3 ms·

Your quoted sentence is an example of a group of people who have no idea of how to run a country. They are using the uneducated voter to support an agenda that

Your quoted sentence is an example of a group of people who have no idea of how to run a country. They are using the uneducated voter to support an agenda that is mostly unconstitutional. We Americans, just like other countries with a rule of law, determine our own culture within those laws. To use federal power to reshape our culture is both arrogant and, since Project 2025 is how they want to do the reshaping, is against the New Testament principle of "live and let live". (another way to state this principle is: "Christian, mind your own business and stay in your lane.")

kelipso 2y ago
This doesn't really make sense. The Democrats mainly, but also Republicans, have been reshaping our culture using federal funding for many many years now, using rules associated with federal funding, decisions for where federal funding goes to (one clear example being museum and arts funding), policies handed down from Department of Education and other federal organizations and departments, etc etc. I guess more people notice it now that Republicans are doing this so openly but the use of federal power to reshape our culture is a well established process. Also what does live and let live get them, especially with the other side pushing so hard? A slippery slope to an immoral society.
- bloomingeek 2y ago
  You cannot legislate mortality. Yes, federal power/funding is the norm, but not within the confines of religious control, which is what the Project 2025 is all about. The so called slippery slope is a worn out trope from the 80's, that has lost all meaning under the current administration. This is why live and let live works, as long as we all obey the law. We have to realize the rule of law is for everyone to adhere to, it doesn't matter how hard either side pushes, the only other option is jail.
  - kelipso 2y ago
    I think the slippery slope argument from the perspective of the right has all but been proven beyond a doubt.
    - bloomingeek 2y ago
      Yes, but their context is somewhat backward from the meaning in the 80's. Then it meant the danger of giving a little on any issue, fearful it would decay into chaos. Now the chaos is in "who gives a damn what anybody thinks" mode. (ala, Elon, the press secretary, JFK,jr and the rest of the cabinet.)
- jack_h 2y ago
  Just to add a bit more credence to this post, I'd point to Thomas Sowell's "The Vision of the Anointed" which is 30 years old and discusses the intrusion of the federal government in shaping culture from the perspective of the right over many decades. I've noticed that left leaning individuals tend to view their philosophies as neutral and when the federal government exerts its power in continuance of these philosophies it is viewed as a neutral application of the constitution. The right currently sees what they are doing in exactly the same way, a neutral application of the constitution. I actually think we have two conflicting constitutions at this point. The rigid written one we are all familiar with, and a more flexible unwritten one that is based on precedent, regulation, and legislation. The right tends to prefer the former, the left the latter. As an example I think Roe v. Wade, ended up being a part of this unwritten constitution which conflicted with the written constitution. You then saw this culminate in the Dobbs decision where the left thinks a right has been taken away and the right thinks it was never a right according to the constitution.
  - kmeisthax 2y ago
    What you call an "unwritten constitution" is the fundamental idea behind common law, which is basically the default in majority-English-speaking countries. Outside the Anglosphere[0] the standard is "civil law", which means that the law is only the stuff that was actually written down and decided upon by the parliamentary body. Everything else is optional; you aren't forced to "obey precedent", but may "follow jurisprudence" if such rulings provide relevant argumentation to the facts of the case. This isn't a left/right thing, it's a British/French thing. And being a former British colony, America is very strictly a common law country. That's why we even have to care about the Supreme Court at all. The Constitution merely says that there is a thing called a "Supreme Court", and that Congress can make more courts if it wants to. In the early days of America, SCOTUS got handed to them a constitutional crisis, squinted at the Constitution, remembered how common law precedent actually works, and said, "well, that means we have the power of judicial review". So naturally, the Constitution always has an unwritten component; to get rid of that would be effectively making a new Constitution. What people are squabbling over is what should and shouldn't be in the unwritten component, not whether or not it exists. Originalism and textualism deny the unwritten component, but nobody is actually an Originalist or textualist. There's no historical justification for the people who wrote the Constitution to want a civil law interpretation of it. Remember, they were all British lawyers and politicians. What Originalists and textualists are actually doing is using their ideology as an excuse to overturn precedent they don't like. If they were really Originalists, they'd be shutting SCOTUS down. [0] Sharia Law and Mao-style "We won't tell you what the law is" bullshit notwithstanding
s1artibartfast 2y ago
As always, much of the conflict comes down to what constitutes "your lane". The government we have is far from a libertarian "live and let live", regulating nearly every aspect of life and taxing one person to give to another. It decides what children are taught, who can work jobs, what is a crime, and who pays for different services.
- bloomingeek 2y ago
  Absolutely true, the Constitution has to be the norm for society. Religious people, such as myself, must find a way to live within it. (easy for me, not so much for others.) The current administration, supposedly run by Christians, are far afield of their "lane", but don't seem to care. Your last sentence is the one that worries me the most, because of what the Project 2025 could morph into, meaning outside the parameters of the Constitution.

kelipso 2y ago

This doesn't really make sense. The Democrats mainly, but also Republicans, have been reshaping our culture using federal funding for many many years now, using rules associated with federal funding, decisions for where federal funding goes to (one clear example being museum and arts funding), policies handed down from Department of Education and other federal organizations and departments, etc etc. I guess more people notice it now that Republicans are doing this so openly but the use of federal power to reshape our culture is a well established process. Also what does live and let live get them, especially with the other side pushing so hard? A slippery slope to an immoral society.

bloomingeek 2y ago
You cannot legislate mortality. Yes, federal power/funding is the norm, but not within the confines of religious control, which is what the Project 2025 is all about. The so called slippery slope is a worn out trope from the 80's, that has lost all meaning under the current administration. This is why live and let live works, as long as we all obey the law. We have to realize the rule of law is for everyone to adhere to, it doesn't matter how hard either side pushes, the only other option is jail.
- kelipso 2y ago
  I think the slippery slope argument from the perspective of the right has all but been proven beyond a doubt.
  - bloomingeek 2y ago
    Yes, but their context is somewhat backward from the meaning in the 80's. Then it meant the danger of giving a little on any issue, fearful it would decay into chaos. Now the chaos is in "who gives a damn what anybody thinks" mode. (ala, Elon, the press secretary, JFK,jr and the rest of the cabinet.)
jack_h 2y ago
Just to add a bit more credence to this post, I'd point to Thomas Sowell's "The Vision of the Anointed" which is 30 years old and discusses the intrusion of the federal government in shaping culture from the perspective of the right over many decades. I've noticed that left leaning individuals tend to view their philosophies as neutral and when the federal government exerts its power in continuance of these philosophies it is viewed as a neutral application of the constitution. The right currently sees what they are doing in exactly the same way, a neutral application of the constitution. I actually think we have two conflicting constitutions at this point. The rigid written one we are all familiar with, and a more flexible unwritten one that is based on precedent, regulation, and legislation. The right tends to prefer the former, the left the latter. As an example I think Roe v. Wade, ended up being a part of this unwritten constitution which conflicted with the written constitution. You then saw this culminate in the Dobbs decision where the left thinks a right has been taken away and the right thinks it was never a right according to the constitution.
- kmeisthax 2y ago
  What you call an "unwritten constitution" is the fundamental idea behind common law, which is basically the default in majority-English-speaking countries. Outside the Anglosphere[0] the standard is "civil law", which means that the law is only the stuff that was actually written down and decided upon by the parliamentary body. Everything else is optional; you aren't forced to "obey precedent", but may "follow jurisprudence" if such rulings provide relevant argumentation to the facts of the case. This isn't a left/right thing, it's a British/French thing. And being a former British colony, America is very strictly a common law country. That's why we even have to care about the Supreme Court at all. The Constitution merely says that there is a thing called a "Supreme Court", and that Congress can make more courts if it wants to. In the early days of America, SCOTUS got handed to them a constitutional crisis, squinted at the Constitution, remembered how common law precedent actually works, and said, "well, that means we have the power of judicial review". So naturally, the Constitution always has an unwritten component; to get rid of that would be effectively making a new Constitution. What people are squabbling over is what should and shouldn't be in the unwritten component, not whether or not it exists. Originalism and textualism deny the unwritten component, but nobody is actually an Originalist or textualist. There's no historical justification for the people who wrote the Constitution to want a civil law interpretation of it. Remember, they were all British lawyers and politicians. What Originalists and textualists are actually doing is using their ideology as an excuse to overturn precedent they don't like. If they were really Originalists, they'd be shutting SCOTUS down. [0] Sharia Law and Mao-style "We won't tell you what the law is" bullshit notwithstanding

s1artibartfast 2y ago

As always, much of the conflict comes down to what constitutes "your lane". The government we have is far from a libertarian "live and let live", regulating nearly every aspect of life and taxing one person to give to another. It decides what children are taught, who can work jobs, what is a crime, and who pays for different services.

bloomingeek 2y ago
Absolutely true, the Constitution has to be the norm for society. Religious people, such as myself, must find a way to live within it. (easy for me, not so much for others.) The current administration, supposedly run by Christians, are far afield of their "lane", but don't seem to care. Your last sentence is the one that worries me the most, because of what the Project 2025 could morph into, meaning outside the parameters of the Constitution.