing opinions on what it means to be racist.
Every attempt should be made to interpret the constitution in line with what the authors of the constitution intended the meaning to be. If something is not in the constitution, then we have a 10th Amendment that matters not mentioned into the realm of the states or the people. For example: marriage & abortion to name a couple.Can’t the American constitution be interpreted in various ways? Our forefathers didn’t spell out the answer for everything.
Ask the Little Sisters of the Poor who were sued by the Obama administration, primarily because the Obama Admin felt rules written by unelected bureaucrats superseded the nuns 1st amendment protections.What’s the honest way of reading the constitution? What’s the untruthful way? How do we know what our forefather’s intended? The American Constitution is treated like the ten commandments or the bible. Most importantly, what does this have to do with being Catholic?
Did it praise western civilisation for pioneering democratic voting and including women, in the chivalry towards women, in supporting women as head of organisations and in developing capitalism which created technology to make its people’s lives more comfortable and thus facilitated women into the workforce?It was about the history of women in Western civilization.
No one is stopping you from existing. People are still free to choose their spouses based on skin color or whether they like coconut or anything else they like. The problem is when the race-based busy-bodies come in and tell other people they can’t marry someone with a different ethnic background if they want to because the busybodies think it is their business to run the human race like a puppy farm.That you had to go the literal Nazi Party to find an example shows that this is a complete non-issue.
Though it should be pointed out that even they (as far as I can tell from the quotes you provided) don’t adhere to “racism” or “white supremacism” as defined in the dictionary.
You’ve still not explained why its wrong for white people (or black people for that matter) to want to continue existing.
Was there any praising of western civilisation regarding the history of women there?It mostly discussed the discrimination on women throughout Western civilization. From witch hunts to modern-day music videos. We read books on rebellious women historically.