A Call for Consistency

[demi-conservative]

I would think it would be evident that an issue as complex as gun violence cannot be summarized in a single chart.

correlation is not causation. To know if these numbers, or any numbers in any chart from either side of the debate), have any applicability and can teach us anything, we need to study causal factors.

Doesn't stop you from crying about '600000 automatic weapons!!!!', also who knows what.

[Jedidiah]

Not necessarily. I reject the premise that our Founding Fathers did not expect Christianity to always be the dominant religion in America, and I suspect that if they could have predicted our current society that they would have written the laws differently.

I agree that the whole concept of Freedom of Religion meant Freedom of Christian Denomination to the founding fathers, but that is not the way the courts interpret it today.

[Jedidiah]

[QUOTE=carpedm9587;492987]Well, I wrote a detailed response to this, but then managed to get sidetracked and hit the "reload" button by accident, aand it's gone. I do not have the time to repeat it all, so I will go to the heart of my point.[/edit]

I hate when that happens. I now do all detailed responses in my Word Processor.

Your response shows the same kind of entrenchment I have encountered on both sides. A sentence about abortion that starts with "We are not talking about the woman's body..." shows this clearly. We ARE talking about a woman's body, Jededian, AND a human life. But the left denies it is a human life, and the right denies a woman's body is at issue, and so the dance continues. And it is actually possible for someone to disagree with your intepretation of the Constitution, and not be "anti-Constitution." As soon as you say that, the usual response occurs - they are "Unamerican" (which is the implication of being against the constitution) and "unpatriotic" for having the audacity to disagree with you; you are "unamerican" and "unpatriotic" for labeling someone as such when it is our responsibility as citizens to engage in these discussions, and arrive at concensus. So the two sides remain entrenched, and there is little/no progress. Each side acccuses the other of "not compromising," and neither side has done much compromising.

Sorry but I do not agree that the "woman's body" carries any weight here. Being inconvenienced does not give anyone the right to kill another. Particularly when it was a result of the inconvenienced persons activity. I have never used the term "Unamerican." I was, as I thought I explained, referring to the legislators and others who see the 2nd Amendment as outdated and in need of removal.

Meanwhile, a baby dies every 50 seconds, a person is killed on the receiving end of a gun every 15.1 minutes, and another is injured on the receiving end of a gun every 7.2 minutes, and everyone is so busy being "right" that no one is truly looking to find a solution.

The vast majority of these gun statistics are not even applicable. They are shootings within criminal circles, gang members shooting other gang members, etc. And the pro gun side right here on TWeb have made some suggestions that I think are far better solutions that any of those you suggested. Indeed I made such suggestions in the post you are responding to.

So, today, the pro-choice people have the advantage. The political dynamics of this suggest that is unlikely to change. If the right to choice is overridden, women and the men who support them across the country will revolt, and the political tide will shift dramatically to the left - because statistically, most people in the U.S. honor freedom of choice and the choice they can see - the baby they pretty much cannot. Today, the pro-gun people have the upper hand, but that is largely due to a powerful minority lobby. The majority of Americans WANT reasonable gun control, and every major shooting pushes that date closer to hand. Eventually, the majority will realize that they are being puished around by a minority lobby, and the majority will assert itself. Those are my predictions. Time will tell if my reading of the political landscape is correct.

I sort of agree generically, even though I would see things differently than you do. I also see a different outcome in the long run. But that is a whole different issue.

Until then - the carnage will continue, to the tune of almost 700,000 lives per year. I do not know why we are so concerned about "terrorists." Statistically, we have the equivalent of a 911 in the U.S. every 36 hours. We are killing off one another far more effectively than ANY terrorist or terrorist group.

I probably will regret saying this, but I am far more frightened of the trend toward more government involvement in peoples lives, which seems to be the trend, than of terrorism or gun violence.

ETA: This discussion illustrates, as I intended, the problem with looking for compromise. We do not seem to be able to compromise in such divisive issues since there is not any real room to do so.

[Terraceth]

Not necessarily. I reject the premise that our Founding Fathers did not expect Christianity to always be the dominant religion in America, and I suspect that if they could have predicted our current society that they would have written the laws differently.

But they didn't write the laws differently, so I don't see how that matters.

[Cow Poke]

But they didn't write the laws differently, so I don't see how that matters.

In a court room, it's fair to consider "intent". Same thing with motive.

[carpedm9587]

[QUOTE=Jedidiah;493024]

Well, I wrote a detailed response to this, but then managed to get sidetracked and hit the "reload" button by accident, aand it's gone. I do not have the time to repeat it all, so I will go to the heart of my point.[/edit]

I hate when that happens. I now do all detailed responses in my Word Processor.



Sorry but I do not agree that the "woman's body" carries any weight here. Being inconvenienced does not give anyone the right to kill another. Particularly when it was a result of the inconvenienced persons activity. I have never used the term "Unamerican." I was, as I thought I explained, referring to the legislators and others who see the 2nd Amendment as outdated and in need of removal.



The vast majority of these gun statistics are not even applicable. They are shootings within criminal circles, gang members shooting other gang members, etc. And the pro gun side right here on TWeb have made some suggestions that I think are far better solutions that any of those you suggested. Indeed I made such suggestions in the post you are responding to.



I sort of agree generically, even though I would see things differently than you do. I also see a different outcome in the long run. But that is a whole different issue.



I probably will regret saying this, but I am far more frightened of the trend toward more government involvement in peoples lives, which seems to be the trend, than of terrorism or gun violence.

ETA: This discussion illustrates, as I intended, the problem with looking for compromise. We do not seem to be able to compromise in such divisive issues since there is not any real room to do so.

There is not room to do so, Jedediah, because each side has decided "they are right" and it's "my way or the highway." You insist a woman's body has nothing to do with it. They insist the baby is not a life. Both sides entrenched - both sides so focused on "being right" and "forcing law" that neither side is looking to change the status quo, stopping the carnage.

In the time it took to re-assert that "you are right" and the "woman's body doesn't matter," several dozen babies died. In the time it takes the "pro-choice" person to defend their position that "it's not a life," several dozen children died.

We come back to the same question: do you want to be "right?" Or do you want to make a difference? Is "being right" more important than so much as ONE of those lives? If not, then perhaps it is time to reach across the aisle and say, "I know you don't think it is a life, but I do and it matters to me. What can we do to make it far more likely that this life will not be snuffed out, while respecting your right to have sovereignty over your body?"

Or you can continue to say, "I'm right," "I'm right," "I'm right."

You know my position. I find the carnage horrifying, and I believe they are lives from the moment of conception. I also believe a woman has the right to control her own body - as a fundamental right. This issue pits two BASIC freedoms against one another. So long as the right focuses 100% on the baby and ignores the woman, and the left focuses 100% on the woman and ignores the baby, no progress can be or will be made.

So I believe that BOTH sides are complicit in the carnage, by being entrenched, making it an "us versus them" argument, and NOT looking for viable solutions. And each side is busily blaming the other - while children are dying...

[demi-conservative]

Moderate who wants '''''balance''''' so much:

So I believe that BOTH sides are complicit in the carnage, by being entrenched, making it an "us versus them" argument, and NOT looking for viable solutions. And each side is busily blaming the other - while children are dying...

"Guilt of baby-killing is not just on baby-killers, but those trying to save babies!!!"

[demi-conservative]

But they didn't write the laws differently, so I don't see how that matters.

Which is why libs go 'look at letter of Jefferson, 'separation of church and state!!!'

"They actually meant 'separation of church and state', even though it wasn't written that way!!!"

[carpedm9587]

Moderate who wants '''''balance''''' so much:

"Guilt of baby-killing is not just on baby-killers, but those trying to save babies!!!"

So Peter is hanging from a cliff, pushed over the edge by Fred. Joe and Sam come along, see the man and rush to his aid. Joe suggests they should each take a hand and lift the man back to the path because he is too heavy for one man to lift alone. Sam objects because the man hanging from the cliff is not part of his social circle, and his social circle has a law prohibiting physical contact with such people. He has to be true to his moral code, so insists on running back to his home (a mile away) to get a rope he can use. Joe points out he can use his shirt to cover his hands, suggests grabbing handfuls of leaves, and makes serval other suggestions. Sam objects to each one on the grounds that it does not assure a complete guarantee that he will not touch the prohibited person. Sam runs to his home to follow through on the one solution he has limited himself to.

The man falls...

I suggest that Sam is as culpable as Fred. He stubbornly clung to his ONE approach for dealing with a problem that had multiple possible solutions. The other options weren't perfect, it is true. The leaves could have broken, creating physical contact. The shirt could have ripped, creating physical contact.

So too is it with the abortion debate. No solution will protect every child. Make abortion illegal, and rich women will fly from the country to countries where it IS legal and get them anyway. Poor women will seek out underground abortionists and have dangerous abortions. And the left will rise up in protest because woman's right to sovereign control over her body was been violated, and the laws will likely reverse again, and we'll be back where we started.

So instead of insisting we have to "run for the rope" (i.e., change the laws), why not see what BOTH sides can come to that will make it far less likely a woman will ever have to face this choice? Can you imagine the reaction if someone from the right were to say, "You know, your right to make decisions about your own body DOES matter and DOES deserve to be respected, but I also believe the young life in you deserves to live. How could we achieve both?"

But no - the pervasive message from the right is "your body doesn't matter" and from the left it is "it's not a baby."

So yes, IMO, both sides should be ashamed of themselves for their entrenched, partisan positions with no willingnees to try to see it from the other side and find common ground, while babies die by the minute...

[Cow Poke]

So Peter is hanging from a cliff, pushed over the edge by Fred. Joe and Sam come along, see the man and rush to his aid. Joe suggests they should each take a hand and lift the man back to the path because he is too heavy for one man to lift alone. Sam objects because the man hanging from the cliff is not part of his social circle, and his social circle has a law prohibiting physical contact with such people. He has to be true to his moral code, so insists on running back to his home (a mile away) to get a rope he can use. Joe points out he can use his shirt to cover his hands, suggests grabbing handfuls of leaves, and makes serval other suggestions. Sam objects to each one on the grounds that it does not assure a complete guarantee that he will not touch the prohibited person. Sam runs to his home to follow through on the one solution he has limited himself to.

The man falls...

I suggest that Sam is as culpable as Fred. He stubbornly clung to his ONE approach for dealing with a problem that had multiple possible solutions. The other options weren't perfect, it is true. The leaves could have broken, creating physical contact. The shirt could have ripped, creating physical contact.

So too is it with the abortion debate. No solution will protect every child. Make abortion illegal, and rich women will fly from the country to countries where it IS legal and get them anyway. Poor women will seek out underground abortionists and have dangerous abortions. And the left will rise up in protest because woman's right to sovereign control over her body was been violated, and the laws will likely reverse again, and we'll be back where we started.

So instead of insisting we have to "run for the rope" (i.e., change the laws), why not see what BOTH sides can come to that will make it far less likely a woman will ever have to face this choice? Can you imagine the reaction if someone from the right were to say, "You know, your right to make decisions about your own body DOES matter and DOES deserve to be respected, but I also believe the young life in you deserves to live. How could we achieve both?"

But no - the pervasive message from the right is "your body doesn't matter" and from the left it is "it's not a baby."

So yes, IMO, both sides should be ashamed of themselves for their entrenched, partisan positions with no willingnees to try to see it from the other side and find common ground, while babies die by the minute...

It all comes down to two words for both sides - slippery slope.

[Terraceth]

In a court room, it's fair to consider "intent". Same thing with motive.

Sure, intent is a factor, but only insofar as interpreting a possibly ambiguous text. "[N]o religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States" is not an ambiguous text. Whether they would have worded it differently based on having additional knowledge doesn't change how they actually worded it.

But even if we do want to play the game of original intent despite the intent being fairly obvious from the text itself, we need only look at the ratification debates. The ratifiers absolutely interpreted it as allowing non-Christians as being allowed to hold office, which was a source of debate regarding it (for some, the issue was not even non-Christian, but non-Protestant). In fact, worry of Muslims (or "Mahometans" as they were often called back then) being elected was even cited as an argument against it. So it was clearly understood at the time of ratification that this clause allowed non-Christians, including Muslims, to serve in federal office.

One may argue that the original intent was to apply this only to federal offices, and that states could do whatever they wanted with religious tests. That is absolutely true, and some states did have religious tests for office. However, the Fourteenth Amendment eventually put an end to that, and more importantly the offices in question in the first post were federal offices anyway so even without the Fourteenth Amendment the no religious test rule would apply.

[carpedm9587]

It all comes down to two words for both sides - slippery slope.

I find the "slippery slope" argument a particularly vexing one - and one rooted completely in fear and irrationality. We get on a slippery slope when we are born. When we get up each morning. By the slippery slope argument, stop eating because when you eat you wat living matter - so you are necessarily killing, unless the only thing you eat is what has died naturally. And if you kill ANY life, you have just started down a "slippery slope" of killing.

Every single one of the "seven deadly sins" begins with a slippery slope. We should not buy anything or eat anything because that is the slippery slope to gluttony. We should not host any surprise parties that require us to misdirect the people, and that's a slippery slope to a life of lying. Never borrow anything from someone because that is a slippery slope to borrowing without permission, which is stealing. The list just goes on and on.

If we TRULY live our lives by the slippery slope mantra - we ultimately should curl up in our beds and do nothing, because every choice we make is potentially part of a slippery slope to something nefarious. Hogwash!

I truly HATE the slippery slope argument. It is so completely ridiculous, unreasonable, and irrational - IMO.

[Cow Poke]

I find the "slippery slope" argument a particularly vexing one - and one rooted completely in fear and irrationality. We get on a slippery slope when we are born. When we get up each morning. By the slippery slope argument, stop eating because when you eat you wat living matter - so you are necessarily killing, unless the only thing you eat is what has died naturally. And if you kill ANY life, you have just started down a "slippery slope" of killing.

Every single one of the "seven deadly sins" begins with a slippery slope. We should not buy anything or eat anything because that is the slippery slope to gluttony. We should not host any surprise parties that require us to misdirect the people, and that's a slippery slope to a life of lying. Never borrow anything from someone because that is a slippery slope to borrowing without permission, which is stealing. The list just goes on and on.

If we TRULY live our lives by the slippery slope mantra - we ultimately should curl up in our beds and do nothing, because every choice we make is potentially part of a slippery slope to something nefarious. Hogwash!

I truly HATE the slippery slope argument. It is so completely ridiculous, unreasonable, and irrational - IMO.

I think you're going way too extreme on this. Nobody (certainly not me) is advocating that all of life be argued on a slippery slope basis. But there are certain areas, like abortion and gun control, where it definitely comes into play, like it or not. You can hate it, but simply hating something doesn't make it better. You can even pitch a fit, do a dance, and spew forth cuss words - doesn't change a thing.

[Mountain Man]

I am not sure what "equal footing" means in this context. In the eyes of our Constitution, from a legal perspective, they are indeed on an "equal footing."

Naturally they differ in creed - and each religion will see itself as promoting "the truth" by definition, so they will not see themselves on an equal footing theologically.



This quote is from a separate post, which I had not seen when I wrote my response above.

My response to this is: what they "might have done" is not a useful discussion to me. You will insist you know what they might have done, I will insist they would have done differently (or agree with you), and there is absolutely no way to resolve the issue: we know what they did - not what they might have done.

We also know what they wrote. A reference to god appears in the Declaration of Independence, but there is no reference to gods, creators, or deities (if I recall correctly) in the U.S. Constitution. There ARE references that explicitly prohibit the government from applying a religious test (Article VI) and either creating or endorsing a religion (Amendment I). Most of the original settlers fled to America to escape religious persecution, and the Founding Fathers were steeped in that tradition (despite the fact that religious persecution occured on these shores in short order). So our legal system (which has been reaffirmed by several SCOTUS decisions), is that the state should not inject itself in matters of religion, ergo all religions are equal before the law.

Are we a majority Christian nation? Yes. Have we been since 1776? Yes. Was it intended that we always be so? I have no idea what was in the thoughts of the founders, nor do you. I DO know that I believe the Constitution explicitly makes all religions equal under the law. Indeed, those concepts are so broadly defined, that I can create a church today in my home, and there would be little the government could do to prevent me from claiming all of the protections due a religion in our country.

http://thefederalistpapers.org/curre...of-natures-god

----------

That's in addition to other references such as appeals to "the Supreme Judge of the world" and "the protection of Divine Providence".

We also know from the writings and speeches of the Founding Fathers that the majority of them were devout Christians, and before you mention the Treaty of Tripoli, it was re-ratified at a later date and removed the language saying that America was not a Christian nation. There's also Washington's speech to the Delaware Indian chiefs saying that the resources of Congress would be used to teach the American way of life and the gospel of Jesus Christ.

So, no, it was never the expectation of our Founders that America would be a secular nation that turned its back of Christianity.

[carpedm9587]

I think you're going way too extreme on this. Nobody (certainly not me) is advocating that all of life be argued on a slippery slope basis. But there are certain areas, like abortion and gun control, where it definitely comes into play, like it or not. You can hate it, but simply hating something doesn't make it better. You can even pitch a fit, do a dance, and spew forth cuss words - doesn't change a thing.

I did not say "all" CP - I said (or implied) "any." The "slippery slope" argument has no credence with me whatsoever. It is, IMO, a ridiculous argument, for the reasons cited. I recognize others feel differently. I just see no rational basis for the argument, and it is inconsistently applied. Indeed, it seems to be applied any time someone wants to a defend a position on which they are intractable. Until someone can make the case that "slippery slope" is a rational argument, I will pretty much reject it.

You can continue to use it, of course. It just will have no weight with me, for the reasons cited.

I am perplexed as to why people seem to think I am "pitching a fit" or any of the rest at the end of your statement. My position was about the argument, and I didn't find myself particularly emotionally involved. Maybe my use of the word "hate?" If so, I'll have to be more careful about it. My intent was to underscore that I give little credence to a line of argumentation that has no rational content, IMO.

But if you want to make a case for how the "slippery slope" argument has a rational basis - I'll listen.

Edited to add: I guess my use of "vexing" is probably part of the problem. And I guess, if I look inside and am honest, I do find at least some irritation with the argument. I find it to be a nonsensical retreat people resort to when they essentially do not appear to want to examine their views. At least, that has been my experience. I'll work on dancing less...