A Call for Consistency

[Cow Poke]

The moderate, wailing in wilderness, 'Why can't we all get along!?!?!??!?!?!'

Rodney King? Is that YOU????

[demi-conservative]

Rodney King? Is that YOU????

Kumbaya!!!!!!!

[Cow Poke]

The interview is reported in several sources. It was when Moore visited D.C. at the end of October. His comment to Haake was essentially, read my article, it'll tell you. Then he later moderated his stance, and insisted they could serve IF they swore before the Christian God that the U.S. Constitution would take precendent over Islamic law. Frankly, I agree that the U.S. Constitution takes precendent over Islamic law for an Islamic government representative. But Moore himself defied U.S. law twice, citing his religion as taking precedent over the constitution. So...consistency?

I'm pretty much a "States' rights" guy. The people of Alabama are responsible for Moore. Do I think he's creepy? Do I think, from what is reported, that he's inconsistent? Probably so. Am I at fault for not being "outraged" about this?

[rogue06]

I think there's more going on here than "too many guns" or "not enough laws".

Especially when, since the mid 1990s the number of firearms in private hands has skyrocketed while simultaneously the number of homicides involving firearms has plummeted.

358.jpg

If it was simply a matter of there being too many firearms available then we should not be witnessing such a sharp drop in gun related homicides as the number of firearms in the country has increased by nearly 100 million.

[Jedidiah]

Compromise is not, to me, a dirty word.

Compromise itself is not a problem the problem is what is being compromised.

You begin by recognizing the two sides to the discussion. I am actually one who believes human life begins when an egg is fertilized and in a womb where it can become a human being. So I abhor abortion except in the specific case where the child cannot be viable and the woman's life is in mortal jeopardy.

First when the mothers life is in serious danger: Most doctors will tell you that this is a virtually non problem. Such cases are all but non existent. I would accept such an exception if a panel of doctors agreed that this is the case. This panel would have to be made up of doctors who do not know the woman involved. I would not trust her personal doctor to make such a decision.

Second a non viable fetus: This is a pretty generic point. If we mean there are physical problems that would actually kill the baby that is one thing. A amniotic test is another. This again may be acceptable if it is not used as a way to get around the prohibition of abortion. It would be used that way.

There are indeed two sides to the discussion, but one side can give up the two points you have mentioned. Will the other side agree to such a limit? The answer is a resounding NO for the most part. Where do we compromise?

But I also take a moment to look at it from the other side. When abortion is outlawed, what is happening is that a woman is being told what she may or may not do with her body for the period of her pregnancy. There is a word for the domination of one person's body by another: slavery. It may be brief (9 months), but it is still the government telling a woman what she can or cannot do with her own body.

Pregnancy is a unique situation in which two human lives are inextricably linked: you cannot prioritize one without compromising the other. No solution is going to be perfect. But I suspect we would make ENORMOUS gains if the two sides would work together to move to a place where abortion is simply not the preferred choice: by doing appropriate sex education, providing guidance on birth control, providing pre-natal support for pregnant mothers so they are more likely to carry to term and place a child for adoption (we adopted both our children), providing tax releif for adoptive parents to help minimize the cost. We will never get to a point of agreement on this - so why not take an approach that makes abortion as rare as possible.
But no - instead both sides entrench - the battle has waged for 50+ years, and in that time frame 51 million babies have died. How many fewer would that have been if people set aside their "my way or the highway" approach and actually worked to implement preventative measures, instead of a legal battle between "shall we kill the kids" or "shall we enslave (temporarily) the woman?"

Sorry but all the compromise seems to be on the favor of the anti abortion side. Only words have come from the pro abortion side so far. Where is the compromise. Sex education has proven to be a failure, and it has become a weapon to normalize all sorts of sexual behaviors that society in the past has not accepted. This has been done by a very small minority to a defenseless majority. Birth control is readily available but none is perfect except avoiding sex. Plus birth control is not widely popular and is often skipped because it is inconvenient or reduces pleasure.

I am amazed that you can even ask that question. First of all, your language clearly reveals your entrenched bias. "Anti-constitutional side?" Really? That is right out of the NRA playbook. The people I know who advocate for reasonable gun controls advocate for the following:

[stfoskey15]

I assume you think all religions are on equal footing. They're not.

Aren't they on equal footing legally?

[Sparko]

If I have an objection in this current political climate, it is the complete abandonment of consistency by both sides of the political divide. For example:

- Bernie Sanders suggests that an appointee is not fit for office because his Christian point of view that only Christians are "saved" would color his ability to do his job, and the right goes nuts.
- Roy Moore states that an elected offical should not be seated because he is Muslim.... crickets from the right

Both positions defy Article VI of the U.S. Constitution: one by a sitting Senator and the other by a superior court judge who OUGHT to know the law.

Of course, the opposite is true from the left. Sanders is defended, and Moore is condemned.

I look at it and think, "both of these men did the same thing: apply a religious test for a political office when the constitution explicitly forbids this." We are free to hold our personal beliefs as citizens, but we are NOT free to place our personal/religious beliefs ahead of the law of the country as a government official. If your religious beliefs are in contradiction with law, then either do not be a government official, or be a government official and observe the law while simultaneously trying to get the law changed. As a citizen, you are free to say, "the law of my god supercedes the law of the land" and act accordingly. In your capacity as a government official, you are not. Our country is founded (in part) on the principal religious freedom. Our constitution precludes any government-sponsored religion. In your capacity as a government official, you MUST be religiously neutral. Outside of that capacity, or as a free citizen, no such obligation exists.

One of the things we CAN do to bridge the political divide is to ask ourselves, "am I applying different rules for 'my team' than I am for others?" If the answer is yes - something is wrong...

This attitude is far too reasonable and needs to be stamped out immediately.

[Mountain Man]

Aren't they on equal footing legally?

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.

[rogue06]

This attitude is far too reasonable and needs to be stamped out immediately.

Got it

overkill.gif

[carpedm9587]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Cow Poke]

I think you make a couple of overly broad statements in your response, but let me just pick one...

...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. ...

It's probably safe to posit the former, but the latter.... I don't think you can really make that claim, as most of the "right" that I know specifically allow for a termination of the unborn baby (yes, I'm using "right" words) if the mother's life is in jeopardy.

I think a "call for consistency" should require fewer broad brush statements, don't ya think?

[carpedm9587]

Especially when, since the mid 1990s the number of firearms in private hands has skyrocketed while simultaneously the number of homicides involving firearms has plummeted.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]25043[/ATTACH]

If it was simply a matter of there being too many firearms available then we should not be witnessing such a sharp drop in gun related homicides as the number of firearms in the country has increased by nearly 100 million.

I would think it would be evident that an issue as complex as gun violence cannot be summarized in a single chart. For every chart of this nature, there is another supporting the point of view the "gun control" advocates promote. "Pro-gun" advocates deny "pro-control" charts have any validity, and "pro-control" advocates deny "pro-gun" advocate charts have any validity, and so the dance continues.

I will note, however, that there is a logical fallacy in this chart (or any other single chart, "pro-gun" or "pro-control"): 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. But that is not possible because the CDC is legally barred from any research who's conclusion could be interpreted as advocating for gun control. So essentially, if they do a study, and the outcome can be used to make an argument for gun control, they either have to:

1) Pay for the study already done with non-government money
2) Suppress the outcome
3) Publish the outcome and risk legal action.

When you are only permitted to conduct research if it has one possible outcome, that essentially squashes research. This, of course, muddies the research waters, and raises doubt - which is, I suspect, the point. Of course, they could go after private money to find the research, but that money would likely come from the "pro-control" advocates, which taints the research. "Pro-gun" advocates are clearly not going to fund an independent study, so government funding is the only neutral viable option - but that is legally barred.

Squashing information that might refute a position is a common tactic. Look around the world and see if you can pick out which countries use it regularly.

[carpedm9587]

I assume you think all religions are on equal footing. They're not.

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.

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.

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.

[carpedm9587]

This attitude is far too reasonable and needs to be stamped out immediately.

Oops... sorry.

I will see if I can hone my polemic skills

[Cow Poke]

I will note, however, that there is a logical fallacy in this chart (or any other single chart, "pro-gun" or "pro-control"): correlation is not causation.

Liberals want to decrease the number of guns, so they appear to be proposing that more guns cause more cases of gun deaths.

So, do you dispute the accuracy of the chart in what it represents? Do you dispute that the number of guns has drastically increased, but the number of deaths due to gun violence has decreased?

Let's start with that.