|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Mar 23, 2010 11:27:38 GMT
The 'right to bear arms' is oft-misquoted anyway, IIRC. Isn't it something like: "You have the right to bear arms for purposes of forming a citizen militia"? Totally different in concept and intent to "You have the right to bear arms." In Britain, even the majority of the police don't carry guns, let alone the citizens. And that how we like it, thanks  We have enough problems anyway: easily available guns would just make everything far, far worse. |
|
|
|
Post by Glance A'Lot on Mar 23, 2010 12:03:36 GMT
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
2nd Amendment, 1791
While it does cite a reason for the rule, the rule itself "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." is pretty straightforward.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dark Phoenix Rising on Mar 23, 2010 12:28:00 GMT
The only ambiguity is what is meant by the term "the people". If "the people" means each individual person, then everyone should have the right to own a gun, if however "the people" means the population as a whole seperatly from the police/army then there is scope for restricting the private ownership of guns while still enabling the community as a whole to own it's own guns.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ubereil on Mar 23, 2010 14:24:46 GMT
Why should the constitution address "Separation" Because if it's not adressed there it won't be adressed anywhere. Jefferson stated the obvious concerning the "wall of separation" and he was NOT addressing the same issue....google him and you will see. What Jeffersson did or did not adress isn't interesting to what we should do today, I think. The man wasn't infallible, you know, no matter how good a job he did with the Constitution. That had nothing to do with individual States requiring that to be elected to public office they had to be Christian men in good standing in the community. No, that's a cultural problem rather than a legal one. It's a problem because your faith becomes a more important factor to your electability than your politics/competence. If you're not a Christian it doesn't matter if you're as competent as Thomas Jeffersson, you still can't get elected. But, like I said, that's a cultural problem rather than a legal one (meaning, it's not the rules that's the issue). I am NOT debating the right or wrong of slavery here, it is and always has been wrong (morally)...that word you don't like.. ;D I've got nothing against morality in itself. I'm just running under a different moral system. By the way, from what I've seen the Bible don't seem to be all that clear when it comes to condemning Slavery... ;D The framers simply made sure that there would be no "state" church or religion. It did not then or now imply that one could not vote his/her conscience whether atheist, or Christian. Not really what separation of church and state is about, that. The second post you posted is a good example of lack of separation of church and state. In itself those entries might seem harmless but (in theory) it's a form of discrimination, because it discriminates against non-Christian beliefs. It doesn't physically harm anyone, hence the harmless bit. But when it becomes non-christians being forced to live under christian rules, or even worse, the law blatantly favoring Christians then it's not so harmless anymore. If you don't see what's wrong with that then consider what it would be like if everything from the Sharia law exept "convert or die" would be implemented in the US. The right to bear arms shall not be infringed----- Why? Because it's in the constitution? You refer to modern society...what a crock....there is more crime, violence, hate, bigotry, immorality (whether or not you think Hitler and Jesus had the same moral structure) than has ever existed in my lifetime, and I am a lot older than you. You are soon going to have to "bear arms" here to cross the street without being assulted....just think what will happen when only the criminals (who don't care a bit about the law) are the ones with weapons.  ? Crime and violence is a natural development since we live more densly today. We're more pepole and more pepole live in cities. When that happens crime rate goes up. Bigotry and immorality is a different matter. Bigotry in particular has gone down a lot in the last 100 years and in the last 30 years. 100 years ago it was possible for someone like Hitler to get into power and do what he did, that wouldn't be possible today because bigotry isn't as widespread. Pepole are more open minded today than they've ever been. As for immorality... It's such a wide concept. What does immorality mean and it's so hard to measure. Are we generally more immoral today than we were 200 years ago? How can we tell? Reliable statistics from 200 years ago doesn't exist. Heck, it's hard to find reliable statistics of today! I love a free press, freedom of speech, freedom of peaceful assembly and all the other freedoms the constitution gives us....why do you want to pen and ink correct where you think fit..??  Because there are things in the constitution that shouldn't be there, naturally (and things that should be that aren't). We have those things you mentioned too. Besides, we've got far more positive freedom than you do, so I'm cool with the things we don't have.  By and large, resentment of America takes the shape of criticism directed at the U.S. Constitution. It’s interesting that no one – not even communist sympathizers – ever take issue with the Declaration of Independence. Indeed, the so-called left has a tendency to predicate all that is good in America upon the Declaration of Independence. All venom is aimed at the Constitution, because it is clear to those with an overview that if the Constitution falls, the United States of America, as we know it, will fall as well. To be sure, the Declaration of Independence contains many of the noblest thoughts ever articulated by man. Above all, it expresses that ancient longing of Englishmen: equal treatment by the law. But in the absence of a supreme law under whose authority such lofty aspirations may be pursued and increasingly secured for successive generations, it would have remained a distant dream. Attacks on the Constitution typically begin with phrases such as “…it is a very fine document” or “…it is certainly a worthy document.” It is after a few more similarly meaningless words or sentences that we arrive at “of course it is a seriously flawed document.” Detractors of the Constitution have a limited repertory. Indeed, only two items are being trotted out, pontificated about and beaten to death from coast to coast, north to south. The suggestion is that two items make it a “seriously flawed document.” I never said it was seriously flawed, just that it was flawed (since there's room for improvement still). The original constitution seemed to only apply to white males, which in my book makes it seriously flawed, but I've never suggested that this means we should throw the entire thing out (especially considering the improvements that have been made). There is, of course, the obvious question concerning the descendants of those who were brought here from Africa as slaves. Have they benefited? Most certainly. The document that eventually led to their rise was the same as the one providing opportunity for all. There could have been no civil-rights movement without constitutional foundation. We've had plenty of civil rights movements in Europe without constitutional foundation, you know. Mostly ours have been about changing the constitution where's yours have been about following it. The Women’s Vote. A fraudulent charge is that the U.S. Constitution denied women the right to vote. Some say women had no rights at all under the Constitution, that in fact all rights and privileges accrued solely in favor of white males. Unlike in the previous case, it is not possible to cite an actual provision to contradict the fraudulent charge, for the Constitution does not speak to the matter at all. And that's it's mistake. If we look at it the way we do today it does give everyone equal right, which is good. But, given the culture at the time, it was naive of it not to adress women and blacks rights. This naivity was used by those pepole who saw it differently to deny women and blacks their rights. This have since then been adressed to correct this issue, so if this was to be brought up as an issue of today's constitution it would be a strawman. In short with regard of equal rights for everyone: the original constitution appears good enough but, demonstrably, it wasn't. Übereil |
|
|
|
Post by Dark Phoenix Rising on Mar 23, 2010 15:41:47 GMT
If a document doesn't explicitly disagree with a view point, then it can be argued to agree with it. However trying to cater for every objection that people will make to any given document, and still have it be strong enough to pass muster when it comes to the crunch is very difficult. This is why free speech was explicitly added after it was made (it was felt that to not explicitly state it was to provide grounds for people to deny it)
|
|
|
|
Post by ss on Mar 28, 2010 15:26:35 GMT
To address 'the wider point' more exactly: any society that feels itself to be secure (safe from enemies without and general harmony within) loses the (perceived) need for those systems that allowed it to reach such a pinnacle in the first place. For a while they continue out of inertia ('Custom' and 'Tradition') but then people question the old moral and ethical systems that once pertained and the over-riding need for cohesion against common (Mostly outside) threats is no longer there. So the society discards these things as being anachronistic and 'old fashioned'. A less cohesive society is formed where there is far more room for individual freedom and individual expression, as the perceived need for cohesion is no longer strong or urgent. The new moral and ethical systems that evolve from this change are more suited to the new society; the new perceptions within that society. The grip of religion is loosened (Often fatally) as the strong cohesion (And the strict rules) required by the religion(s) are deemed irrelevant to the needs of the new social order. The religions adapt and change to this new reality, trying to relax their own rules without fatally undermining themselves (Perhaps an impossibility. I do not know of one that has succeeded). But the society as a whole trends in the direction of more moral and ethical freedom, with most such choices left to individuals rather than decided upon by institutions. Moral and ethical positions that were once considered immutable law become a matter of opinion or are discarded utterly, whilst new moral and ethical positions are born that are widely accepted within society as the social norm, carrying the same weight of social displeasure if broken as any other social rule throughout history. As old beliefs are discarded, so new ones (Including both religions and pseudo-religions) that are more fitted to the society are adopted. Humans create the moral and ethical systems they need in order to best serve their current societies. Inertia holds those systems in place after a few generations, but ultimately new generations create change as the Cycle turns. This is all part of the great Cycle Of Civilisations and applies to every society there ever was - check your history books if you doubt me. The evidence is all there. *** That should hopefully make my position clear Ethics and Morals Historically those 2 words were not understood to be synonymous. They are vastly different. The difference has become “skewed” to where people like to use them interchangeably. When you do, all you have is “statistical morality” or “situation ethics” which of course means there are no ethics at all. Ethics that change cannot be ethics. They are built on absolutes—like the 10 commandments. The fact that you don’t follow them even when your instinct knows that you should is a different discussion.  Morals are a descriptive term that psychologists and such use to examine patterns of behavior and describe how people actually DO act.—That is the morals of a given society. Ethics, on the other hand, is the study of normative principles of behavior which tells how people SHOULD act. We all know that there is a deep “chasm” in how we ought to behave and how we do behave. What happens is the psychologists and psychiatrists observe human behavior and see what people are doing, like 90 percent of the teens are engaged in sexual activity and since such a high percentage are doing it, it becomes “normal human behavior” and since it is “normal,” it is a very short step to say it is “normative,” because it is good to be normal and to deviate from normal is to fall in the ditch of “ab-normal,” and God forbid that we should become “abnormal.” Here you have the “psycs” saying it is perfectly normal for teenagers (especially under the influence of erotic propaganda) to fall into these patterns of behavior, and its fine, because it is normal.  On the other hand, you have the Bible saying “let fornication not even once be named among you, as befitting saints”—obviously there is a vast difference in the two. The oldest argument in the world for defending ones behavior is “everybody else is doing it.” That has never made it right. The Bible states that God has written his perfect law in the human conscience and man KNOWS what is right and wrong. That is Ethics. Morals is an “indicative” term Ethics is an “imperative” term. Hopefully that makes my position perfectly clear... ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Ubereil on Mar 28, 2010 15:54:23 GMT
Historically those 2 words were not understood to be synonymous. They are vastly different. The difference has become “skewed” to where people like to use them interchangeably. When you do, all you have is “statistical morality” or “situation ethics” which of course means there are no ethics at all. Wait, what? Ethics that change cannot be ethics. They are built on absolutes—like the 10 commandments. It's not the ethics that change, it's the situations. Fooling someone into eating peanut bread might seem harmful until you do it to someone suffering to peanut allergy. Screaming fire when you're all alone isn't all that bad, doing it in the middle of a crowd is. That's because it's not the actions in themselves that makes the actions evil, it's their consequences. And consequences depends on the situation, therefore different things are right in different situations. Übereil |
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Mar 28, 2010 20:09:24 GMT
I put both words in because I know they have different meanings, ss I will disagree with you, however, about definition. Both morals and ethics are how people should behave, but morals are personal whereas ethics are societal. Thus an ethical person follows the laws of their land, whereas a moral person might not if their morals conflict with society's rules. A simple example, perhaps, but still... |
|
|
|
Post by Dark Phoenix Rising on Mar 28, 2010 20:16:58 GMT
Simple terms
Morals - What you try to follow.
Ethics - What everyone thinks you should try to follow.
Ethical - the right thing to do (this one changes a lot depending on what's going on)
|
|
|
|
Post by ss on Mar 29, 2010 0:54:22 GMT
Simple terms . Ethical - the right thing to do (this one changes a lot depending on what's going on) But would not that simply be "situational ethics" ?? rather than actual "ethical", which totally changes the meaning and application of the word ?--especially for convenience sake.? meaning that you really have NONE, just do what you think is right based on circumstances...which you definitely could be wrong about in the final analysis.. You can be sincere about something and be sincerely wrong...and still try to justify it as "ethical".. People (we) do it all the time... |
|
|
|
Post by ss on Mar 29, 2010 1:00:16 GMT
I put both words in because I know they have different meanings, ss I will disagree with you, however, about definition. Both morals and ethics are how people should behave, but morals are personal whereas ethics are societal. Thus an ethical person follows the laws of their land, whereas a moral person might not if their morals conflict with society's rules. A simple example, perhaps, but still... And I disagree with your definition of morals...morals is what the society tolerates as acceptable at any given time...they change constantly....what is tolerated today would never have been tolerated when I was a kid..yet the "Ethics" of the law is still the same...just convenienltly "interpreted" to justify doing what people push to do...so they water down the law and even the intent of the law and it becomes the set of morals for the time. Yet the base law of right and wrong in the inner man still convicts him when he does wrong.... even in the dark when no one sees but him...(he thinks) |
|
|
|
Post by ss on Mar 29, 2010 1:12:16 GMT
And back to the point of the thread... ;D For Ube and TD. Page 4 of a 10 page article.. There was a religious element to the American Revolution, which was so pronounced that you could just as well view the event in religious as in political terms. Many of the founders, especially the Southerners, were rebelling simultaneously against state-church oppression and English rule. The Connecticut Baptists saw Jefferson — an anti-Federalist who was bitterly opposed to the idea of establishment churches — as a friend. “Our constitution of government,” they wrote, “is not specific” with regard to a guarantee of religious freedoms that would protect them. Might the president offer some thoughts that, “like the radiant beams of the sun,” would shed light on the intent of the framers? In his reply, Jefferson said it was not the place of the president to involve himself in religion, and he expressed his belief that the First Amendment’s clauses — that the government must not establish a state religion (the so-called establishment clause) but also that it must ensure the free exercise of religion (what became known as the free-exercise clause) — meant, as far as he was concerned, that there was “a wall of separation between Church & State.” This little episode, culminating in the famous “wall of separation” metaphor, highlights a number of points about teaching religion in American history. For one, it suggests — as the Christian activists maintain — how thoroughly the colonies were shot through with religion and how basic religion was to the cause of the revolutionaries. The period in the early- to mid-1700s, called the Great Awakening, in which populist evangelical preachers challenged the major denominations, is considered a spark for the Revolution. And if religion influenced democracy then, in the Second Great Awakening, decades later, the democratic fervor of the Revolution spread through the two mainline denominations and resulted in a massive growth of the sort of populist churches that typify American Christianity to this day. Christian activists argue that American-history textbooks basically ignore religion — to the point that they distort history outright — and mainline religious historians tend to agree with them on this. “In American history, religion is all over the place, and wherever it appears, you should tell the story and do it appropriately,” says Martin Marty, emeritus professor at the University of Chicago, past president of the American Academy of Religion and the American Society of Church History and perhaps the unofficial dean of American religious historians. “The goal should be natural inclusion. You couldn’t tell the story of the Pilgrims or the Puritans or the Dutch in New York without religion.” Though conservatives would argue otherwise, James Kracht said the absence of religion is not part of a secularist agenda: “I don’t think religion has been purposely taken out of U.S. history, but I do think textbook companies have been cautious in discussing religious beliefs and possibly getting in trouble with some groups.” Some conservatives claim that earlier generations of textbooks were frank in promoting America as a Christian nation. It might be more accurate to say that textbooks of previous eras portrayed leaders as generally noble, with strong personal narratives, undergirded by faith and patriotism. As Frances FitzGerald showed in her groundbreaking 1979 book “America Revised,” if there is one thing to be said about American-history textbooks through the ages it is that the narrative of the past is consistently reshaped by present-day forces. Maybe the most striking thing about current history textbooks is that they have lost a controlling narrative. America is no longer portrayed as one thing, one people, but rather a hodgepodge of issues and minorities, forces and struggles. If it were possible to cast the concerns of the Christian conservatives into secular terms, it might be said that they find this lack of a through line and purpose to be disturbing and dangerous. Many others do as well, of course. But the Christians have an answer. Their answer is rather specific. Merely weaving important religious trends and events into the narrative of American history is not what the Christian bloc on the Texas board has pushed for in revising its guidelines. Many of the points that have been incorporated into the guidelines or that have been advanced by board members and their expert advisers slant toward portraying America as having a divinely preordained mission. In the guidelines — which will be subjected to further amendments in March and then in May — eighth-grade history students are asked to “analyze the importance of the Mayflower Compact, the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut and the Virginia House of Burgesses to the growth of representative government.” Such early colonial texts have long been included in survey courses, but why focus on these in particular? The Fundamental Orders of Connecticut declare that the state was founded “to maintain and preserve the liberty and purity of the Gospel of our Lord Jesus.” The language in the Mayflower Compact — a document that McLeroy and several others involved in the Texas process are especially fond of — describes the Pilgrims’ journey as being “for the Glory of God and advancement of the Christian Faith” and thus instills the idea that America was founded as a project for the spread of Christianity. In a book she wrote two years ago, Cynthia Dunbar, a board member, could not have been more explicit about this being the reason for the Mayflower Compact’s inclusion in textbooks; she quoted the document and then said, “This is undeniably our past, and it clearly delineates us as a nation intended to be emphatically Christian.” entire article... www.nytimes.com/2010/02/14/magazine/14texbooks-t.html?pagewanted=1 |
|
|
|
Post by Dark Phoenix Rising on Mar 29, 2010 9:18:37 GMT
Simple terms . Ethical - the right thing to do (this one changes a lot depending on what's going on) But would not that simply be "situational ethics" ?? rather than actual "ethical", which totally changes the meaning and application of the word ?--especially for convenience sake.? meaning that you really have NONE, just do what you think is right based on circumstances...which you definitely could be wrong about in the final analysis.. You can be sincere about something and be sincerely wrong...and still try to justify it as "ethical".. People (we) do it all the time... ok, 1 ethic says "Thou shalt not steal" Situation - you and your son have been starving on the street for several weeks now, you've tried looking for work, and no one will give it to you. You've tried raiding dustbins, but you've been beaten up several times before you can. You've tried asking for help, and everyone you've asked has turned you down, there is another town you could go to, but in your current state you son would die of starvation before you got there. When you round a corner you find an unattended market stall that sells bread, meat and cheese. What's the ethics thing to do? (for you and your son) What's the moral thing to do? (for you and your son) And what's the ethical thing to do? (for you and your son) |
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Mar 29, 2010 11:30:25 GMT
^ Nice example, DPR! I like that one |
|
|
|
Post by ss on Mar 29, 2010 20:49:04 GMT
But would not that simply be "situational ethics" ?? rather than actual "ethical", which totally changes the meaning and application of the word ?--especially for convenience sake.? meaning that you really have NONE, just do what you think is right based on circumstances...which you definitely could be wrong about in the final analysis.. You can be sincere about something and be sincerely wrong...and still try to justify it as "ethical".. People (we) do it all the time... ok, 1 ethic says "Thou shalt not steal" Situation - you and your son have been starving on the street for several weeks now, you've tried looking for work, and no one will give it to you. You've tried raiding dustbins, but you've been beaten up several times before you can. You've tried asking for help, and everyone you've asked has turned you down, there is another town you could go to, but in your current state you son would die of starvation before you got there. When you round a corner you find an unattended market stall that sells bread, meat and cheese. What's the ethics thing to do? (for you and your son) What's the moral thing to do? (for you and your son) And what's the ethical thing to do? (for you and your son) IMO...The ethics remain...one should never steal The moral thing to do is probably steal food to keep from starving, because most societies would overlook that for that reason. The ethical thing to do....I would, without any negative thought, take what I need to feed my son and myself, thank the Lord that he provided that unattended stall of good food, and go on about my business. If I could repay later, I would, otherwise, I would just know that I have violated the ethical standard (which did not change) but due to the circumstances, was the right thing to do. (sounds like Le Miserables...doesn't it.??) If that is the type of changing due to circumstances you are talking about, then I agree...but IMO, those are few and far between...and was not what I was refering to.... |
|
|
|
Post by Dark Phoenix Rising on Mar 29, 2010 21:29:01 GMT
And that's my take on the differences between the 3
There are always going to be exceptions to the major ethical principles, and as such while we should aspire to uphold them, we should still be aware of the fact that sometimes, following them is actually the wrong thing to do.
|
|
We have enough problems anyway: easily available guns would just make everything far, far worse.
.com
?
