The Constitution
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
31-01-2012, 12:16 PM
RE: The Constitution
(31-01-2012 10:28 AM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, Chas and Pete.

I was trying to figure out how to respond. I wrote a bunch of stuff then I deleted it. While I respect you both, neither of you are engaging with the actual question and if I speak to what you wrote, I'll get mired in the conversation I don't want to have.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt

I was trying to convey that I didn't think they are comparable in any meaningful way, so I don't understand what your actual question is.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-01-2012, 01:27 PM
RE: The Constitution
(29-01-2012 01:51 PM)Ghost Wrote:  What's the difference between the Bible and the Constitution?

They're both texts written hundreds of years ago that tell us how to live our lives.

I'm asking a serious question. I hope we can put aside the obvious "cuz the Bible is fake!" answers.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt

Did not read all the thread so I apologize if this was covered. Anyway, the premise of the question is flat out wrong. The Constitution does not tell us how to live our lives. The US Constitution is really just a framework that sets forth the legal construct of how the government should work. It creates 3 branches of government and details what their individual authorities are. Before it was ratified there were 10 Amendments added (known as the Bill of Rights) that made certain explicit limitations on the governments authority on individuals, as well as granting individuals certain rights that the government can not take away. But, it says nothing about how to live your life. There is no "thou shalt not" anywhere within the document. The Federal and State governments do pass laws, under the authority of the Constitution that tells people what they can't do but those are, ostensibly, done with the consent of the governed and in the interest of protection or smoothing how society works. Obviously, it does not always work that way but that's the theory.

Finally, the Constitution does not purport to be infallible or the word of some higher power. It was written by men, all of which had admitted human failings and feet of clay. It is not omnipotent and does not claim to be. On the contrary, it was a giant compromise.

There really is no comparison between the two document. It's like asking what the difference is between an apple and a BMW (although if I had a BMW, I'm sure I'd enjoy eating an apple while driving it)

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-01-2012, 01:48 PM
RE: The Constitution
(31-01-2012 10:28 AM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, Chas and Pete.

I was trying to figure out how to respond. I wrote a bunch of stuff then I deleted it. While I respect you both, neither of you are engaging with the actual question and if I speak to what you wrote, I'll get mired in the conversation I don't want to have.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt

Hey Ghost,
The way I understand your question may still be off, but what I hear you asking is: Why are we obligated to follow a document that was written hundreds of years ago and potentially out of step with modern society?

Could the question be asked without including a comparison to the Bible? Or am I also not tracking what you're trying to discuss?

It was just a fucking apple man, we're sorry okay? Please stop the madness Laugh out load
~Izel
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-01-2012, 04:57 PM
RE: The Constitution
I'll try again to engage, but with trepidation.
In your first post, the question was, what's the difference, which several people answered in good faith and accurately. The differences are significant.

(29-01-2012 09:45 PM)Ghost Wrote:  I suppose one argument is that they are both irrelevant. Should a document written hundreds of years ago be slavishly adhered to? Perhaps not.

Now we come to an 'argument' of similarity that nobody made.
The age of a document, whether two hundred or two thousands of years, does not determine its relevance - the utility of its content does.
Neither document is, in practice, 'slavishly adhered-to'; both have been amended and interpreted over time, for application to different circumstances.

Quote: That being said, perhaps there is some wisdom that is worth setting in stone?

That would be the Code of Hammurabi, not any modern country's constitution, nor Mr. Gutenberg's big book. Sure, some wisdom remains wise and relevant throughout a stage of human evolution. When we reach the next level, the rules will probably change.

Quote:The larger question has to do with the parallel I see. Both are touted as inviolable and we're told to follow them "religiously" if you'll pardon the pun.

There may be some people who tout infallibility for one or both, but neither the general population nor the elite have ever actually followed either one to the letter.

Quote: Content aside, what's the difference?

Content aside? The differences are: origin, nationality, circumstance, intent, function, locale, language, history, authorship, and the fact that one is a single-purpose document and the other is a collection of legends, geneologies and censuses, prophesies, travelogues, poems, prayers, plagiarisms, biographies, lamentations, admonitions, rules and personal opinions.

Quote:There’s something to be said for not reinventing the wheel all the time, but there’s also value in making sure that minimum standards are adhered to.

Does this mean, since the main laws were written down a long time, we should stick to them, every nation, every situation, and not make new laws? Or that we should make new laws based on the old ones?

Quote: This is a question about following old documents, not the content of those documents.

I truly don't see how you can deal with a document sans content. Its physical form isn't being followed - only its content is - and than, none too closely.

The analogy just isn't holding up.

If you pray to anything, you're prey to anything.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Peterkin's post
31-01-2012, 07:26 PM
RE: The Constitution
(29-01-2012 01:51 PM)Ghost Wrote:  What's the difference between the Bible and the Constitution?

They're both texts written hundreds of years ago that tell us how to live our lives.

I'm asking a serious question. I hope we can put aside the obvious "cuz the Bible is fake!" answers.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt

The constitution doesn't tell you how to live your life.....

Damn that was easy!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-01-2012, 11:20 PM
RE: The Constitution
Hey, BnW.

Long time no see. I hope all is well with you.

Quote:The Constitution does not tell us how to live our lives... There is no "thou shalt not" anywhere within the document.

Really?

Quote:The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand...
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office...
...for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
...shall not be prohibited by the Congress...
The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended...
...shall not lie an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves.

------------------------THEN WE GET TO THE AMENDMENTS-----------------------

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.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

You were saying? And there's more than that. I just pulled some out at random. And I didn't even include the "shall" stuff, of which there's plenty.

The Constitution is the rule of man. The Bible is the rule of God. They're both documents filled with rules about how to live your life.

Sup, Erxomai?

Quote:The way I understand your question may still be off, but what I hear you asking is: Why are we obligated to follow a document that was written hundreds of years ago and potentially out of step with modern society?

Could the question be asked without including a comparison to the Bible? Or am I also not tracking what you're trying to discuss?

Not so much, "why are we obligated?" More, "why do we?"

People who follow the Bible are looked upon as insane for feverishly following that which was laid down in a text that's hundreds of years old. But Americans, for example, are doing the same bloody thing. The only difference I've detected so far is that the Bible is stupid and the Constitution was written by smart people. OK. Great. That's a value judgement that is entirely historically contingent that tells us nothing about WHY people are following old texts.

I'm not a fucking idiot. I know what the common sense view of this is. But it's the common sense view itself that I am challenging.

Do we just accept the received wisdom that the Constitution is just that much better, or do we say, "hey. Is that just six of one and half a dozen of the other?" Because if it is, then there's something significant at work here.

The reason I compare the Bible to the Constitution is precisely BECAUSE the common sense view tells us that it's crap and anyone who follows it is a fool. Because it allows us to look at those people who view the Constitution as sacred (which is the vast majority of Americans because American society would not be what it is nor would it be possible without the Constitution) and ask, aren't you doing the same thing? The easy two-second doesn't cost us a damn thing answer is, pfffft, no. That answer doesn't interest me in the least because it tells us nothing other than there is ideology at work.

Hey, Pete.

I wasn't making statements. I was saying "I suppose" "maybe". I was simply throwing stuff out there because I don't know what the answer is. But I for damn sure know the answer isn't, "Nope, nope, nothing to see here, move along."

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-02-2012, 01:24 AM (This post was last modified: 01-02-2012 01:34 AM by Rahn127.)
RE: The Constitution
Ghost...sorry to break this to ya, but ya....you are a fucking idiot.

You are the guy who can't tell the difference between an apple and a plastic orange and yet you keep asking people who have CLEARLY explained the two in great lengthy detail.

I keep thinking you can't possibly be this fucking dense, but dude, you're a white dwarf.
It's almost like you're asking why we right things down.
Answer: so other people can read them

But then you ask again - "But why do we HAVE to write things down"
Answer: so other people can read them

But then you ask again "Why do we do that though. That's what I am trying to understand"
Answer: so other people can read them

This is basically what you are doing. You are incapable of understanding a simple answer
You are incapable of understanding what people have written down.
Admit this to yourself and then stop all this nonsense.

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-02-2012, 05:39 AM
RE: The Constitution
(01-02-2012 01:24 AM)Rahn127 Wrote:  Ghost...sorry to break this to ya, but ya....you are a fucking idiot.

You are the guy who can't tell the difference between an apple and a plastic orange and yet you keep asking people who have CLEARLY explained the two in great lengthy detail.

I keep thinking you can't possibly be this fucking dense, but dude, you're a white dwarf.
It's almost like you're asking why we right things down.
Answer: so other people can read them

But then you ask again - "But why do we HAVE to write things down"
Answer: so other people can read them

But then you ask again "Why do we do that though. That's what I am trying to understand"
Answer: so other people can read them

This is basically what you are doing. You are incapable of understanding a simple answer
You are incapable of understanding what people have written down.
Admit this to yourself and then stop all this nonsense.

Picturing Ghost as a "white dwarf."

I lol'd.

There is another option. It could be you're not getting the philosophy behind the question. And it's rude to call people names.

It was just a fucking apple man, we're sorry okay? Please stop the madness Laugh out load
~Izel
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Erxomai's post
01-02-2012, 10:42 AM
RE: The Constitution
Hey, Erxomai.

Quote:There is another option. It could be you're not getting the philosophy behind the question. And it's rude to call people names.

Thank you for that.

To paraphrase the great Chevy Chase, it takes a big man to look the other way when someone attacks them with an ad hom. I am NOT a big man.

Hey, Rahn.

Sorry. Who the fuck are you exactly? You're nothing. You don't even merit my disdain. You're a fucking child. Those of us with a fucking brain have been slowly trying to peel this onion while you, a fucking mental midget whose name I barely knew until recently, fall back on the hegemonic common sense view, completely unaware that you have no original thoughts whatsoever, just ideology. I'm dense? At least I'm capable of independent thought, you fucking sock puppet. Your oh-so-witty little question and answer gambit is so fucking far off the mark it makes me wonder if you're even fucking literate or if you had your mom read it off to you while she was washing the shit smears out of your ass crack in your bubble bath. You expect me to feel insulted by a little boy who can't even contemplate ideas that aren't spoon fed to him and where he isn't led down the path by a fucking Sherpa and a Saint Bernard? You're like the terrified sheep who bleats in the night, "Help. Please help us. Someone is questioning something I just take for granted and have never dedicated two joules of brain energy to considering." Your only response is to mock and ridicule and maybe, just maybe, the big bad man will go away. You're the fucking reason that Maynard wrote this. So step away from the window and go back to sleep. The men will wake you up when we're ready to give you your next opinion.

Go fuck yourself.

Now, if we’re quite finished with the theatrics, perhaps we can get back to the question at hand. If you just want to troll, have a nice day. I’m content to ignore you from now on. If you’re willing to engage and have a conversation then I’m more than willing to do that with you. I leave it to you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Ghost's post
01-02-2012, 11:55 AM
RE: The Constitution
People on this forum, including myself have tried in the most rational ways to explain to you the differences between the two and yet you have this mental block that keeps you from differeniating the two. After three pages of posts you still don't get it. I'm left with only one conclusion and this is not a personal attack. You are an idiot as defined by dictionary.com - a very stupid person. (When it comes to this topic). The coversation really needs to turn to address WHY you are having trouble understanding what others have told you in great detail. We have addressed the issue you raised from the beginning and it has been answered. Now you must face WHY you are incapable of understanding it. This is where the topic needs to turn. Either you are trolling, being intentionally obtuse, or you have a much deeper problem with reading comprehension.

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: