Excuse me I am a History Major in College, got a Bachelor’s degree which you didn’t given e. Second of all, you answered my question, whether it was 1776 or 12 years later, the US Govt wanted its citizen to defend itself against possible attacks from outsiders especially the British.
But it was placed in bc of what the government believed to be an imminent threat from the British.
I did say that the court cases have been won in this country with the US Constitution as a source.
So you are saying if you were to poll the whole country right now, and if they saw a person carrying a gun in downtown NY, that people won’t say, “Yes, it did worry me, others could even say yes, it scared me”?
Yes, on guns yes. But you also know that the US Constitution has opened the door to abortion, gay marriages, atheism. I mean the US Constitution according to the US Courts has opened the doors to a lot of secularism beliefs. That does not mean it was always done right.
Oh yes before I forget, if you want a gun go ahead, that is your right, but it is also my right to say to be careful with it. It is also my right to say enough is enough is enough. Yes the Early US Fathers had good intention with the 2nd Amendment, but the way things are now, I think at least 1/3 of them would have different opinion about it.
No, it wasn’t, though it helped to ensure the Brits couldn’t re-invade, as was demonstrated in the War of 1812.
The Constitution did not open the door to atheism, lol.
There is nothing wrong with secular government. Prove that there is.
Yeah, they got liberated after a hard fought war after the principles underlying the DoI and the Constitution had enough time to permeate the culture and help people to realize that slavery needed to end. And so it got ended.
You mean that ridiculous clause that the North forced on the South because the North did not want slaves to count as fully human? That one?
We have always had flaws, have flaws now and will continue to have flaws into the future till Jesus Christ Himself returns.
I say that because it wouldn’t have mattered and still doesn’t matter to ideological zealots what the actual words of the Constitution are when they make these decisions. To them the Constitution is just a symbolic backdrop as they create the case law that they think the country should have rather than rendering decisions based on law it DOES have already.
No one says we have to accept those things. That is what is great about this country. You are free to disagree. Some of these secular ideas came about because the First Amendment guarantees there will be no state-imposed religion.
No news flashes here. That is true of any law.
The government already tells us what religion to belong to. It’s an informal quasi-religion, but the unwritten creedal articles dominate politics, law and culture: 1. Truth is relative 2. The end justifies the means 3. Pleasure is the greatest good and suffering the greatest evil. 3. We have no god but Caesar. 4. If your personal religion conflicts with the above, then it is indeed strictly a personal religion, and you are expected to keep it withing the confines of your church building or better yet between your ears alone.
Yes, I would submit that the “informal quasi-religion” you describe is imposed by Society; not by the government.
Not at all. Look at the so-called movement to “allow gays to marry”. “Allow gays to marry” is in itself a lie. As my friend puts it, what is advocated at the most basic level is for society to enforce certain kinds of legal contracts, even though those legal contracts are grossly immoral. The passive language “allow gays to marry” is a lie. Enforcing contracts is an activity of government (not a passivity), and it is impossible to decide what to actively enforce and what not to actively enforce without making substantive judgements about the good. Substantive judgements about the good will necessarily discriminate: every function of governance, including contract enforcement, is an authoritative discrimination of some kind resting on some substantive concept of the good. What makes liberalism (including libertarianism) different from other political views is that liberalism has to make authoritative discriminations resting in a substantive conception of the good while at the same time denying that it is doing so. What makes liberalism different is that it has to lie about itself in order to invoke its own justifying principles, that is, nondiscrimination (equality of rights) and freedom from substantive discriminating authority.
I wish I could say that you were wrong. That is the reigning pop-religion’s core reaction to its genuine rivals.
I wouldn’t call it a theocracy but an oligarchy who changed its religion about a century and a half ago and is slowly pushing it out onto the general public lest they make the change too apparent and people rebel in love with their traditional faiths.
To some extent, I agree. But I would say that our Constitution is fine, it’s the politically appointed courts that bring us the poor results (abortion decisions, etc.).
With all due respect, he did not say your opinion does not count. Your opinion, however, is not the same as objective fact.
No news flashes here. That is true of any law.