posted on December 18, 2000 09:44:40 AM new
"With statements like:
..."...will cut your legs from under you"
my intuition is telling me this thread has great potential to become combative."
Great potential? That's a bit flattering, don't you think?
But where exactly is this quote
"will cut your legs from under you"
in this thread?
I sure don't see that in this thread, besides Pattaylor saying it.
If that were a real quote, I'd say it was taken out of context. But it doesn't even rise to the point of being a real quote, it's been substantially changed.
What the heck is that? Make up a quote and then warn people about it?
posted on December 18, 2000 09:49:27 AM new
You know I have seen other people on other lists trying to define the undefinable and this is always what happens.
American is a word we can pull from the dictionary but most people won't be happy with the emotionless definition they get.
Our definitions will be as different as our life experiences, our upbringing and our education.
networker67 "And sorry just being born here entitles you to United States Citizenship doesn't make you an American."
I'm sorry, it does. How can you deny that people are Americans when the American government declares they are?
You may not deem them "good" enough but that doesn't change them into nonAmericans.
Are you looking for what makes you an American or what makes you a good citizen.
Many Americans did not vote but that doesn't take away their citizenship it just makes them less than concerned citizens.
I love this country as much as the next citizen but I'm not going to judge others as unworthy because they don't reach my standards.
I did four years in the military because I believe we should serve our country and I am a women. I educate myself on the candidates and vote in every election I can. But I am no more of an American than someone who took the oath of citizenship yesterday.
posted on December 18, 2000 09:49:41 AM new
donny,
The quote was from networker67's post, which has since been edited. It was not changed (by me) in any way. I do not make up quotes. If you read the bottom of networker's post, you will see his own reference to the remark.
posted on December 18, 2000 09:50:11 AM new
Donny: If you are using IE, a quick way to find a string of words is to do a search by typing CTRL F and then typing in the words.
[ edited by stockticker on Dec 18, 2000 09:52 AM ]
posted on December 18, 2000 09:55:04 AM new
No networker,
There isn't any moral underlay in the amendments that you decry as reminders for they are each new law. Call them additions to the structure of the constitution not clarifications of what already was contained there.
For example, the thirteen, the abolution of slavery, does not clarify existing sections of the constitution, it adds a new section. Slavery was legal in the country before that, and after that, it was not.
Yet you say: "11 - 27 provide clarity for interpretation to avoid abstract moral ignorance. The only possible exceptions are 14 and 16 which both have certain guarantees. Which by the way some moral folks still managed to get the interpretation of 14 botched. Which created the need for 15, 19,
and 24. Funny thing about those moral folks they seem to require a great deal of clarity when those morals tell them certain things should be a certain way when basic principles of the Constitution state otherwise.
Perhaps you've read a different constitution, or perhaps you are ascribing to the one we all know more than it contains, but using the above example where are the basic principles which if followed would have made the amendment unneccesary?
Before you fall off to the preamble cutey that "all men are created equal" remember that when the phrase, and the constitution were compiled, slaves, in law, were not men, but were property.
posted on December 18, 2000 09:58:45 AM new
This must be a trick queston
What makes us American.
Well then Canadians and Mexicans should answer too, and maybe people from South America?
Of course if your a citizen from the U.S. you say 'I'm from America' but actually your country is the United States, but you don't say 'I'm a United Stater, or Statesman'?
Do moderaters ever get to participate in discussions like these here with their own opinion too?
posted on December 18, 2000 10:11:43 AM newI want to know does anyone have any idea what makes a true American? And sorry just being born here entitles you to United States Citizenship doesn't make you an American. (sic)
Yes it does. Legal citizenship in this country is the only thing that makes you "a true American," whatever way that citizenship is acquired. Mindset, "morals" and "principles" are matters of individual conscience; they're trumped by the rule of law. It's a country, not a Capra flick.
posted on December 18, 2000 10:15:53 AM new
Hello Pat,
Not to worry. The "bear trap" I alluded to was the purely figurative.
Networker,
First, I don't think you really answered one of my questions...
"If a person, in the exercise of their freedoms (whether Constitutionally granted or otherwise) encroach on the freedoms of another then who prevails?"
To encroach upon a freedom is to deny that freedom to another, in part or in full.
Your example of gun ownership and freedom of speech is not a valid example. Your right to freedom of speech does not encroach on my right of ownership nor does my right of ownership encroach on your right of free speech.
Come up with a valid example of one person's right encroaching on another person's right and then we can talk.
My thesis is that when a right is found to encroach on another right then one must resort to a moral argument to resolve the dispute.
For example, ownership of slaves was a right at one time in this country. As was the right to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness".
When folks began pointing out that slavery encroached on the rights of the slaves, what ultimately happened?
The courts either refused to act or acted to confirm only one principle of law, namely the right of ownership.
Ultimately, this country engaged in a terribly destructive war to decide which right took precedence. Do you think that thousands of people fought and died for a legal principle? Or that those people fought and died for a moral precept?
posted on December 18, 2000 10:28:15 AM new
"this country engaged in a terribly destructive war to decide which right took precedence"
There were a couple of other little problems that brought the southern states to secede. The Civil War wasn't fought over slavery, slavery became an issue in 1862 when Ol' Abe kinda' sorta' made it one.
posted on December 18, 2000 10:28:56 AM new
I think pareau said it best. Yes thats exactly what makes us Americans; legal citizenship, plain and simple.
All the rest, well is freedom to believe what you want. As, you don't have to believe in the Consitution, you free not to.
posted on December 18, 2000 10:38:23 AM new
Nope. That nonsense about citizenship hasn't got a thing to do with being an American. That's an immigrant way of thinking, and it's too easy, as well as being a falsehood.
It's about heritage and nobody gets one of those for answering a few questions and taking an oath. If there were an instanteneous transformation why would there be Mexican-Americans, African-Americans, and all of the rest? What are Americans doing shutting down Main St. for Cinco De Mayo parades?
posted on December 18, 2000 10:51:53 AM new
Hello Krs,
I'm sure that slavery wasn't the only issue leading to the Civil War, but I haven't heard any reasonable arguments that it was not the major issue.
What "rights" do you think "State Rights" were an allusion to if not the "right" to possess slaves?
And once slavery was abolished why did the Southern states act to implicitly "enslave" the newly emancipated Blacks with absurd means tests for voting and all of the various segregation laws?
posted on December 18, 2000 10:59:31 AM new
Well, there's a truee civil war historian amongst us, and rather than be corrected in detail later by him I'll save myself a full exposition. However, I can tell you that the Emancipation Proclamation didn't free many slaves. It was a way for Abe to say "OK, it's about slavery too".
Also, keep in mind that freeing slaves didn't grant a right to vote. That came later. Like women have always been free to henpeck, they weren't given the right to peck a ballot until later.
posted on December 18, 2000 11:01:16 AM new
It's a little bit of a historical rewrite to say that slavery wasn't really a fundemental issue that caused the Civil War. Obviously the actual fighting began with secession, which happened for a variety of reasons, the slavery issue being one of them, a fundemental reason. The thought that the Fed. gov might have fought a war with a moral component to it is apparently offensive to some. Of course none of us were there and we could all cite academic works that say this or that.
posted on December 18, 2000 11:02:52 AM new
I will defer to the Civil War historian (who is it?), but of course another Civil War historian could say the opposite. Only historical facts are set in stone, interpretation is not.
[ edited by jamesoblivion on Dec 18, 2000 11:05 AM ]
posted on December 18, 2000 11:07:00 AM new
Oh ho, pareau! It's good to see you've returned. I suspected wild horses were somehow involved in your absence from some of these threads. I like the Capra flick analogy (metaphor?) and would like to run with it.
During WWII I believe it was Capra who made a series of films entitled "Why we Fight". They were a seemingly sincere form of nationalist propaganda, not unlike similar work from Leni Riefenstahl. Borrowing liberally from D.W. Griffiths, and others he drew a picture of America that, in many respects, still exists as the idealized vision of this country. A vision we've come to accept as real.
Modern day scholars see the films as cliche ridden, sexist, racist, and naive. They are, however, still relevant to present day views. In some ways our identity and self awareness as American's is derived from those films and the notions expressed in them. The line between propaganda and reality is not just blurred, it no longer exists.
posted on December 18, 2000 11:12:40 AM new
Oh, boring, James.
He's a guy who's been here for quite a while, but is rarely seen anymore. Irene can give you his name if she wants, I'd probably give a wrong one. My inclination is to say socrfan2.
In the meantime, have some:
On Jan. 1, 1863, U.S. President Abraham Lincoln declared free all slaves residing in territory in rebellion against the federal government. This Emancipation Proclamation actually freed
few people. It did not apply to slaves in border states fighting on the Union side; nor did it affect slaves in southern areas already under Union control. Naturally, the states in rebellion
did not act on Lincoln's order. But the proclamation did show Americans-- and the world--that the civil war was now being fought to end slavery.
Lincoln had been reluctant to come to this position. A believer in white supremacy, he initially viewed the war only in terms of preserving the Union. As pressure for abolition mounted in Congress and the country, however, Lincoln became more sympathetic to the idea. On Sept. 22, 1862, he issued a preliminary proclamation announcing that emancipation would become effective on Jan. 1, 1863, in those states still in rebellion. Although the Emancipation Proclamation did not end slavery in America--this was achieved by the passage of the 13TH Amendment to the Constitution on Dec. 18, 1865--it did make that accomplishment a basic war goal and a virtual certainty.
posted on December 18, 2000 11:20:03 AM new
actually stusi you are still wrong on that Judiasm discussion but I ain't mad at you. I it see as your interpretation based on your moral values. I can live with that. And in this discussion I haven' breached humility at all. I made a point and supported it. As I do with most of my points if not all of them. And I can't be wrong if you or anyone else for that matter have yet to ever render any facts to support your position.
In fact instead of supporting facts you in particularly run to the moderators or fly to a random spelling error. So since we are on the subject explain why such eloquent but simple words like say those of the Preamble of The Constitution required 5 amendments so certain folks could clearly understand "We The People" means all the people. Strange that some people thought I was looking for those to quote one poster.
I am getting ready for all the variations of "My country right or wrong."
another even got upset when it was a philosophical question. I'll quote them too.
[i]Why didnt you just say that you wanted to force your views of what it is to be an American in the first place Networker?
You could have left those of us who spoke from the heart out of your little game. [/i]
Can't see where I forced a view one way or another, I presented it and was questioned by my committement to it by codasuarus who seems to feel all issues require a moral right or wrong be resolved. I answered that question from my perspective as posted and supported it. I know its an Irritating little habit of mine. And you seem to have this feeling, "How dare him espouse opinions with supporting facts". In fact as I said when I posted what I feel makes us American. I won't comment one way or the other on anyone elses reply. Because it was a philosophical question. It requires you to draw from your own historical perspective of what this big melting pot of America means to you. I gave mine and an example of it in action.
Had another poster and again I'll quote express an opinion about amendments.
Hogwash. The amendments are guarantees, in writing, and cannot be denied.
If you read those Amendments you discover that exactly 13 give rights to the people. 7 clarify language of the Articles of the Constitution. 1 attempted to address a moral issue another corrects that mistake. 1 gives the Government a right we all accept is neccassary. 1 takes away what should have never been a right or priviledge in the first place. 2 clarify issues surrounding women and minorities. 1 sets the standard of age of responsibility. 1 stops Congress from raising its pay without the people deciding if they deserve it.
Again just the facts on those constitutional amendments. Posted only because I still beleive that in America today we could strike amendments 13, 15, 19 and nothing would change. I wouldn't and couldn't be forced back into slavery and could still with women vote. But unfortunately some Americans seem to need clarity in what "We The People" means. And I find that rather shocking especially when all of this reached this point because someone feels that exertion of freedoms requires a moral sense of right. When IMHO it has nothing to do with morals its all about principles and respect of one another's freedoms. I apologize if you didn't get it.
"A believer in white supremacy, he initially viewed the war only in terms of preserving the Union."
This statement is not inconsistent with Lincoln being opposed to slavery. I believe there exist ample statements of Lincoln's opposition to slavery (made before he became President).
And when confronted with the dissolution of the Union it was only reasonable and natural to give priority to restoring the Union.
posted on December 18, 2000 11:40:48 AM newactually stusi you are still wrong on that Judiasm discussion but I ain't mad at you.
Networker, I definitely appreciate your perspective on things, but the God of Judaism is most certainly not named Jehova, by any stretch. Written Hebrew had no vowels until the 9th century. The series of consonants, YHVH, is the name of God, but as it was not spoken out loud except for by the High Priest in the Temple Yom Kippur service, the correct way to vocalize YHVH had been lost many centuries ago (although some specualate that an oral tradition was and is passed down on the correct way to pronounce it, but that is certainly unknown to anyone besides those that might have this tradition). Two possible conjectures are Yehova and Yahveh (there is no W or real J sound in Hebrew), both both are just that, conjectures as there are many other ways the four consonants, YHVH, could conceivably be pronounced.
posted on December 18, 2000 11:42:24 AM new
I'll cede that point, krs.
My point, however, had more to do with the presentation, palatability, and enduring effects of those and similar films on our national identity. I think the prevailing modern perspective is still colored by the powerful images of the recent past.
posted on December 18, 2000 11:49:23 AM new
It doesn't matter so much who started the war as to why the war was started. Isn't it true that one of the "hot" issues of the day in America was abolition? It was inevitable that slavery would ultimately be abolished, the question was how. As I understand it, the South opted by and large to remove themselves from the Union to prevent what they considered innapropriate intervention by the Fed. gov in their affairs, one of which was slavery. It's true that the Emancipation Proclamation was made at the time it was to spite the South, but you can't say it wasn't going to come at some point anyway. (or can you? I know someone will...)
posted on December 18, 2000 11:52:25 AM new
Networker67,
"codasuarus who seems to feel all issues require a moral right or wrong be resolved"
Not at all. Only issues where the exercise of one right or freedom encroachs on the exercise of another right or freedom. In these instances there is no principle of law that I know of to decide which right takes preference. It is up to the moral sense of the judge or jury to decide which takes preference.
Or do you think that when a judge or jury renders a verdict that is contrary to your own opinion on the matter that the judge or jury must simply be mistaken in their interpretation of the law? That if the verdict is so contrary to your beliefs that it outrages you it is not because of your sense of morality but your sense of what the law means?
