4 ms·
Which one(s)? That's always the issue. Even people who nominally follow the same set can't agree on how to apply it down here on Earth. There's a reason the Fir
by Kye 4y ago
Which one(s)? That's always the issue. Even people who nominally follow the same set can't agree on how to apply it down here on Earth. There's a reason the First Amendment says government and religion shouldn't meddle in each other's affairs.
- hotpotamus 4y agoThe one true god who created America as a shining city on a hill, through his apostles, the founding fathers. I think you'll find the 1st Amendment says no such thing; that was an interpretation recently corrected by the Supreme Court.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- Kye 4y agoThis is a great example of the issue. I don't have any issue with you being a bit of a nutter. I don't even mind you having representation in government! I just Don't want people like you you running the whole thing. I'd end up in a gas chamber quick, and I suspect most Christians would fail your test. I appreciate our tripartite system with all its goopy progress-slowing nonsense because while it slows down stuff I want, it gives people time to organize against stuff they don't. Like theocracy. edit: since HN won't let me reply... You misunderstand. It's about holding on to progress. It took decades for conservatives to dismantle the wins of the Civil Rights movement. Decades to start putting cracks in the progress for queer rights. And so on. Those wins were hard, and it took more work to undo them. And the undoing is so slow that there's still time to recover. That's the system your "apostles" created.
- hotpotamus 4y agoI wonder what it is you think you're progressing towards? And what you'd be willing to pay for it?
- hotpotamus 4y agoHave you considered that what you consider progress may be someone else's regress? And perhaps now we're back on the path of progress after decades of diversion?
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- ethbr0 4y agoBut at the time the First Amendment was written, the "country" (read: voters) was much more culturally homogeneous and less diverse (effectively: western European, male, land-owning). Which is to say, as a consequence of increased liberty and acceptance over the past 250ish years, we now have challenges that the framers didn't have to deal with.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago> much more culturally homogeneous and less diverse (effectively: western European, male, land-owning). While I'd agree that this is how we would view the composition of the early colonies today, I somehow doubt that they would have agreed. The very existence of the United States has changed the baseline for what cultural diversity looks like, so that you can now say things like "Western European" without blinking.
- ethbr0 4y agoDoes it matter how they would have seen themselves, for the modern outcomes I listed above?
- PaulDavisThe1st 4y agoI think it probably does. If the founders saw themselves as already facing issues with a diverse population ("those scots-irish, jeesh"), then presumably they took that into account with the design of the government. If they didn't, then it would be correct to say that the Constitution (etc.) does not pay any attention to the implications of a more diverse population.
- ethbr0 4y agoAh. I'd say that by any definition of "diverse", we're more diverse now. So whether they saw themselves as diverse or not, they weren't trying to solve the problem to the degree to which it now needs to be solved. Or, in other words, they designed a flexible democracy for the world they perceived and the world they could imagine, but at some point imagination fails.