Touchy subject

[farmer]

Your right the whoopins need to start MUCH earlier And your also correct that they are best applied by the father. I am not talking about being a vigilante for someone else. I'm talking about protecting my family and if that is my motive then I am justified. IMHO.

[Moksha]

I was just humming along to Me and Bobby McGee by Kris Kristopherson. Some of the lines go, "Freedoms just another word for 'nuthin' left to lose". Of course freedom is essential for free wheelin' and dealin'*, but apart from a solitary existance in some upland hermitage, we are all rather limited by the social constraints put upon us due to our interdependence. A worthwhile trade off in place of lives that would otherwise be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short".

*see Adam Smith's, Wealth of Nations

[mikbone]

I give freedom a firm eleven.

The importance of freedom cannot be comprehended until it has been lost.

[farmer]

mikbone, Thats freakin awesome!!!

Traveler, thought you'd like to know I got a couple books today and one on order. "The story of liberty" "The Making of America" and "The 5000 year leap". I won't be able to retain 1/10th of it but hey maybe I'll get credit for at least reading it. LoL

[applepansy]

Read "America's Hope"... Douglas Brinley, PhD

[pam]

I was just humming along to Me and Bobby McGee by Kris Kristopherson

I thought that song was done by Janis Joplin.

[DigitalShadow]

The ten comandments would be found in our schools

How is that freedom to you? What about my freedom to not have people peddling religion public schools? How are you any less "free" simply because public schools aren't openly religious? You are free to teach your child whatever you like at home, but your "freedom" doesn't get to dictate what EVERY child is taught at public school.

[foreverafter]

How is that freedom to you?

There is no such thing as true freedom unless our laws are based on Christian Laws, which the Constitution is. Christ is the author of Freedom. Thus we would need to have & teach his 10 commandments in schools because those principles must direct the correct teaching of every other subject if our rising generation is to remain free. We only stay free when we are righteous.

Edited May 31, 2009 by foreverafter

[prisonchaplain]

Digital, understanding that 85% of Americans claim to be Christian, and that the 1st Amendment to the Constitution as originally envisioned as a protection against denomination-specific Christian sectarianism, not an all-out ban on any public religious platitudes, I fail to see the necessity of removing something as broad as the Ten Commandments from public space. Apparently the Gov. of Washington State felt otherwise, in that she chose to allow, along side a manger scene in the capital building, a sign posted by an atheist group that said religion is stupid and dangerous and has been the cause of most troubles in the world (yes, it was rather direct and intentionally condescending). We don't need to go back to the place of sectarian prayer in public schools offered by officials, but it's petty for small minority groups to complain about the majority culture, and attempt to disallow the most generic recognition of broad spirituality.

[Traveler]

.......

Anybody got any book suggestions that boil down freedom and the constitution?

I would suggest "The Law" by Frederic Bastiat. It is a rather simple read of very complex concepts and you can buy it new for under $6. at Amazon.

The Traveler

[Traveler]

How is that freedom to you? What about my freedom to not have people peddling religion public schools? How are you any less "free" simply because public schools aren't openly religious? You are free to teach your child whatever you like at home, but your "freedom" doesn't get to dictate what EVERY child is taught at public school.

I stated in an earlier post in this thread that I believe knowledge and freedom are inseparable. The opposite I also believe is true – that is that ignorance and bondage are also inseparable.

What I would like to put to you is a question about history. How can anyone understand history without understanding the religious influences and cultures that are at the very center and core of shaping that history?

If we do not understand all the influences in history – how can anyone understand current politics and social challenges? If someone is not versed in politics and social possibilities – how can they be free?

Now I do not want to cram religion upon any unwilling person willing to be ignorant but for a person to stand up and declare ignorance as a desired or desirable situation – to me is not intelligent, free or wise. Decisions without being informed is never good or beneficial and a person will never be able to have a meaningful conversation with someone of diverse background if they do not understand the basic tenants of where they came from in history and society – and that includes the religion(s) that influence that history and society.

What should a child be taught without any possible reference to religion? I cannot think of one thing - including science and mathematics which have roots in history and societies if there is to be any practical use or benefit of such things in the future.

The Traveler

Edited May 31, 2009 by Traveler

[Dravin]

Traveler I don't think DigitalShadow is objecting to teaching about religion. Heck, my 10th grade world history class had Bibles as even if you think it's all a bunch of bunk it has historical significance. I think he's saying it wouldn't be cool if said history class made us read it and taught it as gospel (heh) truth as opposed to a historical/religious document.

So, its one thing to say teach about Christianity as background for teaching about the crusades (Islam would be another background you'd probably want to include), its quite another to teach that idolatry is wrong and that you should be Christian and follow the 10 commandments, aka teaching religion (sans the about part).

[Moksha]

I thought that song was done by Janis Joplin.

Yes, Janis Joplin did an excellent cover of that song. So did Roger Miller.

[Traveler]

Traveler I don't think DigitalShadow is objecting to teaching about religion. Heck, my 10th grade world history class had Bibles as even if you think it's all a bunch of bunk it has historical significance. I think he's saying it wouldn't be cool if said history class made us read it and taught it as gospel (heh) truth as opposed to a historical/religious document.

So, its one thing to say teach about Christianity as background for teaching about the crusades (Islam would be another background you'd probably want to include), its quite another to teach that idolatry is wrong and that you should be Christian and follow the 10 commandments, aka teaching religion (sans the about part).

Thank you for your response and interest. There are many that are so opposed to religious reference that they get upset if a high school choir sings a Christmas carol in December or if someone says a prayer at graduation. Few understand the ramifications of religion in the saga of Joan of Arc or how religion played in the Pythagorean Theorem.

I am always surprised when people are offended that their children are influenced religiously at school but they do not have offence about politics, social engineering, sexual promiscuity or vulgar language.

The Traveler

[Prodigal_Son]

We are never punished by God for disobeying Unconstitutional Laws or unrighteous leaders, unless the Prophet has asked us to obey a specific law like he has with paying taxes & there are reasons for that one. Else the Founding Fathers would have been wrong in God's eyes for disobeying the King, which they weren't. But there can be worldly punishments for such disobedience, so it is usually wise to go along with such laws until they can be changed.

What happened to "we believe in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law"???

This pretty much is my point of view. On top of this, I would have a youth program. In other words. Every youth would be expected to join something like Boys Brigade, Scouts or Brownies. This would teach them to respect the freedoms they have and understand that freedom is a privilege and not a right. I would be first in line to fight and die for that privilege of freedom.

Hmmmm, sounds like "Hitler's Youth"...

==================================

Curious skeptic here. I hear some big talk. What have y'all ACTUALLY DONE in light of the fact that we're being stripped of our freedoms at every turn?

I haven't answered the initial post, because I'm still considering it. Talk is cheap.

[Kawazu]

Hi,

In my view, the maximum degree of personal choice, (excluding acts of violence), and the highest amount of economic opportunity, (while still prosecuting fraud), is called freedom. Personally, I evaluate my own desire for freedom at about a 6. Thank you for asking.

The original poster, farmer, seemed open to exploring further material. I humbly submit the following video:

http://www.isil.org/resources/philosophy-of-liberty-english.swf

It is titled, "The Philosophy of Liberty" with a running time of about eight minutes. Have a great day.

Sincerely,

Kawazu

Edited June 1, 2009 by Kawazu

[FunkyTown]

I need to find a way to boil it down to the nuts and bolts and take hard line approach. Just like the gospel, if my faith gets shaken go back to the basics.

Anybody got any book suggestions that boil down freedom and the constitution?

Hi Farmer,

Here's a generalized discussion - Not of the Constitution, but of various means and lenses through which the Constitution is viewed. The important part of your question, where you say you believe in the constitution as an inspired document, must be questioned: Do you believe it ceased to be an inspired document as soon as it was amended? Did it cease to be inspired after the second, third or forth amendment? How do you interpret the deliberately vague wording of the Constitution?

Here's a breakdown of different ways the Constitution(Which I also believe is an inspired document) can be viewed:

The Constitution is many things to many people. Undoubtedly, it is the frame work for the Government of the United States of America, defining the three branches and clearing delineating the powers of the branches. It also undoubtedly grants certain power to the federal government and grants others to the states; and it undoubtedly guarantees the basic rights of the people.

The Constitution is short; it cannot and does not attempt to cover every eventuality. Even when it seems it is clear, there can be conflicting rights, conflicting spheres of power. When disputes arise, it comes time for people, and most importantly judges of the Judicial Branch, to interpret the Constitution. The concept of constitutional interpretation is foreign in some countries, where the constitution makes a reasonable effort to cover every eventuality. These constitutions are generally rigid and little changing, adapting slowly to advances in political views, popular opinion, technology, and changes in government. The U.S. Constitution, however, has been termed a Living Constitution, in part because it grows and adapts to internal and external pressures, changing from one era and generation to the next.

When a new situation arises, or even a new variation on an old situation, the Constitution is often looked to for guidance. It is at this point that the various interpretations of the Constitution come into play.

There is no one right way to interpret the Constitution, and people often do not always stick to one interpretation. Below, then, are the major divisions in interpretation; your own personal beliefs may fall into several of these categories.

Note: the major sources for material for this section were "Constitutional Law: Cases and Commentary" by Daniel Hall, and "On Reading the Constitution" by Lawrence Tribe and Michael Dorf.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originalism, or, Original Intent

Originalists think that the best way to interpret the Constitution is to determine how the Framers intended the Constitution to be interpreted. They look to several sources to determine this intent, including the contemporary writings of the framers, newspaper articles, the Federalist Papers, and the notes from the Constitutional Convention itself.

Originalists consider the original intent to be the most pure way of interpreting the Constitution; the opinions of the Framers were, for the most part, well documented. If there is an unclear turn of phrase in the Constitution, who better to explain it than those who wrote it?

Opponents of originalism note several points. First, the Constitution may have been the product of the Framers, but it was ratified by hundreds of delegates in 13 state conventions - should not the opinions of these people hold even more weight? Also, the Framers were a diverse group, and many had issues with specific parts of the Constitution. Whose opinion should be used? Next, do the opinions of a small, homogeneous group from 200 years ago have the respect of the huge, diverse population of today? To a black woman, how much trust can be placed in the thoughts of a white slave owner who's been dead for generations?

In truth, as with all of the following interpretations, most people use originalism when it suits them. Finding a quote from a framer to support a modern position can be a powerful way to advance your point of view.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Modernism/Instrumentalism

Those who most oppose the Originalist approach often consider themselves to be modernists, or instrumentalists. A modernist approach to Constitutional interpretation looks at the Constitution as if it were ratified today. What meaning would it have today, if written today. How does modern life affect the words of the Constitution? The main argument against originalism is that the Constitution becomes stale and irrelevant to modern life if only viewed through 18th century eyes. Additionally, we have more than 200 years of history and legal precedent to look back on, and that we are modern individuals, with as much difficulty in reasonably thinking like 18th century men as those 18th century men would have had trouble thinking like us.

Modernists also contend that the Constitution is deliberately vague in many areas, expressly to permit modern interpretations to override older ones as the Constitution ages. It is this interpretation that best embodies the Living Constitution concept: the Constitution is flexible and dynamic, changing slowly over time as the morals and beliefs of the population shift. Modernists do not reject originalism - they recognize that there is value in a historical perspective; but the contemporary needs of society outweigh an adherence to a potentially dangerously outdated angle of attack.

Originalists feel that modernism does a disservice to the Constitution, that the people who wrote it had a pure and valid vision for the nation, and that their vision should be able to sustain us through any Constitutional question.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Literalism - historical

Historical literalists believe that the contemporary writings of the Framers are not relevant to any interpretation of the Constitution. The only thing one needs to interpret the Constitution is a literal reading of the words contained therein, with an expert knowledge in the 18th century meaning of those words. The debates leading to the final draft are not relevant, the Federalist Papers are not relevant - only the words.

The historical literalist takes a similar look at the Constitution as an originalist does, but the literalist has no interest in expanding beyond the text for answers to questions. For example, an historical literalist will see the militia of the 2nd Amendment as referring to all able-bodied men from 17 to 45, just as in the late 18th century, and this interpretation will color that person's reading of the 2nd Amendment.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Literalism - contemporary

Very similar to an historical literalist, a contemporary literalist looks only to the words of the Constitution for guidance, but this literalist has no interest in the historical meaning of the words. The contemporary literalist looks to modern dictionaries to determine the meaning of the words of the Constitution, ignoring precedent and legal dissertation, and relying solely on the definition of the words.

Just as the historical literalist view parallels the originalist view, but much more narrow in focus, so too does the contemporary literalist mirror the modernist; and again, the main difference is the literalist looks only to the words of the Constitution for meaning. To expand on the 2nd Amendment example, the contemporary literalist will view the militia as the modern National Guard, and this will color that person's views on the 2nd.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Democratic/normative reinforcement

Finally, the democratic interpretation is the last approach to interpretation. Democratic interpretation is also known as normative or representation reinforcement. Democratic proponents advocate that the Constitution is not designed to be a set of specific principles and guidelines, but that it was designed to be a general principle, a basic skeleton on which contemporary vision would build upon. Decisions as to the meaning of the Constitution must look at the general feeling evoked by the Constitution, then use modern realism to pad out the skeleton.

As evidence, democrats point out that many phrases, such as "due process" and "equal protection" are deliberately vague, that the phrases are not defined in context. The guidance for interpretation must come from that basic framework that the Framers provided, but that to fill in the gaps, modern society's current morals and feelings must be taken into consideration. Changes in the Constitution that stem from this kind of philosophy will end up with principles of the population at large, while ensuring that the framers still have a say in the underlying decision or ruling. This interpretation is seen to enhance democratic ideals and the notion of republicanism.

[DigitalShadow]

There is no such thing as true freedom unless our laws are based on Christian Laws, which the Constitution is. Christ is the author of Freedom. Thus we would need to have & teach his 10 commandments in schools because those principles must direct the correct teaching of every other subject if our rising generation is to remain free. We only stay free when we are righteous.

The constitution was written mostly be Deists and based on enlightenment principles, not "Christian Laws."

[DigitalShadow]

Digital, understanding that 85% of Americans claim to be Christian, and that the 1st Amendment to the Constitution as originally envisioned as a protection against denomination-specific Christian sectarianism, not an all-out ban on any public religious platitudes, I fail to see the necessity of removing something as broad as the Ten Commandments from public space. Apparently the Gov. of Washington State felt otherwise, in that she chose to allow, along side a manger scene in the capital building, a sign posted by an atheist group that said religion is stupid and dangerous and has been the cause of most troubles in the world (yes, it was rather direct and intentionally condescending). We don't need to go back to the place of sectarian prayer in public schools offered by officials, but it's petty for small minority groups to complain about the majority culture, and attempt to disallow the most generic recognition of broad spirituality.

I'm not talking about removing anything here, I'm asking why it makes some people feel "free" to add the Ten Commandments to every school as the the original post suggested because as far as I know, the vast majority of schools don't have the Ten Commandments anywhere. For the record, I have been an atheist all my life and never particularly minded the religious platitudes (some generic, most overtly Christian) that have always been a part of public education.

[DigitalShadow]

I stated in an earlier post in this thread that I believe knowledge and freedom are inseparable. The opposite I also believe is true – that is that ignorance and bondage are also inseparable.

What I would like to put to you is a question about history. How can anyone understand history without understanding the religious influences and cultures that are at the very center and core of shaping that history?

If we do not understand all the influences in history – how can anyone understand current politics and social challenges? If someone is not versed in politics and social possibilities – how can they be free?

Now I do not want to cram religion upon any unwilling person willing to be ignorant but for a person to stand up and declare ignorance as a desired or desirable situation – to me is not intelligent, free or wise. Decisions without being informed is never good or beneficial and a person will never be able to have a meaningful conversation with someone of diverse background if they do not understand the basic tenants of where they came from in history and society – and that includes the religion(s) that influence that history and society.

What should a child be taught without any possible reference to religion? I cannot think of one thing - including science and mathematics which have roots in history and societies if there is to be any practical use or benefit of such things in the future.

The Traveler

Traveler I don't think DigitalShadow is objecting to teaching about religion. Heck, my 10th grade world history class had Bibles as even if you think it's all a bunch of bunk it has historical significance. I think he's saying it wouldn't be cool if said history class made us read it and taught it as gospel (heh) truth as opposed to a historical/religious document.

So, its one thing to say teach about Christianity as background for teaching about the crusades (Islam would be another background you'd probably want to include), its quite another to teach that idolatry is wrong and that you should be Christian and follow the 10 commandments, aka teaching religion (sans the about part).

Thank you for your response and interest. There are many that are so opposed to religious reference that they get upset if a high school choir sings a Christmas carol in December or if someone says a prayer at graduation. Few understand the ramifications of religion in the saga of Joan of Arc or how religion played in the Pythagorean Theorem.

I am always surprised when people are offended that their children are influenced religiously at school but they do not have offence about politics, social engineering, sexual promiscuity or vulgar language.

The Traveler

Just to be clear, the only thing I am offended about here is how someone could think that having their religious ideals posted in every school is a necessary part of their freedom. My point was that if anything that infringes on other people's freedom, not that I am personally offended by the hints of religion in public schools. I certainly recognize how religion and in particular Christianity permeate our culture and history and am not trying to make ridiculous claims that all references should be eliminated.

My point was only referencing the boundaries of "freedom" and in my opinion, your freedom ends when it starts taking away my freedom and vice versa. Many people seem to think freedom is all about them and everything in the world being exactly how they think it should be without any thought to how other people who don't share their views would be effected.

[Traveler]

Just to be clear, the only thing I am offended about here is how someone could think that having their religious ideals posted in every school is a necessary part of their freedom. My point was that if anything that infringes on other people's freedom, not that I am personally offended by the hints of religion in public schools. I certainly recognize how religion and in particular Christianity permeate our culture and history and am not trying to make ridiculous claims that all references should be eliminated.

My point was only referencing the boundaries of "freedom" and in my opinion, your freedom ends when it starts taking away my freedom and vice versa. Many people seem to think freedom is all about them and everything in the world being exactly how they think it should be without any thought to how other people who don't share their views would be effected.

It would seem that my understanding of freedom and yours differs somewhat. I see freedom as a byproduct of knowledge and understanding (truth). Freedom is withheld or hindered whenever accurate information and knowledge is withheld. I am completely bewildered by your statement

boundaries of "freedom" and in my opinion, your freedom ends when it starts taking away my freedom and vice versa.

How can my access to truth and understanding ever interfere with your access – especially in public schools? If religious thought is dominate it would seem to me that there should be effort to include something you feel is missing rather than limit or remove the understanding or information concerning something currently included. If some subject was mandatory that was not to your liking – I would think the proper approach would be to work towards having included what you think is missing for more complete understanding and access to information.

Let me add one other thought – There are some concepts I do not find appealing. For example I am not a fan of creationism or intelligent design as such things have come to be defined. But I believe a community (state) has the right to determine educational curriculum. So if a majority wants to abuse their educational system with bad science that is their right. It is not smart but I do not agree with a select minority having power over the hole of society. There will always be abuses in power so it is my stand that such abuses always be reserved for the majority – as long as the majority is well informed and not subject to censorship in its various forms.

The Traveler

Edited June 1, 2009 by Traveler

[DigitalShadow]

It would seem that my understanding of freedom and yours differs somewhat. I see freedom as a byproduct of knowledge and understanding (truth). Freedom is withheld or hindered whenever accurate information and knowledge is withheld. I am completely bewildered by your statement

I agree that our definitions of freedom appear to be quite different and as such I am equally bewildered by your statement and we can leave it at that :) You do have a very interesting perspective though and I appreciate you sharing it.

[farmer]

Funkytown, Interesting question you ask about the amendments and their divinity. I have never given that any thought but my knee jerk answer is , of course they are inspired. I am reading some books and to tell you the truth , right now all I have to go on is my gut. I'll have to get back with you.

I also have a knee jerk response to the idea that its a living document. This may be true for the guy who looks at it like a contemporary literalist but I not for say an Originalist/Historic literalist. If its a living doc subject to arbitrary interpretation then we get what have right now. A complete break down of morality and a never ending siege on our liberties.

Now, I'll be the first to say that I am not the sharpest tool in the shed however I am the most willing to listen to reason and strive for truth.

Thanks all for participating. Interesting thoughts and ideas.