Debate Now Tolerance - Political Correctness - Liberty & Constitutional Law

[Procrustes Stretched]

Tolerance - Political Correctness - Liberty & Constitutional Law

"Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech..."

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.​

--

Part of the US Constitution is the Bill of Rights: Bill of Rights Constitution US Law LII Legal Information Institute

Rules in effect:
"Zone 1": Clean Debate Zone (CDZ) / Introduce Yourself (Welcome Threads): Civil discourse is the focus here, regardless of topic matter. Constructive criticism and debate is the tone. No insulting, name calling, or putting down other posters. Consider it a lesson in Civics.

THE TOPICS TO BE DISCUSSED: Agree or disagree:

(1) Tolerance is a one-way street allowing opposing points of view to exist side by side in peace.

(2) Political Correctness exists only in the politically correct worlds of extremists on all sides

(3) Liberty is thrown around these days like a wet noodle at a Vegetarian restaurant. It is losing it's meaning and value in our society because of those who have abused and misused the term. Think calling every sexual encounter that is clumsy or that unfortunately ends badly, rape; every battle between people a holocaust; every Republican a right winger; every Democrat...you get the idea.

(4) Constitution law is a subject most people know little about, and those who know more than a little are usually proven wrong time and time again.​

What is tolerance? The word is linked to gays and aliens nowadays. Occupied. Coming alongside "tolerance" is the term "political correctness". What the heck is this? Who the heck has the right to tell me what is correct? Whose moral weights more than mine?
Back then, under Hitler, it was "political correct" to demonize Jews.
Heck, those are the fuck not tolerant, that tell us what we have to tolerate. .

Huh? How do you tolerate the noise in your own head?

 

[Bleipriester]

Huh?

Howgh!

 

[emilynghiem]

Tolerance - Political Correctness - Liberty & Constitutional Law

"Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech..."

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.​

--

Part of the US Constitution is the Bill of Rights: Bill of Rights Constitution US Law LII Legal Information Institute

Rules in effect:
"Zone 1": Clean Debate Zone (CDZ) / Introduce Yourself (Welcome Threads): Civil discourse is the focus here, regardless of topic matter. Constructive criticism and debate is the tone. No insulting, name calling, or putting down other posters. Consider it a lesson in Civics.

THE TOPICS TO BE DISCUSSED: Agree or disagree:

(1) Tolerance is a one-way street allowing opposing points of view to exist side by side in peace.

(2) Political Correctness exists only in the politically correct worlds of extremists on all sides

(3) Liberty is thrown around these days like a wet noodle at a Vegetarian restaurant. It is losing it's meaning and value in our society because of those who have abused and misused the term. Think calling every sexual encounter that is clumsy or that unfortunately ends badly, rape; every battle between people a holocaust; every Republican a right winger; every Democrat...you get the idea.

(4) Constitution law is a subject most people know little about, and those who know more than a little are usually proven wrong time and time again.​

A. I agree there needs to be education and training in Constitutional laws and democratic process. Absolutely necessary for law abiding citizenship and for equal protection of laws. People can't defend their rights if they don't know the laws or process. They are too easily exploited politically, financially, socially, emotionally and this isn't fair to criminalize and penalize them if they didn't have knowledge of the laws and access to help and solutions to begin with! Totally agree.

Also, about who has correct knowledge, not only are there different levels or lack of knowledge, but Dante there are also different beliefs. Some people put Nature as the default source of rights, others turn to Govt to establish rights. So we need to accommodate both approaches to law and govt, and not judge or discriminate against either beliefs system. The right answers will meet the standards of both groups of people. Ex: all groups regardless of background, tend to agree that murder is unlawful (I met people from certain Satanist/free will type backgrounds who don't believe laws against murder are necessary, or who don't agree to follow the criminal laws; so the way I propose to include such people is for them to take responsibility within their own memberships if they want to make murder legal within their group and pay for the cost of policing this where other people don't abuse it to commit murder against a person who doesn't agree to it. If they can handle social legal and financial responsibility for their beliefs, I think t hat is fine to let them not charge for murder if it is between members of their own group. But good luck policiing that. I believe it would be better just to implement spiritual healing to make sure nobody has criminal sickness or conditions that would cause someone to kill anyone against their will or for anyone to want to be killed because they have a problem that can't be cured since spiritual healing would probably resolve any such cause if it can be healed or removed)

B. As for PC I find the solution is to let people represent themselves not others.
If we give people that freedom, then there is less need to dictate or control others.
There is some projection or territorial defense mechanism that needs to be addressed first, and then the verbal politics will take care of itself.

What is needed for tolerance is FORGIVENESS.

The more people can FORGIVE and include other people or groups, even the ones we are most diametrically opposite of or in conflict with, then the tolerance and language we need to use to communicate will take care of itself.

What I would suggest is accessing which areas people can or cannot forgive,
and be aware of this level of tolerance or intolerance in the conflict resolution
process, where people are not judged for their limits or their language.

Of course when it comes to issues with hostile emotions attached, the language may go all over the place. The issue is not the language itself, but the disruption in the relationship.

There are different stages of grief and recovery, including anger and denial that can lead to projection, which affect the language people use and their openness or refusal to change how they see or say things.

I don't think it is fair to judge people for their stage of anger, grief or recovery,
but better to work with whatever they are going through at the time.

The style of leadership, communication or approach to conflict
also affects the language and ways of interaction between people.
I listed these before as
* accommodating
* competitive
* collaborative
* avoidance
And this is also an area where it is better to accept what someone's
natural way of interacting is, and not judge them where it clashes
with someone from the opposite approach.

Instead of microfocusing on language, the CONTENT should be addressed
first and then the language will naturally follow:

And if people do not want relations with each other, no matter
how much you mess with the language it won't fix the division and competition
that is the real issue.

 

[Debra K]

Tolerance - Political Correctness - Liberty & Constitutional Law

"Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech..."

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.​

--

Part of the US Constitution is the Bill of Rights: Bill of Rights Constitution US Law LII Legal Information Institute

Rules in effect:
"Zone 1": Clean Debate Zone (CDZ) / Introduce Yourself (Welcome Threads): Civil discourse is the focus here, regardless of topic matter. Constructive criticism and debate is the tone. No insulting, name calling, or putting down other posters. Consider it a lesson in Civics.

THE TOPICS TO BE DISCUSSED: Agree or disagree:

(1) Tolerance is a one-way street allowing opposing points of view to exist side by side in peace.

(2) Political Correctness exists only in the politically correct worlds of extremists on all sides

(3) Liberty is thrown around these days like a wet noodle at a Vegetarian restaurant. It is losing it's meaning and value in our society because of those who have abused and misused the term. Think calling every sexual encounter that is clumsy or that unfortunately ends badly, rape; every battle between people a holocaust; every Republican a right winger; every Democrat...you get the idea.

(4) Constitution law is a subject most people know little about, and those who know more than a little are usually proven wrong time and time again.​

Tolerance - Political Correctness - Liberty & Constitutional Law

Aren't you going to define the terms above? Just kidding ....

Proposition No. (1) Tolerance is a one-way street allowing opposing points of view to exist side by side in peace.

I'm not sure how to approach this proposition. I suppose tolerance is indeed a one-way street when one person tolerates another person's intolerance. To that extent, I agree with the proposition. Opposing points of view can therefore exist side by side in peace so long as intolerance is not challenged or criticized.​

Proposition No. (2) Political Correctness exists only in the politically correct worlds of extremists on all sides.

Politically Correct Definition of politically correct by Merriam-Webster

Politically correct: Agreeing with the idea that people should be careful to not use language or behave in a way that could offend a particular group of people.

Again, I'm not sure how to approach this proposition. Personally, I don't believe I'm an extremist, but I don't tolerate intolerance very well when the intolerant person or group seeks to impose their intolerant points of view on society as a whole through the operation of our laws.

My older sister lives in California and during one visit many years ago, she complained about the California Supreme Court overturning the will of the people (i.e., Proposition 22, which restricted marriage to opposite-sex couples). I explained to her the fundamental workings of our form of government. If the people pass a law that discriminates against a disfavored class of people in violation of state and federal constitutions, it is the duty of our courts to say so and to strike down the law as unconstitutional. This is way the law was designed to protect minorities from tyranny of the majority. It was a pleasant conversation, I thought.

Years later, my sister was on Facebook posting conservative right-wing memes and articles against same-sex marriage and family members commented on her posts. My sister has been married four times, does not go to or belong to any church, but she identifies herself as a "Christian" and argued that homosexuality is a sin and the Bible prohibits same-sex marriage and she did not want same-sex marriages to become legal. I informed my sister that she was entitled to her opinion ... and if she is against same-sex marriage, then she should not enter one ... that the ability of homosexual persons to marry the person of their choice did not impugn the sanctity of any of her marriages ... and she should not seek to impose her religious or moral views on everyone else in society through the operation of our laws. She became quite indignant, accused me of calling her a bigot, called all of our relatives to complain how mean I was to her, and told me that she cried and cried for hours.

Because I did not tolerate her viewpoint (i.e., I expressed my opposition to her viewpoint) and thus offended her, and I suppose that was "politically incorrect". But I don't think I'm an extremist, so I will disagree with Proposition No. 2.

I don't believe expressing intolerance of intolerance should be labeled as evil, evil political correctness. It my opinion, the "war against political correctness" is now the current war cry of people who don't want criticism of their intolerant viewpoints. They fail to understand that freedom of speech does not mean freedom from criticism.
​

Proposition No. (3) Liberty is thrown around these days like a wet noodle at a Vegetarian restaurant. It is losing it's meaning and value in our society because of those who have abused and misused the term. Think calling every sexual encounter that is clumsy or that unfortunately ends badly, rape; every battle between people a holocaust; every Republican a right winger; every Democrat...you get the idea.

I disagree. Liberty is a grand concept that doesn't get enough attention. There are some people who subscribe to the erroneous proposition that if a liberty interest (right) is not mentioned in the Constitution, then it doesn't exist. This line of thinking fails to understand that the Constitution secures the entire universe of liberty (rights), great and small, against arbitrary government infringements. In other words, a liberty interest need not be "enumerated" in the Constitution to be entitled to protection under the Constitution.​

Proposition No. (4) Constitution law is a subject most people know little about, and those who know more than a little are usually proven wrong time and time again.

I agree. We need more education about the Constitution and Government.​

​

 

[Derideo_Te]

Tolerance - Political Correctness - Liberty & Constitutional Law

"Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech..."

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.​

--

Part of the US Constitution is the Bill of Rights: Bill of Rights Constitution US Law LII Legal Information Institute

Rules in effect:
"Zone 1": Clean Debate Zone (CDZ) / Introduce Yourself (Welcome Threads): Civil discourse is the focus here, regardless of topic matter. Constructive criticism and debate is the tone. No insulting, name calling, or putting down other posters. Consider it a lesson in Civics.

THE TOPICS TO BE DISCUSSED: Agree or disagree:

(1) Tolerance is a one-way street allowing opposing points of view to exist side by side in peace.

(2) Political Correctness exists only in the politically correct worlds of extremists on all sides

(3) Liberty is thrown around these days like a wet noodle at a Vegetarian restaurant. It is losing it's meaning and value in our society because of those who have abused and misused the term. Think calling every sexual encounter that is clumsy or that unfortunately ends badly, rape; every battle between people a holocaust; every Republican a right winger; every Democrat...you get the idea.

(4) Constitution law is a subject most people know little about, and those who know more than a little are usually proven wrong time and time again.​

Tolerance - Political Correctness - Liberty & Constitutional Law

Aren't you going to define the terms above? Just kidding ....

Proposition No. (1) Tolerance is a one-way street allowing opposing points of view to exist side by side in peace.

I'm not sure how to approach this proposition. I suppose tolerance is indeed a one-way street when one person tolerates another person's intolerance. To that extent, I agree with the proposition. Opposing points of view can therefore exist side by side in peace so long as intolerance is not challenged or criticized.​

Proposition No. (2) Political Correctness exists only in the politically correct worlds of extremists on all sides.

Politically Correct Definition of politically correct by Merriam-Webster

Politically correct: Agreeing with the idea that people should be careful to not use language or behave in a way that could offend a particular group of people.

Again, I'm not sure how to approach this proposition. Personally, I don't believe I'm an extremist, but I don't tolerate intolerance very well when the intolerant person or group seeks to impose their intolerant points of view on society as a whole through the operation of our laws.

My older sister lives in California and during one visit many years ago, she complained about the California Supreme Court overturning the will of the people (i.e., Proposition 22, which restricted marriage to opposite-sex couples). I explained to her the fundamental workings of our form of government. If the people pass a law that discriminates against a disfavored class of people in violation of state and federal constitutions, it is the duty of our courts to say so and to strike down the law as unconstitutional. This is way the law was designed to protect minorities from tyranny of the majority. It was a pleasant conversation, I thought.

Years later, my sister was on Facebook posting conservative right-wing memes and articles against same-sex marriage and family members commented on her posts. My sister has been married four times, does not go to or belong to any church, but she identifies herself as a "Christian" and argued that homosexuality is a sin and the Bible prohibits same-sex marriage and she did not want same-sex marriages to become legal. I informed my sister that she was entitled to her opinion ... and if she is against same-sex marriage, then she should not enter one ... that the ability of homosexual persons to marry the person of their choice did not impugn the sanctity of any of her marriages ... and she should not seek to impose her religious or moral views on everyone else in society through the operation of our laws. She became quite indignant, accused me of calling her a bigot, called all of our relatives to complain how mean I was to her, and told me that she cried and cried for hours.

Because I did not tolerate her viewpoint (i.e., I expressed my opposition to her viewpoint) and thus offended her, and I suppose that was "politically incorrect". But I don't think I'm an extremist, so I will disagree with Proposition No. 2.

I don't believe expressing intolerance of intolerance should be labeled as evil, evil political correctness. It my opinion, the "war against political correctness" is now the current war cry of people who don't want criticism of their intolerant viewpoints. They fail to understand that freedom of speech does not mean freedom from criticism.
​

Proposition No. (3) Liberty is thrown around these days like a wet noodle at a Vegetarian restaurant. It is losing it's meaning and value in our society because of those who have abused and misused the term. Think calling every sexual encounter that is clumsy or that unfortunately ends badly, rape; every battle between people a holocaust; every Republican a right winger; every Democrat...you get the idea.

I disagree. Liberty is a grand concept that doesn't get enough attention. There are some people who subscribe to the erroneous proposition that if a liberty interest (right) is not mentioned in the Constitution, then it doesn't exist. This line of thinking fails to understand that the Constitution secures the entire universe of liberty (rights), great and small, against arbitrary government infringements. In other words, a liberty interest need not be "enumerated" in the Constitution to be entitled to protection under the Constitution.​

Proposition No. (4) Constitution law is a subject most people know little about, and those who know more than a little are usually proven wrong time and time again.

I agree. We need more education about the Constitution and Government.​

​

I don't believe expressing intolerance of intolerance should be labeled as evil, evil political correctness. It my opinion, the "war against political correctness" is now the current war cry of people who don't want criticism of their intolerant viewpoints. They fail to understand that freedom of speech does not mean freedom from criticism.

It has been my observation that those who are the most intolerant are also the most easily offended by any legitimate criticism of their intolerance. Furthermore they then demonize those who expose their intolerance and seek ways to pervert the Law of the Land to make it legal for them to practice their intolerance. They believe that their "right" to be intolerant is superior to the rights of those who are the targets of their intolerance. The fundamental concept of equal rights seems to be beyond the comprehension of those who are the most intolerant.

I disagree. Liberty is a grand concept that doesn't get enough attention. There are some people who subscribe to the erroneous proposition that if a liberty interest (right) is not mentioned in the Constitution, then it doesn't exist. This line of thinking fails to understand that the Constitution secures the entire universe of liberty (rights), great and small, against arbitrary government infringements. In other words, a liberty interest need not be "enumerated" in the Constitution to be entitled to protection under the Constitution.

Those that insist that their "freedoms" are being threatened seem to be the least able to comprehend that their "liberty" only exists because (a) it was liberals who came up with the concepts, and (b) it is liberals who ensured that the Constitution would protect those "liberties" for each and every individual, both enumerated and unenumerated.

Furthermore they are the least able to comprehend that when they try to deprive others of their "liberty" to vote (for example) by imposing undue burdens they are harming their own "liberty" to vote too.

The concept that we as individuals must protect each other's "liberties" first and foremost seems to be beyond their comprehension.

We the People do have an individual responsibility to ensure that the government of the people always remains a government for the people first and foremost and we cannot do that without actively upholding the "liberties" of our fellow citizens even when we personally disagree with how they are being used.

 

[Debra K]

Tolerance - Political Correctness - Liberty & Constitutional Law

"Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech..."

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.​

--

Part of the US Constitution is the Bill of Rights: Bill of Rights Constitution US Law LII Legal Information Institute

Rules in effect:
"Zone 1": Clean Debate Zone (CDZ) / Introduce Yourself (Welcome Threads): Civil discourse is the focus here, regardless of topic matter. Constructive criticism and debate is the tone. No insulting, name calling, or putting down other posters. Consider it a lesson in Civics.

THE TOPICS TO BE DISCUSSED: Agree or disagree:

(1) Tolerance is a one-way street allowing opposing points of view to exist side by side in peace.

(2) Political Correctness exists only in the politically correct worlds of extremists on all sides

(3) Liberty is thrown around these days like a wet noodle at a Vegetarian restaurant. It is losing it's meaning and value in our society because of those who have abused and misused the term. Think calling every sexual encounter that is clumsy or that unfortunately ends badly, rape; every battle between people a holocaust; every Republican a right winger; every Democrat...you get the idea.

(4) Constitution law is a subject most people know little about, and those who know more than a little are usually proven wrong time and time again.​

Tolerance - Political Correctness - Liberty & Constitutional Law

Aren't you going to define the terms above? Just kidding ....

Proposition No. (1) Tolerance is a one-way street allowing opposing points of view to exist side by side in peace.

I'm not sure how to approach this proposition. I suppose tolerance is indeed a one-way street when one person tolerates another person's intolerance. To that extent, I agree with the proposition. Opposing points of view can therefore exist side by side in peace so long as intolerance is not challenged or criticized.​

Proposition No. (2) Political Correctness exists only in the politically correct worlds of extremists on all sides.

Politically Correct Definition of politically correct by Merriam-Webster

Politically correct: Agreeing with the idea that people should be careful to not use language or behave in a way that could offend a particular group of people.

Again, I'm not sure how to approach this proposition. Personally, I don't believe I'm an extremist, but I don't tolerate intolerance very well when the intolerant person or group seeks to impose their intolerant points of view on society as a whole through the operation of our laws.

My older sister lives in California and during one visit many years ago, she complained about the California Supreme Court overturning the will of the people (i.e., Proposition 22, which restricted marriage to opposite-sex couples). I explained to her the fundamental workings of our form of government. If the people pass a law that discriminates against a disfavored class of people in violation of state and federal constitutions, it is the duty of our courts to say so and to strike down the law as unconstitutional. This is way the law was designed to protect minorities from tyranny of the majority. It was a pleasant conversation, I thought.

Years later, my sister was on Facebook posting conservative right-wing memes and articles against same-sex marriage and family members commented on her posts. My sister has been married four times, does not go to or belong to any church, but she identifies herself as a "Christian" and argued that homosexuality is a sin and the Bible prohibits same-sex marriage and she did not want same-sex marriages to become legal. I informed my sister that she was entitled to her opinion ... and if she is against same-sex marriage, then she should not enter one ... that the ability of homosexual persons to marry the person of their choice did not impugn the sanctity of any of her marriages ... and she should not seek to impose her religious or moral views on everyone else in society through the operation of our laws. She became quite indignant, accused me of calling her a bigot, called all of our relatives to complain how mean I was to her, and told me that she cried and cried for hours.

Because I did not tolerate her viewpoint (i.e., I expressed my opposition to her viewpoint) and thus offended her, and I suppose that was "politically incorrect". But I don't think I'm an extremist, so I will disagree with Proposition No. 2.

I don't believe expressing intolerance of intolerance should be labeled as evil, evil political correctness. It my opinion, the "war against political correctness" is now the current war cry of people who don't want criticism of their intolerant viewpoints. They fail to understand that freedom of speech does not mean freedom from criticism.
​

Proposition No. (3) Liberty is thrown around these days like a wet noodle at a Vegetarian restaurant. It is losing it's meaning and value in our society because of those who have abused and misused the term. Think calling every sexual encounter that is clumsy or that unfortunately ends badly, rape; every battle between people a holocaust; every Republican a right winger; every Democrat...you get the idea.

I disagree. Liberty is a grand concept that doesn't get enough attention. There are some people who subscribe to the erroneous proposition that if a liberty interest (right) is not mentioned in the Constitution, then it doesn't exist. This line of thinking fails to understand that the Constitution secures the entire universe of liberty (rights), great and small, against arbitrary government infringements. In other words, a liberty interest need not be "enumerated" in the Constitution to be entitled to protection under the Constitution.​

Proposition No. (4) Constitution law is a subject most people know little about, and those who know more than a little are usually proven wrong time and time again.

I agree. We need more education about the Constitution and Government.​

​

I don't believe expressing intolerance of intolerance should be labeled as evil, evil political correctness. It my opinion, the "war against political correctness" is now the current war cry of people who don't want criticism of their intolerant viewpoints. They fail to understand that freedom of speech does not mean freedom from criticism.

It has been my observation that those who are the most intolerant are also the most easily offended by any legitimate criticism of their intolerance. Furthermore they then demonize those who expose their intolerance and seek ways to pervert the Law of the Land to make it legal for them to practice their intolerance. They believe that their "right" to be intolerant is superior to the rights of those who are the targets of their intolerance. The fundamental concept of equal rights seems to be beyond the comprehension of those who are the most intolerant.

Yes. I agree. I am observing an "Orwellian" phenomena wherein the victimizer (the intolerant person who victimizes the target of his/her intolerance) paints him- or herself as the victim. It's absurd.

Example: Kim Davis is an elected government official in the State of Kentucky who is intolerant of equal rights under the law (secured by the Constitution) for homosexual couples. In her official capacity as an agent of state government, Kim Davis has therefore victimized all qualified couples seeking to apply for marriage licenses through her intentional and willful refusal to obey her sworn oath to uphold the Constitution. Instead of recognizing her own wrongful & unlawful conduct, Kim Davis alleges that SHE is the victim because the law does not allow her to impose her religious beliefs on persons seeking her services as an elected government official in her government office.

It is absurd for anyone to believe that the religious or moral beliefs of every petty government official somehow trump the constitutional rights of the citizens they serve. And yet, the disciples of Orwellian thinking applaud Kim Davis's unlawful conduct under the guise of "religious freedom". This is indeed a perversion of the Law of the Land. It also discloses stark ignorance (willful or otherwise) of the law and the necessity for education. Our form of government (a Constitutional Republic) is the greatest form of government in the world, and yet millions of our citizens have no idea how it truly works. We are a nation of laws, not of men ... a concept that few people seem to understand.

I disagree. Liberty is a grand concept that doesn't get enough attention. There are some people who subscribe to the erroneous proposition that if a liberty interest (right) is not mentioned in the Constitution, then it doesn't exist. This line of thinking fails to understand that the Constitution secures the entire universe of liberty (rights), great and small, against arbitrary government infringements. In other words, a liberty interest need not be "enumerated" in the Constitution to be entitled to protection under the Constitution.

Those that insist that their "freedoms" are being threatened seem to be the least able to comprehend that their "liberty" only exists because (a) it was liberals who came up with the concepts, and (b) it is liberals who ensured that the Constitution would protect those "liberties" for each and every individual, both enumerated and unenumerated.

Furthermore they are the least able to comprehend that when they try to deprive others of their "liberty" to vote (for example) by imposing undue burdens they are harming their own "liberty" to vote too.

The concept that we as individuals must protect each other's "liberties" first and foremost seems to be beyond their comprehension.

We the People do have an individual responsibility to ensure that the government of the people always remains a government for the people first and foremost and we cannot do that without actively upholding the "liberties" of our fellow citizens even when we personally disagree with how they are being used.

I agree. People who subscribe to their own religious or moral beliefs have the "freedom" to apply those beliefs to their own lives. They don't understand that they do not have the right to victimize or otherwise harm other people (whom they disfavor) by forcing their beliefs on other people or society as a whole. They don't comprehend what matters are and are not "legitimate" issues of public concern. In this regard, I find abundant language from the majority opinion and the concurring opinion in Lawrence v. Texas to be most useful. Here is a quote from Justice O'Connor's concurring opinion: "Moral disapproval of a group cannot be a legitimate governmental interest under the Equal Protection Clause because legal classifications must not be 'drawn for the purpose of disadvantaging the group burdened by the law'."

 

[Derideo_Te]

People who subscribe to their own religious or moral beliefs have the "freedom" to apply those beliefs to their own lives. They don't understand that they do not have the right to victimize or otherwise harm other people (whom they disfavor) by forcing their beliefs on other people or society as a whole. They don't comprehend what matters are and are not "legitimate" issues of public concern.

The problem facing this nation, as the OP identifies, is the number of citizens who are woefully ignorant of the Constitution and how their individual rights cannot be used as a blunt instrument to harm the rights of others.

The question is how does one educate the ignorant on basic citizenship?

Even naturalized have to learn and be able to correctly answer the questions on the citizenship test. How many of those who are like Kim Davis and work in a government job would be able to pass that test themselves?

The truth is that they would probably fail!

AEI Citizenship Americans failing Citizenship test again

A new study by the Center for the Study of the American Dream at Xavier University confirms what we already know: Americans perform poorly on the U.S. Citizenship test. The new findings reveal some pretty alarming statistics:

• One in three native-born citizens fail the civics portion of the naturalization test, in stark contrast to the 97.5% pass rate among immigrants applying for citizenship. (To pass, one must answer 6 out of 10 questions correctly.)
• If the pass rate were 7 out of 10, one half of all native-born citizens would fail.
• While native-born citizens do well on basic questions related to history and geography, the results reveal a low level of knowledge concerning the principles and features of American government that underlie our civic life.

• • 85% did not know the meaning of the “the rule of law.”
  • 82% could not name “two rights stated in the Declaration of Independence.”
  • 75% were not able to correctly answer “What does the judiciary branch do?”
  • 71% were unable to identify the Constitution as the “supreme law of the land.”
  • 68% did not know how many justices are on the Supreme Court.
  • 63% could not name one of their two US Senators.

Those are very disturbing statistics.

 

[Debra K]

People who subscribe to their own religious or moral beliefs have the "freedom" to apply those beliefs to their own lives. They don't understand that they do not have the right to victimize or otherwise harm other people (whom they disfavor) by forcing their beliefs on other people or society as a whole. They don't comprehend what matters are and are not "legitimate" issues of public concern.

The problem facing this nation, as the OP identifies, is the number of citizens who are woefully ignorant of the Constitution and how their individual rights cannot be used as a blunt instrument to harm the rights of others.

The question is how does one educate the ignorant on basic citizenship?

Even naturalized have to learn and be able to correctly answer the questions on the citizenship test. How many of those who are like Kim Davis and work in a government job would be able to pass that test themselves?

The truth is that they would probably fail!

AEI Citizenship Americans failing Citizenship test again

A new study by the Center for the Study of the American Dream at Xavier University confirms what we already know: Americans perform poorly on the U.S. Citizenship test. The new findings reveal some pretty alarming statistics:

• One in three native-born citizens fail the civics portion of the naturalization test, in stark contrast to the 97.5% pass rate among immigrants applying for citizenship. (To pass, one must answer 6 out of 10 questions correctly.)
• If the pass rate were 7 out of 10, one half of all native-born citizens would fail.
• While native-born citizens do well on basic questions related to history and geography, the results reveal a low level of knowledge concerning the principles and features of American government that underlie our civic life.

• • 85% did not know the meaning of the “the rule of law.”
  • 82% could not name “two rights stated in the Declaration of Independence.”
  • 75% were not able to correctly answer “What does the judiciary branch do?”
  • 71% were unable to identify the Constitution as the “supreme law of the land.”
  • 68% did not know how many justices are on the Supreme Court.
  • 63% could not name one of their two US Senators.

Those are very disturbing statistics.

I believe the answer to the question posed (how does one educate the ignorant on basic citizenship?) can be found within "the power of the purse".

Here is a government link describing "the power of the purse":

Power of the Purse US House of Representatives History Art Archives

Here is another government link from the U.S. Department of Education:

Archived 10 Fact About K-12 Education Funding

Here is a quote from the link above:

Federal education program "requirements" are not unfunded mandates because the conditions in federal law apply only when a state (or other grantee) voluntarily chooses to accept federal funds. Any state that does not want to abide by a federal program's requirements can simply choose not to accept the federal funds associated with that program. While most states choose to accept and use federal program funds, in the past, a few states have forgone funds for various reasons.

Congress could use the power of the purse to require states accepting federal funding for education to implement basic courses on the fundamentals of constitutional law and government, which would require students to learn and understand basic concepts (and perhaps pass a basic "citizenship" test).

This would seem easy enough to do with one troubling exception. This proposal of using the "power of the purse" probably would not get the support of proponents of "divide and conquer" politics, which technique relies on the ignorance of the population to fuel "political wars" over divisive issues.

 

[Debra K]

AEI Citizenship Americans failing Citizenship test again

I took the test. Score 90/95. There were two that I instantly knew I had clicked the wrong answer, but couldn't go back and change. The other three, I honestly didn't know and guessed wrong. I appreciate knowing where my body of knowledge needs work.

 

[Derideo_Te]

AEI Citizenship Americans failing Citizenship test again

I took the test. Score 90/95. There were two that I instantly knew I had clicked the wrong answer, but couldn't go back and change. The other three, I honestly didn't know and guessed wrong. I appreciate knowing where my body of knowledge needs work.

Look on the bright side. You are as well informed as every legal immigrant who has taken and passed the citizenship test.

 

[Debra K]

. . . there are also different beliefs. Some people put Nature as the default source of rights, others turn to Govt to establish rights. So we need to accommodate both approaches to law and govt, and not judge or discriminate against either beliefs system.

This is wrong. There exists an applicable adage: "You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts."

The constitution doesn't touch your beliefs. What you may "believe" to be the source of your rights is not relevant. What may or may not be a liberty interest (right) is not contingent upon which "group of people" you may or may not belong. The fact is this: The constitution secures the entire universe of liberty interests (rights) against arbitrary government infringements.


During debates, some people wanted a "bill of rights" and other people did not. The argument against a bill of rights centered around the fact that the people, in establishing a federal government of limited powers, did not surrender any of their rights to the government. The argument was that the enumeration of some rights in a bill of rights could be used by would-be oppressors to allege that all other rights were insecure. It was argued that it was impossible to make a universal list of rights retained by the people because, whatever list anyone devised, someone else could make a list of many rights that were omitted. To address this concern, the Ninth Amendment was proposed and accepted and is now used as a rule of construction: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Accordingly, no matter how trivial you might find the rights "to wear a hat" or "to determine your own bedtime", for example, those rights are secured by the Constitution and the government cannot deprive you of those rights in the absence of a legitimate government interest.

The right answers will meet the standards of both groups of people. Ex: all groups regardless of background, tend to agree that murder is unlawful (I met people from certain Satanist/free will type backgrounds who don't believe laws against murder are necessary, or who don't agree to follow the criminal laws; so the way I propose to include such people is for them to take responsibility within their own memberships if they want to make murder legal within their group and pay for the cost of policing this where other people don't abuse it to commit murder against a person who doesn't agree to it. If they can handle social legal and financial responsibility for their beliefs, I think t hat is fine to let them not charge for murder if it is between members of their own group. But good luck policiing that. I believe it would be better just to implement spiritual healing to make sure nobody has criminal sickness or conditions that would cause someone to kill anyone against their will or for anyone to want to be killed because they have a problem that can't be cured since spiritual healing would probably resolve any such cause if it can be healed or removed)

Your perceptions are mind-boggling wrong, Emily.

Our nation is not a confederacy of "groups" that are free or ought to be free to legalize murder of their "group members".

I think your ideas of what this country is or ought to be simply baffle me.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

I'm still tickled that people will be offended by what someone else does that does not effect them in any way shape or form. If you are at a point in your life to where a gay wedding is going to upset you, you likely need a hobby or need to get a life.

Are you offended by the fact that people get upset at gay weddings ?

Your post seems very contradictory.

 

[candycorn]

I'm still tickled that people will be offended by what someone else does that does not effect them in any way shape or form. If you are at a point in your life to where a gay wedding is going to upset you, you likely need a hobby or need to get a life.

Are you offended by the fact that people get upset at gay weddings ?

Your post seems very contradictory.

Upset? No. Now that gay marriage is legal in all 50 states. I was upset that another couple's love was somehow devalued due to their anatomy and that the government was in the business of blessing unions. For those who are upset at gay weddings, you have my pity. Life is waving good bye to you as it speeds on down the road.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

(3) Liberty is thrown around these days like a wet noodle at a Vegetarian restaurant. It is losing it's meaning and value in our society because of those who have abused and misused the term. Think calling every sexual encounter that is clumsy or that unfortunately ends badly, rape; every battle between people a holocaust; every Republican a right winger; every Democrat...you get the idea.​

You are correct.

It isn't the only word being thrown around these days.

Rights is another one.

While I really don't care about gay marriage, gay marriage is not a right. Just like heterosexual marriage is not a right.

People talk about childrens rights, reproductive rights, minority rights.....etc. etc.

Constitutional Law would almost have to fall in that category. People don't seem to want to acknowledge the impact of Supreme Court cases....on either side.

Take Roe.....it's not settled (there is no absolute finality). Else why do pro-choice types march on the SCOTUS every year to remind them not to overturn it. Or why does Chuck Schumer lecture Roberts and Alito about "preserving" the gains of the last 50 years. It has been systematically hemmed in and is more so every day.

So appealing to it is meaningless....

While hating it is just as stupid. When it was handed down....it allowed certain things to occur (regardless of the poorly written decision)...that is the way things work. Many went beserk about the SCOTUS. So what ?

It's how things work.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

I'm still tickled that people will be offended by what someone else does that does not effect them in any way shape or form. If you are at a point in your life to where a gay wedding is going to upset you, you likely need a hobby or need to get a life.

Are you offended by the fact that people get upset at gay weddings ?

Your post seems very contradictory.

Upset? No. Now that gay marriage is legal in all 50 states. I was upset that another couple's love was somehow devalued due to their anatomy and that the government was in the business of blessing unions. For those who are upset at gay weddings, you have my pity. Life is waving good bye to you as it speeds on down the road.

Offended. Not upset.

What business is it of yours what others protest unless it affects you directly. That seems to be the point of your first post.

Now measure you own posts by that same yardstick.

Life is waving good bye to many on both sides of the argument.

What I find strange is that so many people think this is the end all of arguments.

Everything else must be going great for them. Nothing else to think about...I suppose.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

[
Example: Kim Davis is an elected government official in the State of Kentucky who is intolerant of equal rights under the law (secured by the Constitution) for homosexual couples. In her official capacity as an agent of state government, Kim Davis has therefore victimized all qualified couples seeking to apply for marriage licenses through her intentional and willful refusal to obey her sworn oath to uphold the Constitution. Instead of recognizing her own wrongful & unlawful conduct, Kim Davis alleges that SHE is the victim because the law does not allow her to impose her religious beliefs on persons seeking her services as an elected government official in her government office.

While I think it is clear that she is wrong on this (in that she has an obligation to perform her duties), I question the use of the term "uphold the constitution". What about the constitution is she not upholding by refusing to sign marriage licenses.

 

[candycorn]

I'm still tickled that people will be offended by what someone else does that does not effect them in any way shape or form. If you are at a point in your life to where a gay wedding is going to upset you, you likely need a hobby or need to get a life.

Are you offended by the fact that people get upset at gay weddings ?

Your post seems very contradictory.

Upset? No. Now that gay marriage is legal in all 50 states. I was upset that another couple's love was somehow devalued due to their anatomy and that the government was in the business of blessing unions. For those who are upset at gay weddings, you have my pity. Life is waving good bye to you as it speeds on down the road.

Offended. Not upset.

I do not get offended either.

What business is it of yours what others protest unless it affects you directly. That seems to be the point of your first post.

What post was that?

Now measure you own posts by that same yardstick.

I don't have any idea what you're talking about.

Life is waving good bye to many on both sides of the argument.

Not me, I'm driving the train of progress

What I find strange is that so many people think this is the end all of arguments. Everything else must be going great for them. Nothing else to think about...I suppose.

Again, no idea what you're talking about. We have a loooooooooong way to go to ensure the American Dream for all of her citizens. This is why I'm a values voter; Hillary will (hopefully) pick Scalia's replacement and we will have some breathing room on the court to ensure privacy, expand worker's rights, voter's rights, and ensure fairness is the case more often than not.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

I'm still tickled that people will be offended by what someone else does that does not effect them in any way shape or form. If you are at a point in your life to where a gay wedding is going to upset you, you likely need a hobby or need to get a life.

Are you offended by the fact that people get upset at gay weddings ?

Your post seems very contradictory.

Upset? No. Now that gay marriage is legal in all 50 states. I was upset that another couple's love was somehow devalued due to their anatomy and that the government was in the business of blessing unions. For those who are upset at gay weddings, you have my pity. Life is waving good bye to you as it speeds on down the road.

Offended. Not upset.

I do not get offended either.

What business is it of yours what others protest unless it affects you directly. That seems to be the point of your first post.

What post was that?

Now measure you own posts by that same yardstick.

I don't have any idea what you're talking about.

Life is waving good bye to many on both sides of the argument.

Not me, I'm driving the train of progress

What I find strange is that so many people think this is the end all of arguments. Everything else must be going great for them. Nothing else to think about...I suppose.

Again, no idea what you're talking about. We have a loooooooooong way to go to ensure the American Dream for all of her citizens. This is why I'm a values voter; Hillary will (hopefully) pick Scalia's replacement and we will have some breathing room on the court to ensure privacy, expand worker's rights, voter's rights, and ensure fairness is the case more often than not.

I'm still tickled that people will be offended by what someone else does that does not effect them in any way shape or form. If you are at a point in your life to where a gay wedding is going to upset you, you likely need a hobby or need to get a life.

Are you offended by the fact that people get upset at gay weddings ?

Your post seems very contradictory.

Upset? No. Now that gay marriage is legal in all 50 states. I was upset that another couple's love was somehow devalued due to their anatomy and that the government was in the business of blessing unions. For those who are upset at gay weddings, you have my pity. Life is waving good bye to you as it speeds on down the road.

Offended. Not upset.

I do not get offended either.

What business is it of yours what others protest unless it affects you directly. That seems to be the point of your first post.

What post was that?

Now measure you own posts by that same yardstick.

I don't have any idea what you're talking about.

Life is waving good bye to many on both sides of the argument.

Not me, I'm driving the train of progress

What I find strange is that so many people think this is the end all of arguments. Everything else must be going great for them. Nothing else to think about...I suppose.

Again, no idea what you're talking about. We have a loooooooooong way to go to ensure the American Dream for all of her citizens. This is why I'm a values voter; Hillary will (hopefully) pick Scalia's replacement and we will have some breathing room on the court to ensure privacy, expand worker's rights, voter's rights, and ensure fairness is the case more often than not.

Like so many, you see it your way.

I'm glad you think things are progressing.

 

[candycorn]

I'm still tickled that people will be offended by what someone else does that does not effect them in any way shape or form. If you are at a point in your life to where a gay wedding is going to upset you, you likely need a hobby or need to get a life.

Are you offended by the fact that people get upset at gay weddings ?

Your post seems very contradictory.

Upset? No. Now that gay marriage is legal in all 50 states. I was upset that another couple's love was somehow devalued due to their anatomy and that the government was in the business of blessing unions. For those who are upset at gay weddings, you have my pity. Life is waving good bye to you as it speeds on down the road.

Offended. Not upset.

I do not get offended either.

What business is it of yours what others protest unless it affects you directly. That seems to be the point of your first post.

What post was that?

Now measure you own posts by that same yardstick.

I don't have any idea what you're talking about.

Life is waving good bye to many on both sides of the argument.

Not me, I'm driving the train of progress

What I find strange is that so many people think this is the end all of arguments. Everything else must be going great for them. Nothing else to think about...I suppose.

Again, no idea what you're talking about. We have a loooooooooong way to go to ensure the American Dream for all of her citizens. This is why I'm a values voter; Hillary will (hopefully) pick Scalia's replacement and we will have some breathing room on the court to ensure privacy, expand worker's rights, voter's rights, and ensure fairness is the case more often than not.

I'm still tickled that people will be offended by what someone else does that does not effect them in any way shape or form. If you are at a point in your life to where a gay wedding is going to upset you, you likely need a hobby or need to get a life.

Are you offended by the fact that people get upset at gay weddings ?

Your post seems very contradictory.

Upset? No. Now that gay marriage is legal in all 50 states. I was upset that another couple's love was somehow devalued due to their anatomy and that the government was in the business of blessing unions. For those who are upset at gay weddings, you have my pity. Life is waving good bye to you as it speeds on down the road.

Offended. Not upset.

I do not get offended either.

What business is it of yours what others protest unless it affects you directly. That seems to be the point of your first post.

What post was that?

Now measure you own posts by that same yardstick.

I don't have any idea what you're talking about.

Life is waving good bye to many on both sides of the argument.

Not me, I'm driving the train of progress

What I find strange is that so many people think this is the end all of arguments. Everything else must be going great for them. Nothing else to think about...I suppose.

Again, no idea what you're talking about. We have a loooooooooong way to go to ensure the American Dream for all of her citizens. This is why I'm a values voter; Hillary will (hopefully) pick Scalia's replacement and we will have some breathing room on the court to ensure privacy, expand worker's rights, voter's rights, and ensure fairness is the case more often than not.

Like so many, you see it your way.

I'm glad you think things are progressing.

The right to get married and partake in the benefits society places on such unions are now available to everyone such as being able to be placed on your partner's health insurance they have at work.

Sorry if that offends you. That's your problem. Not anyone else's any longer.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Are you offended by the fact that people get upset at gay weddings ?

Your post seems very contradictory.

Upset? No. Now that gay marriage is legal in all 50 states. I was upset that another couple's love was somehow devalued due to their anatomy and that the government was in the business of blessing unions. For those who are upset at gay weddings, you have my pity. Life is waving good bye to you as it speeds on down the road.

Offended. Not upset.

I do not get offended either.

What business is it of yours what others protest unless it affects you directly. That seems to be the point of your first post.

What post was that?

Now measure you own posts by that same yardstick.

I don't have any idea what you're talking about.

Life is waving good bye to many on both sides of the argument.

Not me, I'm driving the train of progress

What I find strange is that so many people think this is the end all of arguments. Everything else must be going great for them. Nothing else to think about...I suppose.

Again, no idea what you're talking about. We have a loooooooooong way to go to ensure the American Dream for all of her citizens. This is why I'm a values voter; Hillary will (hopefully) pick Scalia's replacement and we will have some breathing room on the court to ensure privacy, expand worker's rights, voter's rights, and ensure fairness is the case more often than not.

Are you offended by the fact that people get upset at gay weddings ?

Your post seems very contradictory.

Upset? No. Now that gay marriage is legal in all 50 states. I was upset that another couple's love was somehow devalued due to their anatomy and that the government was in the business of blessing unions. For those who are upset at gay weddings, you have my pity. Life is waving good bye to you as it speeds on down the road.

Offended. Not upset.

I do not get offended either.

What business is it of yours what others protest unless it affects you directly. That seems to be the point of your first post.

What post was that?

Now measure you own posts by that same yardstick.

I don't have any idea what you're talking about.

Life is waving good bye to many on both sides of the argument.

Not me, I'm driving the train of progress

What I find strange is that so many people think this is the end all of arguments. Everything else must be going great for them. Nothing else to think about...I suppose.

Again, no idea what you're talking about. We have a loooooooooong way to go to ensure the American Dream for all of her citizens. This is why I'm a values voter; Hillary will (hopefully) pick Scalia's replacement and we will have some breathing room on the court to ensure privacy, expand worker's rights, voter's rights, and ensure fairness is the case more often than not.

Like so many, you see it your way.

I'm glad you think things are progressing.

The right to get married and partake in the benefits society places on such unions are now available to everyone such as being able to be placed on your partner's health insurance they have at work.

Sorry if that offends you. That's your problem. Not anyone else's any longer.

You don't read to well.

I said I could care less one way or the other.........

Or you just make up stuff to argue against.

Me...I think we have bigger issues to worry about.

I don't know if that offends you or not.

But I won't put words in your mouth.

My guess is that you consider yourself a liberal.

If so, you'd be wrong.

You are just a far left winger....a big difference.