The End of Christian America (Newsweek)

[The Yosemite Bear]

I was hoping they were all going to be gone when the year 2000 failed to deliver the rapture.

that's 9 years of disappointment and annoyance for me.

[General Trelane (Retired)]

I think there's value in the addenda system of amendments. The fact that certain persons were once counted as 3/5ths then later recognized as full people is a part of the nation's history that we should be obliged to recall, and unlike history curricula which can be edited to suit the times a permanent incorporated record of the evolution and editing of the Constitution keeps that history more honest. This preserves the history of the document while (hopefully) improving upon it.

Or you could just maintain a separate revision history. That's what's done with engineering documents and drawings. With addenda, you more easily open the door to convoluted interpretations.

[Darth Wong]

Peoples' responses in this thread have been very illuminating. The assumption that the document is inviolate and should not be edited is so deep-seated that people refuse to question it, even when challenged to do so. It's simply taken as an article of faith that the precious, sacred Holy Scripture should not be altered and that addenda are "just as good" even though they would not suffice for any normal document revision process.

Imagine how confusing it would be to use a textbook where all manner of changes and mistakes were deliberately left in the text, and corrections were done by notes in the appendix.

[Kanastrous]

I don't see value in holiness or inviolate nature; I see value in keeping the embarrassing and evolutionary stuff in where it can't be expunged and conveniently forgotten.

Although I guess I have to agree with Trelane that a conscientiously maintained revision history would be acceptable in light of the interpretation problems he points out.

[Terralthra]

I have to wonder how exactly you suggest a textbook which has already been printed should be edited to include new information or to correct wrong information. It would seem that ink on paper is rather tricky to edit in-place, just like the Constitution is, so that there are only really two options (well, three):

1) Print out a new, edited copy.
2) Edit it via amendments which state explicitly that previous parts are repealed (21st Amendment) or restate the part to be edited, with the offending text deleted from the restatement (14th Amendment).
3) Take a permanent marker to the original copy, mark out the bad bits, and write in the margin any new bits.

If one were to print out the current Constitution, it wouldn't say three-fifths anywhere on it, unless you were to specifically keep text which has been revised out of existence. The original piece of paper says three-fifths on it, but that's just a piece of paper. It doesn't hold any force of law, all it has is symbolic value as a historical artifact.

Would you like it better if the 14th Amendment said "The words 'which may be included within this Union,' are deleted, 'which shall be determined by adding to' are replaced by 'counting,' 'including those bound to Service for a Term of Years,' and ', three fifths of all other Persons' are deleted," as a revision history might put it?

[Darth Wong]

Jesus fucking Christ, your apologist arguments are fucking stupid. Just look at you two retards, pretending that we will somehow erase history if we alter the document, or asking how a 21st century society could possibly produce new edited versions of a document, as if this is somehow beyond our capabilities.

I have to wonder how exactly you suggest a textbook which has already been printed should be edited to include new information or to correct wrong information.

You know textbooks have multiple editions, right? What do you think "edition" means? You people are so goddamned desperate to defend the status quo that you've been forced to pretend that procedures which are ROUTINE in the publishing world would somehow be impossible to implement for the Constitution.

[Terralthra]

1) Print out a new, edited copy.

[Darth Wong]

1) Print out a new, edited copy.

Yeah, fucktard, and you acted as if this was somehow not a viable option, without explaining why. The problem is that you think "Constitution" is the original piece of paper, not a living document. And THAT right there is the problem with your thinking.

[Terralthra]

Yeah, fucktard, and you acted as if this was somehow not a viable option, without explaining why.

It is a viable option, and I never said or implied otherwise. It just isn't the one this country chose. Probably because at the time we were first amending it, typewriters had not yet been invented, so recopying the whole document many times simply to propose a change was a pain in the ass compared to just writing out the changes. Once changes are approved, I don't see any particular reason not to just copy out a new version, and indeed, my civics textbooks from college had copies of the Constitution in the back, and Article 1, Section 2 was in its revised state, with no mention of three-fifths at all.

The problem is that you think "Constitution" is the original piece of paper, not a living document. And THAT right there is the problem with your thinking.

No, that's not how I think at all.

If one were to print out the current Constitution, it wouldn't say three-fifths anywhere on it, unless you were to specifically keep text which has been revised out of existence. The original piece of paper says three-fifths on it, but that's just a piece of paper. It doesn't hold any force of law, all it has is symbolic value as a historical artifact.

(emphasis added)

That quote is irreconcilable with my believing that the Constitution is not a living document.

[Lagmonster]

Getting back to the "Christian America" thing, this is starting to make news:

To Turkey
What he said:

"...we have a very large Christian population -- we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation. We consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values."

What right wingers heard:

"...we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation."

If you google this, it's all over the right wing news sites and blogs. Fundies everywhere, long attached to the "America was founded on Christianity" notion, have their panties so twisted they're going to need surgery to get undressed. Obama sure as hell isn't afraid to push the fundies' buttons - he must know by now how that kind of statement rings with the far right.

[hongi]

Obama sure as hell isn't afraid to push the fundies' buttons - he must know by now how that kind of statement rings with the far right.

Not just the far right, I hear it fairly often from a broad range of Christians I meet on the net.

[Tanasinn]

Obama never had the Jesus freaks on his side anyway, so I imagine he feels there's not too much need to tiptoe around their sensibilities.

[Ryushikaze]

Personally, I'd be for a revised and updated constitution- We've recast and revised the entire system of laws several times before, this is, on the face of it, a much simpler process.

What's not as simple, though, and this is where I think the process of addending to it instead of revising it comes in, is in getting people to sit down and agree with the new version, and avoiding the uproar doing such would cause.

Like you said, Mike, a lot of people view the constitution as a sacrosanct document, something that must be preserved because it's history, without realizing it can still be preserved even if replaced.
And even if we did manage to sit down and agree to the revision, there's likely to be an absurd furor over what the revision should contain, because there's almost no way it'll just stop at a sensible 'incorporate the addenda into the actual text, delete the stupid bits' etc.

As for making evolution generally accepted in the south, we're working on it. The crazies are still here, but progress is being made. Don't expect to make them see reason any particular time soon, though.

[The Yosemite Bear]

Obama sure as hell isn't afraid to push the fundies' buttons - he must know by now how that kind of statement rings with the far right.

Not just the far right, I hear it fairly often from a broad range of Christians I meet on the net.

So he quoted the treaty of Tripoli....

oh wait they have never heard of said document.