Don't position yourself as captain of the "thought police".
Exploring the '"what ifs", and the "imagine that" can be constructive ways to explore ideologies.
Comments on Bob Enyart's Proposed New US Constitution
- Thread starter ranchkid
- Start date
Exploring the '"what ifs", and the "imagine that" can be constructive ways to explore ideologies.
Not me. The californians i met are way too liberal for me. A lot of them seem to have a thing for strange piercings and tattoos, too.
Maybe, maybe not.
The line between church and state is very, very clear in the existing document, and yet over and over again we see mostly conservative Christian groups taking to the streets and courts to blur that line. I am concerned, because if the ideas promoted in the Shadowgov document is the ultimate goal of the most conservative of Christians, then vigilance against them in the political realm needs to be redoubled.
Our constitution may not be sacred but it's the next best thing, and it deserves to be defended by ALL Americans, even the most conservative of Christians. The ideology espoused in that document is directly counter to what our Founding Fathers intended.
And I believe that blowing that particular document off while holding its author up for adulation is dangerous.
+++++++++++++++
Since I am not able to respond privately to the note with my "infraction," I'll respond publicly. I am not being unnecessarily disruptive, IMHO. I am holding up a mirror that people can choose to view or not. If they decide to question their own assumptions, or to consider thoughts from outside the chorus, great. Or they can just do what they're going to do anyway, continue to blow me off, and enjoy smug contemplation of the same continuuo day after day after day.
I tend to write in a directive manner, particularly when I know I need to be elsewhere rather than doing this just now. Not intending to force-feed anything, just offering up countering ideas.
Godless heathens
Oosterlitz
New member
I feel that there is insufficient debate concerning Taiwanese politics. The best position, I should tell you, is sitting down (the same as standing up, just a little lower).
:think: Hmmm.... really? I haven't seen you post any "countering ideas". Do you have your own constitution we could review?
So.... according to you our freedom of speech should be limited to what? Things other than government?
There is a thread out there somewhere on Taiwanese politics. Nobody cared though... least of all the Taiwanese.
Lots to say... also lots of work to do before I head out of town tomorrow.
Will try to check back in before I leave - I've already spent three hours here longer than I intended...
Oosterlitz
New member
"There is a thread out there somewhere on Taiwanese politics. Nobody cared though... least of all the Taiwanese."
Oh dear. Should I pray for the Taiwanese?
Oh dear. Should I pray for the Taiwanese?
Oosterlitz
New member
"You could do that after you've mocked them."
OK, and how would you suggest that I mock them? Should I do it by post? I have access to free stamps so that way might be best for me.
OK, and how would you suggest that I mock them? Should I do it by post? I have access to free stamps so that way might be best for me.
Oosterlitz
New member
"Ah. A postal worker. I'm leaving"
Oh no, not a postal worker, I just have access to stamps.
Oh no, not a postal worker, I just have access to stamps.
Thanks.
I see you had several responses, let me scroll down...
Hmm. Not giving me everything I think I saw you write.
Anyway - my countering document is the US Constitution, as it was written and amended and and it has been interpreted by the courts of the land. I don't always agree with the interpretations, however they are what we as Americans have to work with. I believe in the strength of the American government as established by the Founding Fathers, and don't believe that establishment of a Christian state is what they intended.
That said - I'm not here to defend the US Constitution. My question is directed towards those of you who support Enyart's philosophies - is what he's proposing what you really - really - want to see in this country? And how do you reconcile that with your pledge of allegiance to the flag... and to the constitution for which it stands?
The two documents are mutually exclusive. No amount of stretching and straining will reconcile the US Constitution with Enyart's philosophies, as demonstrated on Shadowgov.
And therefore what?
Are you saying people shouldn't be able to discuss these types of things? What's your point?
Not even a little bit. I'm all about discussion. Or why would I have joined a discussion forum?
My curiosity is in finding out just how many people AGREE with it, because I want to understand their endgame. Is that what people really want to see? That somebody is liable to be executed because they're gay?
(I could go back to Shadowgov and find plenty of other stuff, that's just an easy highlight point because of some of the threads going on now on the Politics board.)