Alabama to vote on a 10 Commandments amendment

2»

Replies

  • JermanatorJermanator Senior Member Posts: 14,045 Senior Member
    You got to watch the whole tyranny of the majority thing. Our republic is supposed to prevent that. You seem to be advocating it.
  • cpjcpj Senior Member Posts: 37,658 Senior Member
    This software is annoying.


    The easiest and BEST answer is, to have churches on one side of the street, and  government buildings on the other. Not intermingling. At all. Easy peasy. 
    "I'm here for the guns, hunting, and skirt wearing men."
    Zee
  • FFLshooterFFLshooter Member Posts: 421 Member
    No, I was simply stating that most folks are gonna be bias toward their belief system to benefit themselves. It’s human nature. I reckon I should have just said that.
  • JermanatorJermanator Senior Member Posts: 14,045 Senior Member
    No, I was simply stating that most folks are gonna be bias toward their belief system to benefit themselves. It’s human nature. I reckon I should have just said that.
    I agree with that. My thing is for anyone to protect their specific freedoms, they really need to protect EVERYONE's freedoms. That way, all of us remain free.
  • JermanatorJermanator Senior Member Posts: 14,045 Senior Member
    cpj said:
    This software is annoying.
    I found the trick to that is to wait for a bit for stuff to catch up. If you rush to type, it won't let you outside of the quote box. If you give it a bit, you can type under it.
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,001 Senior Member
    We have to protect against both the tyranny of the majority, and the tyranny of the minority.

    The problem, at present, and maybe always, is that the minority in any discussion compensates for lack of numbers by increasing the volume and turning small disagreements into disproportionately large disagreements that cannot be resolved with reasonable debate. The majority has the luxury of the 'status quo' to maintain a calmer, more measured stance, whereas the minority has a naturally occurring smaller voice that must be amplified by radicalism.

    The Constitution has worked for over two centuries because the majority has been in a position of 'superiority,' in which Christians were only required to tolerate minority positions. The rise of atheism, as a religion of its own, can now compete more closely in numbers, by exploiting the laws that generally seemed to work OK for two centuries, even when administered by Christians with varying amounts of 'devoutness' to whatever particular sect of Christianity they practice, or just marginally believe in.

    It is all a question of moderation, or lack of it. Some things simply cannot be adequately codified, with an absolutely equal outcome. Those things are never settled, but favoring a moderate majority at least allows advancement on to other important issues.

    Basically, it just amounts to cancelling out the radicals on both sides, and allowing the moderates to find a workable path to something else. That way, a radical minority doesn't win, but the monolithic majority does not beat them down with their numbers.
  • zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 16,292 Senior Member
    Bisley's post is one of the very best I've seen on this subject.
    -Zorba, "The Veiled Male"

    Carry a 25 if it makes you feel good, but do not ever load it. If you load it, you may shoot it. If you shoot it, you may hit somebody, and if you hit somebody – and he finds out about it – he may be very angry with you. --Jeff Cooper
  • earlyagainearlyagain Posts: 1,262 Senior Member
    Of course, there's always the dilemma of who's interpreting which opinions are those that belong to the radicals.

    Surely the popular views of me, and my peers could never be considered radical???
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,001 Senior Member
    We have to protect against both the tyranny of the majority, and the tyranny of the minority.

    The problem, at present, and maybe always, is that the minority in any discussion compensates for lack of numbers by increasing the volume and turning small disagreements into disproportionately large disagreements that cannot be resolved with reasonable debate. The majority has the luxury of the 'status quo' to maintain a calmer, more measured stance, whereas the minority has a naturally occurring smaller voice that must be amplified by radicalism.

    The Constitution has worked for over two centuries because the majority has been in a position of 'superiority,' in which Christians were only required to tolerate minority positions. The rise of atheism, as a religion of its own, can now compete more closely in numbers, by exploiting the laws that generally seemed to work OK for two centuries, even when administered by Christians with varying amounts of 'devoutness' to whatever particular sect of Christianity they practice, or just marginally believe in.

    It is all a question of moderation, or lack of it. Some things simply cannot be adequately codified, with an absolutely equal outcome. Those things are never settled, but favoring a moderate majority at least allows advancement on to other important issues.

    Basically, it just amounts to cancelling out the radicals on both sides, and allowing the moderates to find a workable path to something else. That way, a radical minority doesn't win, but the monolithic majority does not beat them down with their numbers.
    Of course, there's always the dilemma of who's interpreting which opinions are those that belong to the radicals.

    Surely the popular views of me, and my peers could never be considered radical???
    In the context of my usage of the word, it simply means a departure from the status quo, without consideration for what the negative effects are likely to be on the greater system.

    Radical change to a part of something might be worth the risk to a majority of people, whereas radical change to an entire system of things might create an unacceptable level of chaos with too many unexpected consequences to be dealt with.
  • TeachTeach Senior Member Posts: 18,088 Senior Member

    Loud, obnoxious minorities can get away with their shenanigans as long as the more moderate majority chooses to tolerate them.  When that becomes too much of a burden, the majority will use whatever means necessary, up to and including violence, to reestablish their dominance.  It might not be technically right or fair to do things that way, but it's an inescapable fact that things happen that way, and are likely to continue for the forseeable future.


    Hide and wail in terror, Eloi- - - -We Morlocks are on the hunt!
    ASK-HOLE Someone who asks for advice and always does something opposite
  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 7,992 Senior Member
    Teach said:

    Loud, obnoxious minorities can get away with their shenanigans as long as the more moderate majority chooses to tolerate them.  When that becomes too much of a burden, the majority will use whatever means necessary, up to and including violence, to reestablish their dominance.  It might not be technically right or fair to do things that way, but it's an inescapable fact that things happen that way, and are likely to continue for the forseeable future.

    As members of a "loud, obnoxious minority" that luckily happens to be specifically protected by the 2A we should be very careful at ceding power to the majority....
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • Make_My_DayMake_My_Day Senior Member Posts: 6,553 Senior Member
    As members of a "loud, obnoxious minority" that luckily happens to be specifically protected by the 2A we should be very careful at ceding power to the majority....
    Especially when the left is in charge.
    I HAVE HATED COMMUNISTS EVEN BEFORE THEY CHANGED THEIR NAME TO LIBERALS AND PROGRESSIVES
  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 7,992 Senior Member
    As members of a "loud, obnoxious minority" that luckily happens to be specifically protected by the 2A we should be very careful at ceding power to the majority....
    Especially when the left is in charge.
    See that sort of attitude is a big part of the problem. "It's ok when I or people I agree with do it". No, it's not. If you want your rights to be respected when you're in the minority you have to also respect the rights of other minorities when you're in the majority. 
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • Make_My_DayMake_My_Day Senior Member Posts: 6,553 Senior Member
    What conservative rights were respected by the Obama admin.?
    I HAVE HATED COMMUNISTS EVEN BEFORE THEY CHANGED THEIR NAME TO LIBERALS AND PROGRESSIVES
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,001 Senior Member
    alphasigmookie said:
    As members of a "loud, obnoxious minority" that luckily happens to be specifically protected by the 2A we should be very careful at ceding power to the majority....
    Especially when the left is in charge.
    See that sort of attitude is a big part of the problem. "It's ok when I or people I agree with do it". No, it's not. If you want your rights to be respected when you're in the minority you have to also respect the rights of other minorities when you're in the majority. 
    What you are lamenting, now, is a direct result of your own party's failure to heed the advice you are offering to your opponents, now. What you are saying has merit, but you can't seem to see that what you rail against, now, is a powerful backlash in response to a full-court press by leftists, who will never debate the issues on a level playing field.

    The Democrats have been playing hardball for decades. Now, when there is an ex-Democrat running the show for your opponents, who seems to inspire a lot of people to play the same hardball that has been kicking their own butts for decades, you admonish them for doing the same thing your party has made its living on.

    I don't disagree that civility is the ideal. But it doesn't bother me very much to see the other side choke a little bit on a dose of their own medicine. I just hope that reason prevails, in the end, after all of the radicals have cancelled each other out.


  • earlyagainearlyagain Posts: 1,262 Senior Member
    What I really want to know is will the posting be illustrated with Charlton Heston as Moses or Michelangelo's Moses?
  • JermanatorJermanator Senior Member Posts: 14,045 Senior Member
    Heston all the way!
  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Posts: 4,168 Senior Member
    Teach said:

      If we organize the "Church of John Moses Browning" why shouldn't we mandate that all our members carry a cocked and locked 1911?  We could even condemn Glockophiles and other Tupperware gun carriers as heretics and demand that they be burned at the stake!

     



    PLEASE, take my money!!! 
    The question isn't who is going to let me; it's who is going to stop me.

    Ayn Rand
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 21,024 Senior Member
    knitepoet said:
    Amendment 1 on November's ballot is "The 10 Commandments Amendment"

    Here's what it says.
    the
    “Property belonging to the state may be used to display the Ten Commandments, and the right of the public school and public body to display the Ten Commandments on property owned or administrated by a public school or public body in the state is not restrained or abridged.”

    Going to be interesting to see how this plays out

    http://www.tencommandmentsamendment.com/#amendment

    https://www.al.com/news/mobile/index.ssf/2018/04/dean_young_resurfaces_to_tout.html



    This world has been going toward the left for about 10 years pretty steadily, but me thinks the pendelum is about to swing. I think Trumps latest SCOTUS pick will be confirmed and if any of the leftist on the court kick the bucket or get too old (Gee I wonder which one that could be?) and Trump makes another fantstic pick(I think that Catholic woman would be great) The court will be solidly conservative and will slowly begin to change this country for the better. Once we were in solid control I would love to see the 2A re-written in modern language with the original intention clear. That is:The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed! No more mention of any vagary such as a militia
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
2»
Sign In or Register to comment.