Who Would Have Thought? Shocker!

[Gunny]

It seems it's not so much the West that sees Islam as a problem,


I disagree. The europeans are very savy at fighting terrorism. More savy than us, truthfully. They've been fighting terrorist groups in their own countries for decades.

If you read the international news at all, you will constantly see reports of French, German, Spanish, or Dutch intelligence services rounding up and arresting suspected al qaeda cells and plotters. I would guess they've arrested hundreds over the past 6 years. Far more, than the United States has arrested or uncovered in our own country.

I hate to say it, but the europeans are more sophisticated than bush at fighting terrorists. Not only do they have more experience, but they are able to hone in on, and focus on catching the real bad guys - as opposed to running around like chickens with their heads cut off and assuming that all conservative muslims pose a threat of terrorism.

Finally, europeans, in many ways, are more xenophobic and intolerant of muslims, than our great nation is. Don't fool yourself - they aren't touchy-feely tree huggers who want to sing kumbaya with muslims. Europeans can be extremely intolerant and bigoted. They don't have our culture's sense of tolerance on religion and ethnicity.

Yep, they've been fighting them for decades .... reacting to being attacked but never actually going after the root of the problem.

 

[DeadCanDance]

Yep, they've been fighting them for decades .... reacting to being attacked but never actually going after the root of the problem.

Attacking Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, or al qaeda.

The secular, socialist bath party, and Saddam in particular, was hated enemy of international islamic jihadists.

Don't take my word for it. That's what the CIA says.

 

[Gunny]

Attacking Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, or al qaeda.

The secular, socialist bath party, and Saddam in particular, was hated enemy of international islamic jihadists.

Don't take my word for it. That's what the CIA says.

Where'd THIS come from?

I do not, nor have I ever contended that invading Iraq had anything to do with 9/11 and/or AQ. In fact, if you look around, there's a thread on this very topic somewhere close to the surface as it was pretty recently discussed.

 

[DeadCanDance]

Where'd THIS come from?

I do not, nor have I ever contended that invading Iraq had anything to do with 9/11 and/or AQ. In fact, if you look around, there's a thread on this very topic somewhere close to the surface as it was pretty recently discussed.

Very good then. My bad.


I assumed that you meant Iraq, when you talked about being pre-emptive and not reactive, and going after the root of the problem.

 

[Gunny]

Very good then. My bad.


I assumed that you meant Iraq, when you talked about being pre-emptive and not reactive, and going after the root of the problem.

Not at all. We invaded Afghanistan and took out the Taliban in response to their refusal to hand over bin Laden as a response to 9/11. To my knowledge, nothing ever linked Saddam to 9/11, and whatever relationship he may have had with AQ doesn't appear to have gone beyond the talking stage.

 

[musicman]

The freedom to practice ones own religion WITHOUT federal government interference was the original intent, for the separation of Church and state.

massachusetts for many years had a ''state religion'' that was dictated i believe? But they finally gave it up or was forced to...by the SC???

No, not forced to - this would have constituted federal interference. Massachusetts voluntarily abandoned the practice in 1833 - deeming it impractical. Any state would still be within its (U.S.) constitutional powers in establishing its own religion to this day; it's none of the federal government's business. I think that's an important distinction to make; the public at large seem to understand even less about the separation of states' and federal government than they do the separation of Church and state!

 

[no1tovote4]

Many states had them and had to rewrite state constitutions when the 14th Amendment was passed.

 

[musicman]

Many states had them and had to rewrite state constitutions when the 14th Amendment was passed.

Does XIV literally insert the federal government into the matter of states' conduct of their religious affairs - or is that aspect merely another example of subjective interpretational fantasy? Either way, add that to my long list of reasons for thinking XIV needs a rewrite (the potential for abuse that blessed us with "anchor babies" being the list topper).

 

[no1tovote4]

Does XIV literally insert the federal government into the matter of states' conduct of their religious affairs - or is that aspect merely another example of subjective interpretational fantasy? Either way, add that to my long list of reasons for thinking XIV needs a rewrite (the potential for abuse that blessed us with "anchor babies" being the list topper).

It created a conflict in this particular area because those rights where the government would not write any laws regarding an establishment of religion and applied them to all the states.

Section 1, and it's equal protection clause, made it so that Amendment 1 applied to states as well as to the federal government.

 

[musicman]

It created a conflict in this particular area because those rights where the government would not write any laws regarding an establishment of religion and applied them to all the states.

Section 1, and it's equal protection clause, made it so that Amendment 1 applied to states as well as to the federal government.

It's fatally flawed, then, in its present condition. It actually leapfrogs Amendment X, and attacks the entire concept of a representative republic at its heart - the de-centralization of power. Tyranny is energetic and resourceful; it doesn't need much of an opening. XIV desperately needs a rework.

 

[José]

The age old debate about Federation vs. Confederation.

Should there be any limits on the rights of members of a political union to secede/create laws?

My understanding is that the US was and continues to be a de facto Federation.

But I’m not going to start a debate on state rights theory here.

As a non-American member I’m not interested in the US case in particular. These endless debates on state/federal legislation in the US sound extremely boring to me.

What I would like to point out is the fact that the establishment of a state religion is definitely a non democratic feature regardless of whether or not it is within the rights of an american state.

Anyone who disagrees don’t even know what a democratic state really means.

What attacks the entire concept of a democratic republic at its heart is the pseudo-right of a given state to impose a state religion and/or theocratic tyranny on its citizens/minorities.

 

[musicman]

The age old debate about Federation vs. Confederation.

Should there be any limits on the rights of members of a political union to secede/create laws?

My understanding is that the US was and continues to be a de facto Federation.

But I’m not going to start a debate on state rights theory here.

As a non-American member I’m not interested in the US case in particular. These endless debates on state/federal legislation in the US sound extremely boring to me.

What I would like to point out is the fact that the establishment of a state religion is definitely a non democratic feature regardless of whether or not it is within the rights of an american state.

Anyone who disagrees don’t even know what a democratic state really means.

What attacks the entire concept of a democratic republic at its heart is the pseudo-right of a given state to impose a state religion and/or theocratic tyranny on its citizens/minorities.

A very well-reasoned and stated point of view, Jose'. That said, I completely disagree. In fairness to the gist of your post, though, I am talking about the U.S. Constitution specifically.

States had already discovered, on their own, that a state religion didn't work well as a practical matter (Mass. being the last holdout, until 1833), and I'm quite certain that they arrived at the proper conclusion. But, having the choice was part and parcel of the states' autonomy - an ingredient our founding fathers deemed so essential to blocking central government tyranny. The XIV Amendment - and the abuses it invites - fly directly in the face of the clear language of our founding document itself.

 

[musicman]

This is directed to no one in particular; just some of my thoughts on the matter of Amendment XIV.

It seems to me that one of the well-intentioned aims of this amendment was to acknowledge that Bill of Rights protections exist for ALL American citizens - regardless of what the constitutions of individual states may say. So far, so good.

However, I've looked at XIV six ways from the middle, and NOWHERE can I find justification for the - apparently, commonly held - belief that the Establishment Clause of Amendment I applies the prohibition SPECIFICALLY AND LITERALLY leveled at Congress (establishing a religion) to state legislatures. If the federal judiciary has found such, I don't believe the ruling can survive a challenge to its constitutionality.

Should states establish religions? As a practical matter, probably not. Should it be THEIR CHOICE? If you believe what Amendment X to the U.S. Constitution says - yes, absolutely. Why am I harping on this purely academic point? Because it underlines the - increasingly forgotten - intent of our founding fathers, to wit: the power over the conduct of the people's everyday lives must devolve - away from central government, and to the people. This design is the basis of all the freedoms we Americans enjoy.

 

[José]

Musicman

I can see you support a strong version of the confederate model in which the federal government is practically limited to the conduction of the foreign policy and the few powers explicitly stated in the Constitution.

The confederate model is very popular in the US because the country itself was formed by what we could call a collection of soveireign mini-states.

If instead of thirteen colonies, the british had created a single unitary colony and the Founders had divided it after the independence just to make them more easily manageable, you can bet your ass the american people wouldn’t be so obsessed with states rights as they are.

So I would argue that the extreme value many americans put on the issue of state soveireignty has more to do with the history of the US than with any objective advantage of the confederate system.

Remember when I said I wouldn’t start a debate on state right’s theory.

I said this because I really don’t think this whole issue (federal model vs. confederate model) is so important to the preservation of the core values of a democratic state as you do.

The advocates of the confederate model (weak central government) were never able to answer satisfactoraly the following question:

Why on earth should the federal government be regarded as the only (or even the main) source of authoritarian, anti-democratic legislation/rulings?

Is there any historical basis for this belief?

I think a brief overview of US history itself can dismantle this myth:

You cited the case of several american states that maintained a state religion well into the 19th century.

The confederate model allowed a political monstruosity to exist in the US for almost half a century:

A secular country at the federal level and a christian theocracy at the state level!!!!!

Thanks to the political autonomy of those american states it took almost 50 years to finally dismantle several “local” theocracies in the US.

Hardly in the best interest of democratic freedoms (separation of state and church being one of the fundamental pillars of a democratic state).

Another example of state rights being used to implement and preserve anti-democratic practices/legislation was the series of thinly disguised racist laws created by many southern states to keep blacks from exercising their right to vote.

The confederate model played a major role in delaying the democratisation of the US in more than 70 years.

The justification and perpetuation of the american apartheid was helped to a large extent by the internal soveireignty granted to member states by the confederate model.

Look, musicman, I agree that the decentralisation of power is, in general, a positive thing.

I just don’t see the confederate model as a kind of miraculous panacea protecting the citizens against a federal government that is authoritarian by default.

When you say “this” (the confederate) “design is the basis of all freedoms we Americans enjoy”, it seems to me you are overstretching the benefits of the confederate model”.

I would argue that “the basis of all freedoms” the american people enjoy are the core values of the democratic system itself, secularism and equality before the law being two of them.

As my historic overview pointed out, both the federal and the state government have the potential to act against these freedoms.

All over the world, you have countries that grant more freedom to their respective states/provinces (US) and others that have a stronger central goverment (Portugal).

Despite giving different levels of autonomy to its states/provinces, both countries are fully democratic states.

In your defense of the confederate model, you are basically making a valid point (overall decentralization of power) and then exagerating its benefits.

 

[Annie]

Musicman

I can see you support a strong version of the confederate model in which the federal government is practically limited to the conduction of the foreign policy and the few powers explicitly stated in the Constitution.

The confederate model is very popular in the US because the country itself was formed by what we could call a collection of soveireign mini-states.

If instead of thirteen colonies, the british had created a single unitary colony and the Founders had divided it after the independence just to make them more easily manageable, you can bet your ass the american people wouldn’t be so obsessed with states rights as they are.

So I would argue that the extreme value many americans put on the issue of state soveireignty has more to do with the history of the US than with any objective advantage of the confederate system.

Remember when I said I wouldn’t start a debate on state right’s theory.

I said this because I really don’t think this whole issue (federal model vs. confederate model) is so important to the preservation of the core values of a democratic state as you do.

The advocates of the confederate model (weak central government) were never able to answer satisfactoraly the following question:

Why on earth should the federal government be regarded as the only (or even the main) source of authoritarian, anti-democratic legislation/rulings?

Is there any historical basis for this belief?

I think a brief overview of US history itself can dismantle this myth:

You cited the case of several american states that maintained a state religion well into the 19th century.

The confederate model allowed a political monstruosity to exist in the US for almost half a century:

A secular country at the federal level and a christian theocracy at the state level!!!!!

Thanks to the political autonomy of those american states it took almost 50 years to finally dismantle several “local” theocracies in the US.

Hardly in the best interest of democratic freedoms (separation of state and church being one of the fundamental pillars of a democratic state).

Another example of state rights being used to implement and preserve anti-democratic practices/legislation was the series of thinly disguised racist laws created by many southern states to keep blacks from exercising their right to vote.

The confederate model played a major role in delaying the democratisation of the US in more than 70 years.

The justification and perpetuation of the american apartheid was helped to a large extent by the internal soveireignty granted to member states by the confederate model.

Look, musicman, I agree that the decentralisation of power is, in general, a positive thing.

I just don’t see the confederate model as a kind of miraculous panacea protecting the citizens against a federal government that is authoritarian by default.

When you say “this” (the confederate) “design is the basis of all freedoms we Americans enjoy”, it seems to me you are overstretching the benefits of the confederate model”.

I would argue that “the basis of all freedoms” the american people enjoy are the core values of the democratic system itself, secularism and equality before the law being two of them.

As my historic overview pointed out, both the federal and the state government have the potential to act against these freedoms.

All over the world, you have countries that grant more freedom to their respective states/provinces (US) and others that have a stronger central goverment (Portugal).

Despite giving different levels of autonomy to its states/provinces, both countries are fully democratic states.

In your defense of the confederate model, you are basically making a valid point (overall decentralization of power) and then exagerating its benefits.

Seriously, this is way jr high, I know, I teach it. Lame to the first order.

 

[musicman]

Musicman

I can see you support a strong version of the confederate model in which the federal government is practically limited to the conduction of the foreign policy and the few powers explicitly stated in the Constitution.

You have summed up my point of view flawlessly.

The confederate model is very popular in the US because the country itself was formed by what we could call a collection of soveireign mini-states.

If instead of thirteen colonies, the british had created a single unitary colony and the Founders had divided it after the independence just to make them more easily manageable, you can bet your ass the american people wouldn’t be so obsessed with states rights as they are.

So I would argue that the extreme value many americans put on the issue of state soveireignty has more to do with the history of the US than with any objective advantage of the confederate system.

And I would strongly disagree. A nation founded upon man's enlightened understanding of Christian principle, as it relates to human governance (and the U.S - uniquely, in the history of the world - IS such a nation) could ONLY have chosen the weak central government model. I'll expand upon those thoughts as we go along, in this most interesting discussion.

Remember when I said I wouldn’t start a debate on state right’s theory.

I said this because I really don’t think this whole issue (federal model vs. confederate model) is so important to the preservation of the core values of a democratic state as you do.

The advocates of the confederate model (weak central government) were never able to answer satisfactoraly the following question:

Why on earth should the federal government be regarded as the only (or even the main) source of authoritarian, anti-democratic legislation/rulings?

Is there any historical basis for this belief?

Yes - and we needn't look far at all. The United States has a national policy on abortion - courtesy of judicial fiat, at the federal level. A gross perversion of the Constitution has created "rights" out of whole cloth - "rights" which fly in the face of the clear language of the document itself. Central government has - by the mere means of wildly subjective interpretation - insinuated itself into matters which are none of its business, and clearly designed by our founders to be the purview of the people. What could be more authoritarian; less democratic?

I think a brief overview of US history itself can dismantle this myth:

You cited the case of several american states that maintained a state religion well into the 19th century.

The confederate model allowed a political monstruosity to exist in the US for almost half a century:

A secular country at the federal level and a christian theocracy at the state level!!!!! Emphasis mine - mm.

Thanks to the political autonomy of those american states it took almost 50 years to finally dismantle several “local” theocracies in the US.

Hardly in the best interest of democratic freedoms (separation of state and church being one of the fundamental pillars of a democratic state).

I'll answer this particular piece by addressing the portion that I bolded. You are laboring under two misimpressions:

1. That the U.S. was founded as a secular nation. This is not quite true. It is a nation whose central government was strictly and explicitly directed to butt out of the matter of religion. There's a difference.

2. That a "Christian theocracy" can exist. It can't; the term itself is an oxymoron. The bedrock principle of Christianity is that man comes to salvation only through his own free will. A Christian would be a poor theocrat; a theocrat, a poor Christian.

Another example of state rights being used to implement and preserve anti-democratic practices/legislation was the series of thinly disguised racist laws created by many southern states to keep blacks from exercising their right to vote.

The confederate model played a major role in delaying the democratisation of the US in more than 70 years.

The justification and perpetuation of the american apartheid was helped to a large extent by the internal soveireignty granted to member states by the confederate model.

You'll notice that I've never said Amendment XIV should be scrapped; rather, I say it is flawed, and needs to be fixed. But, the abuses you cite provide a perfect example of XIV working the way it's supposed to. "States' rights" is not something I use as some sort of hate-filled battle cry; the states can be wrong, too. There are instances when the central government should step in - is, in fact, DIRECTED BY THE CONSTITUTION to step in. Depriving U.S. citizens of Bill of Rights protections is a violation of the law of the land. So, you see, I'm not saying that central government is the boogey-man. I'm simply declaring that it has limited, specific responsibilities - per the founding document of this nation.

Look, musicman, I agree that the decentralisation of power is, in general, a positive thing.

I just don’t see the confederate model as a kind of miraculous panacea protecting the citizens against a federal government that is authoritarian by default.

"Authoritarian by default"... I rather like that, Jose'. I think it sums up the American view very well. Federal government is remote - out of touch with the everyday lives of people - ham-handed - all-pervasive - it can't really help itself, can it? Such is the nature of the beast, I think.

"The government that governs least, governs best" is a saying Ive heard often. But, I think, in the matter of devolving government, "The government that governs the fewest, governs more in tune with the realities of life" sums it up better. When it works as designed, the American system of government puts central government in charge of a few, vital, SPECIFIC tasks - but the path of power - power over the decisions of everyday life - is ever devolving - to the states, to the communities, and - finally, and best of all - to the individual. This is self-government, in a representative republic.

When you say “this” (the confederate) “design is the basis of all freedoms we Americans enjoy”, it seems to me you are overstretching the benefits of the confederate model”.

I would argue that “the basis of all freedoms” the american people enjoy are the core values of the democratic system itself, secularism and equality before the law being two of them.

Apart from your reference to secularism, I would say that these are subjective assertions to which you are certainly entitled. As to secularism, I reiterate - America is not a secular nation; it is a nation whose central government has been instructed - in no uncertain terms - to stay out of the matter of religion, since this is the people's business.

As my historic overview pointed out, both the federal and the state government have the potential to act against these freedoms.

And, as I have tried to point out, the U.S. Constitution provides remedies when either entity steps out of line.

All over the world, you have countries that grant more freedom to their respective states/provinces (US) and others that have a stronger central goverment (Portugal).

Despite giving different levels of autonomy to its states/provinces, both countries are fully democratic states.

In your defense of the confederate model, you are basically making a valid point (overall decentralization of power) and then exagerating its benefits.

Please understand that I'm not thumping my chest or bragging here, Jose' - I'm just stating a simple fact: It would be difficult to exaggerate the benefit the United States has been to this world. And, if those benefits are golden eggs, think of our representative republic as the goose.

 

[liberalogic]

A very well-reasoned and stated point of view, Jose'. That said, I completely disagree. In fairness to the gist of your post, though, I am talking about the U.S. Constitution specifically.

States had already discovered, on their own, that a state religion didn't work well as a practical matter (Mass. being the last holdout, until 1833), and I'm quite certain that they arrived at the proper conclusion. But, having the choice was part and parcel of the states' autonomy - an ingredient our founding fathers deemed so essential to blocking central government tyranny. The XIV Amendment - and the abuses it invites - fly directly in the face of the clear language of our founding document itself.

Wait, the founding fathers were split on the issue of the power of the federal government. That's what differentiated the parties of the time-- primarily federalists and democratic republicans.

Of course the founding fathers sought to protect the country from the tyranny of the federal government (which is one of the reasons why they established checks and balances on the federal level). But also remember that this was a different time period in history-- the pride that we take in being Americans is equivalent to the pride that they took in being members of their individual states. They lived the majority of their lives in a confederation and, consequently, many were biased in their view of federal autonomy. That doesn't mean that they did not support states' rights-- I just think that the concept of ceding so much to the states is distorted by the context of the time period.

Personally, I think the states should have rights to cater to their individual needs. But there needs to be more conformity on major issues-- like is it really fair that I can kill someone in one state and get life, then I can do the same in another state and be executed?

 

[musicman]

Wait, the founding fathers were split on the issue of the power of the federal government. That's what differentiated the parties of the time-- primarily federalists and democratic republicans.

But, the end product they hammered out is pretty clear, don't you think? I can't see how their intent that power should devolve to the states - and to the people - could have been conveyed any more straightforwardly than Amendment X.

Of course the founding fathers sought to protect the country from the tyranny of the federal government (which is one of the reasons why they established checks and balances on the federal level). But also remember that this was a different time period in history-- the pride that we take in being Americans is equivalent to the pride that they took in being members of their individual states. They lived the majority of their lives in a confederation and, consequently, many were biased in their view of federal autonomy. That doesn't mean that they did not support states' rights-- I just think that the concept of ceding so much to the states is distorted by the context of the time period.

So, what has changed so much? Has human nature improved, do you think? Is man, unchecked, any less predisposed to inflicting his selfish desires on others? Is government tyranny somehow less a threat today?

Personally, I think the states should have rights to cater to their individual needs. But there needs to be more conformity on major issues-- like is it really fair that I can kill someone in one state and get life, then I can do the same in another state and be executed?

Ah - it's FAIRNESS you seek. Good luck. Our founding fathers harbored no such hopeful expectations; man's unfettered exercise of his free will, within the rule of civilized law, was about as lofty a goal as they were able to imagine for humanity - and I think they were right.

 

[liberalogic]

So, what has changed so much? Has human nature improved, do you think? Is man, unchecked, any less predisposed to inflicting his selfish desires on others? Is government tyranny somehow less a threat today?

What I meant was that the founding fathers came from a confederacy and were biased because of it. If you were from Virginia and you had lived your life there before the inception of the US, you were first and foremost a Virginian. Today, we consider ourselves Americans first and foremost.


I'm a bit biased too. I just think that if we are Americans, most of the laws that govern each state should be uniform. Either we're all in this together, or we're not in it at all. For me, exceptions would be made for policies that must be made in accordance with special circumstances that a state may face. I don't see some sort of Orwellian authoritarianism on the horizon. I guess I'm a federalist.

 

[musicman]

What I meant was that the founding fathers came from a confederacy and were biased because of it. If you were from Virginia and you had lived your life there before the inception of the US, you were first and foremost a Virginian. Today, we consider ourselves Americans first and foremost.


I'm a bit biased too. I just think that if we are Americans, most of the laws that govern each state should be uniform. Either we're all in this together, or we're not in it at all. For me, exceptions would be made for policies that must be made in accordance with special circumstances that a state may face. I don't see some sort of Orwellian authoritarianism on the horizon. I guess I'm a federalist.

I, on the other hand, consider George Orwell a prophet. Tyranny is the natural aspiration of man; his nature demands it. Government kept on a short, jealously guarded leash is our only slim hope, and - even then - we doze at our peril.