Is it time to rewrite the Constitution?

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-02-27 07:25pm

So? We will certainly not be having the average man write the Constitution Mark 2, ne?

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-02-27 07:55pm

Perinquus wrote:
Durandal wrote:
HemlockGrey wrote:Right, because only atheists can do things right.
I'd put much more trust in a strict atheist to make fair and impartial laws rather than a devout Christian. One has no religion influencing his decisions; the other does.
That's a bit of a non-sequitur. As long as the theist upholds the separation of church and state, I see no reason why he or she should be considered less qualified. Belief or lack of belief in a god does not mean the person himself is not capable of being fair.

I didn't say that a Christian would automatically be unfair; I said that I'd sooner trust an atheist to make fair, objective legislation than a Christian. While the Christian could be fair and impartial, the atheist is much more likely to be. This isn't exactly hard to justify. One person has a religion breathing down his throat demanding that he do certain things which are unconsititutional (make everyone worship Jesus, outlaw prostitution and the like), and the other does not.

Singular Quartet · Post by **Singular Quartet** » 2003-02-27 08:01pm

As an American, I would like to state that I am quite happy with my present Constituition. I just wish someone would assasinate Bush II before he tries anything really stupid.

To late.

Point.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-02-27 08:11pm

I didn't say that a Christian would automatically be unfair; I said that I'd sooner trust an atheist to make fair, objective legislation than a Christian. While the Christian could be fair and impartial, the atheist is much more likely to be. This isn't exactly hard to justify. One person has a religion breathing down his throat demanding that he do certain things which are unconsititutional (make everyone worship Jesus, outlaw prostitution and the like), and the other does not.

Ah. I took Alyrium's and your statement to mean that Christians could not take reasonable political stances, period.

ArmorPierce · Post by **ArmorPierce** » 2003-02-27 08:23pm

I think that it is the supreme courts job to interpret it. If it is so it is so wide open to interpretation, then how do you know that it won't be written like that? Who would re-write it? It is the supreme court's job to interpret it which makes then makes it the norm and case of reference. They set policies that leads to how parts of the constitution would be interpreted. Beh, ultimately, if the constitution was tightened in it's meaning, it could actually lead to giving us less rights which the founding fathers feared. That is why they put a amendment stating that all the people's rights are not necessarily stated in the constitution. A clarifying document (meant to clarify parts, that's it) that is set by the supreme court and how it was originally meant to be followed by the founding fathers would be okay but re-writing the constitution? No.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-02-27 09:12pm

HemlockGrey wrote:
I didn't say that a Christian would automatically be unfair; I said that I'd sooner trust an atheist to make fair, objective legislation than a Christian. While the Christian could be fair and impartial, the atheist is much more likely to be. This isn't exactly hard to justify. One person has a religion breathing down his throat demanding that he do certain things which are unconsititutional (make everyone worship Jesus, outlaw prostitution and the like), and the other does not.
Ah. I took Alyrium's and your statement to mean that Christians could not take reasonable political stances, period.

No, that's not what I meant. Hell, the leader of the Coalition for Separation of Church and State is a reverend, if memory serves. There are some Christians who recognize that both the government and their church will remain more pure and good the less they interact with each other. Not too many, though. Lots of Christian pastors see Church and State as the same thing. It's extraordinarily difficult to rationalize the complete separation of Church and State with Christian dogma, which is why so many Christians want to put their beliefs into legislation.

LordChaos · Post by **LordChaos** » 2003-02-27 10:34pm

Durandal wrote:
HemlockGrey wrote:
No, that's not what I meant. Hell, the leader of the Coalition for Separation of Church and State is a reverend, if memory serves. There are some Christians who recognize that both the government and their church will remain more pure and good the less they interact with each other. Not too many, though. Lots of Christian pastors see Church and State as the same thing. It's extraordinarily difficult to rationalize the complete separation of Church and State with Christian dogma, which is why so many Christians want to put their beliefs into legislation.

I don't know were you are getting your information from, because it's not reality as I'm able to find.... I know many ministers / preists in RL, of many different religous sects, and I still don't know a single one that can't recognise, understand, and agree with, at least in principle, the seporation of church and state.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-02-27 10:59pm

Fuck no.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-02-27 11:02pm

I don't know were you are getting your information from, because it's not reality as I'm able to find.... I know many ministers / preists in RL, of many different religous sects, and I still don't know a single one that can't recognise, understand, and agree with, at least in principle, the seporation of church and state.

Than you're not looking for them, because they're out there.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2003-02-27 11:44pm

HemlockGrey wrote:
I didn't say that a Christian would automatically be unfair; I said that I'd sooner trust an atheist to make fair, objective legislation than a Christian. While the Christian could be fair and impartial, the atheist is much more likely to be. This isn't exactly hard to justify. One person has a religion breathing down his throat demanding that he do certain things which are unconsititutional (make everyone worship Jesus, outlaw prostitution and the like), and the other does not.
Ah. I took Alyrium's and your statement to mean that Christians could not take reasonable political stances, period.

I didnt mean that at all. simply that an atheist is more likely to make decisions based on the good of all, rather than try to abide by religious teachings. That doesnt mean that a christian diest or buhdist(sp) couldnt do as good a job, just that an atheist would be more likely too.

GrandMasterTerwynn · Post by **GrandMasterTerwynn** » 2003-02-28 01:24am

LordChaos wrote:I'll support re-writing the constitution only if it's done by the same people who wrote the current one. AKA - keep your filthy paws off my constitution. It's as non-cryptic as it can possibly be. Or would you rather it be in leaglese?

In fifty years, it'll probably be possible to do so. All we have to do is dig 'em all up, clone 'em. Raise them very carefully in an environment identical to the one the originals were immeresed in. Possibly utilizing virtual reality and lots of paid extras. And then, after they rewrite the original, show up and tell them the affairs of the world 250 years from 'then.' Then ask 'em to write a new and up-to-date version.

Mind you, such an undertaking would be roughly 2562365 times more expensive than exploring the entire solar system with manned spaceships. So really, leave the damned thing alone.

Perinquus · Post by **Perinquus** » 2003-02-28 02:48am

Durandal wrote: I didn't say that a Christian would automatically be unfair; I said that I'd sooner trust an atheist to make fair, objective legislation than a Christian. While the Christian could be fair and impartial, the atheist is much more likely to be. This isn't exactly hard to justify. One person has a religion breathing down his throat demanding that he do certain things which are unconsititutional (make everyone worship Jesus, outlaw prostitution and the like), and the other does not.

A lot of the men who were at the Constitutional convention were Christians. And lots of modern, moderate Christians are pro-choice, believe it would be better on the whole to legalize and regulate prostition, would not like to see creationism taught in schools, etc.

And anyway, none of that would even come up in constitutional convention. The Constitution is nowhere near that specific, nor should it be. The Constitution just lays down the structure of the government and the rules by which it operates, plus defining certain important rights. The making of legislation is a job for representatives elected in accordance with those rules.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-02-28 04:17am

Don't let Bush do it. He once used the phrase "the bridge in between Church and State".

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2003-02-28 05:16am

HANDS OFF MY CIVIL RIGHTS!

Sorry, I am fond of the document, it's history, and it's room for growth.

Post by **Dalton** » 2003-02-28 06:33am

I say nay. The Constitution was deliberately written the way it was so we could have room for growth. As long as the Constitution stands they can't take it all away...because we have the power to fight the power...

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2003-02-28 08:05am

Preamble

Should the Government no longer serve the people, they have the duty to replace it.

Perinquus · Post by **Perinquus** » 2003-02-28 08:19am

The Yosemite Bear wrote:Preamble

Should the Government no longer serve the people, they have the duty to replace it.

With what? ANY government is going to have a certain amount of corruption and bureaucratic waste. It's in the nature of things. Ours has less than most governments on this planet. Our Constitution, just as it is, has served us very well on the whole for more than 200 years, and looks to be good for many more. There might be some ideal government that would be better, but what is realistically achievable is what we have, and it's a lot better than most governments in history have been. There's a wise old saying: "don't let best be the enemy of good". Given human nature, and given how easily the American Revolution, and its aftermath could have thrown up a worse government than it replaced (as most revolutions in history have seemed to do), I think we've done very respectably on the whole. So I suggest we live by another wise old saying in this case - "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-02-28 09:12am

Our government changes every few years.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-02-28 10:11am

Quite frankly, even though I'm not American and don't really understand the American love affair with such symbols (e.g. the flag), I can't think of a single person in all of the American political scene right now who has enough stature to modify the works of the Founding Fathers.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-02-28 10:31am

Vympel wrote:Quite frankly, even though I'm not American and don't really understand the American love affair with such symbols (e.g. the flag), I can't think of a single person in all of the American political scene right now who has enough stature to modify the works of the Founding Fathers.

Exactly right. The U.S. Constitution was a once-in-a-thousand-years event. You had the culmination of the Enlightenment, a brand new nation with enough distance from the European monarchies that it could afford to experiment without worrying about foreign interference (and settled recently enough that nobody had centuries-old grudges to settle), and most importantly, a group of men willing to try something unprecedented and wise enough not to totally fuck it up. Then you got those same men to actually practice what they believed in just long enough for people to come to love it. Look at what happened to the French Revolution, just a few years later, or in Latin America. I don't think there's a group of people ANYWHERE on this planet right now capable of duplicating that feat.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-02-28 11:23am

LordChaos wrote:I don't know were you are getting your information from, because it's not reality as I'm able to find.... I know many ministers / preists in RL, of many different religous sects, and I still don't know a single one that can't recognise, understand, and agree with, at least in principle, the seporation of church and state.

No offense, but please take your head out of the sand. The House just voted to completely ban all human cloning because of "ethical" (read: religion/playing God) issues. Why? Because they've let religious beliefs influence their vote.

Just because they pay lip service to the idea doesn't mean they actually believe in it or even know what it implies. Christians have the notorious attitude of thinking that they're exempt from the separation of Church and State and that trying to keep them out is "religious bigotry" and "persecution." Leave it to the whiny born-agains to say something that absurd. If priests and ministers did, indeed, believe in keeping their hands out of the government, you wouldn't have Catholic-led anti-abortion/death penalty/euthanasia rallies.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-02-28 11:30am

Perinquus wrote:
Durandal wrote: I didn't say that a Christian would automatically be unfair; I said that I'd sooner trust an atheist to make fair, objective legislation than a Christian. While the Christian could be fair and impartial, the atheist is much more likely to be. This isn't exactly hard to justify. One person has a religion breathing down his throat demanding that he do certain things which are unconsititutional (make everyone worship Jesus, outlaw prostitution and the like), and the other does not.
A lot of the men who were at the Constitutional convention were Christians. And lots of modern, moderate Christians are pro-choice, believe it would be better on the whole to legalize and regulate prostition, would not like to see creationism taught in schools, etc.

A good chunk of them were deists and atheists as well. That doesn't change the fact that, if I randomly plucked some Christians out of the US from that time period and told them to write a Constitution, it would look very different. Furthermore, most moderate Christians have absolutely no problem with stuff like "under God" in the pledge of allegiance. They're nowhere near as sensitive to the idea of separation of church and state as an atheist is.

And anyway, none of that would even come up in constitutional convention. The Constitution is nowhere near that specific, nor should it be. The Constitution just lays down the structure of the government and the rules by which it operates, plus defining certain important rights. The making of legislation is a job for representatives elected in accordance with those rules.

The founding fathers should have been more explicit about those rights, particularly with regards to the separation of church and state. They may have thought it was obvious what they meant, but people like Shrub prove that that's not the case at all.

LordChaos · Post by **LordChaos** » 2003-02-28 12:41pm

Durran Korr wrote:
I don't know were you are getting your information from, because it's not reality as I'm able to find.... I know many ministers / preists in RL, of many different religous sects, and I still don't know a single one that can't recognise, understand, and agree with, at least in principle, the seporation of church and state.
Than you're not looking for them, because they're out there.

I do not doubt that they are out there, but I do doubt that they make up a majority of the preists in the country.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-02-28 05:16pm

LordChaos wrote:
Durran Korr wrote:
I don't know were you are getting your information from, because it's not reality as I'm able to find.... I know many ministers / preists in RL, of many different religous sects, and I still don't know a single one that can't recognise, understand, and agree with, at least in principle, the seporation of church and state.
Than you're not looking for them, because they're out there.
I do not doubt that they are out there, but I do doubt that they make up a majority of the preists in the country.

Most priests, or most of the more vocal priests? The ones with the big mouths always come out and encourage people to vote one way or another. The priests in my parish tried getting everyone to vote for Bush and Doll because they were "more moral" than Clinton.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-02-28 05:34pm

Anyone else think we should add an Amendment clearly outlining the powers of the government when it comes to electronics?

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Is it time to rewrite the Constitution?

Should we scrap the Constitution and start over?