That sort of glowing write up that stops just short of describing it as divine scripture is a good example of the sort of thing that fascinates me. Describing any historical document as perfect really drives home the this is more than letters of the law this is sacred feeling you get when Americans talk about the founding fathers
I don't know man. If I was being less charitable, I'd view your comment as coming from someone living in a comfortable mostly homogenous society that really has never struggled with existential questions. And that's a fine viewpoint to have. But it smacks of "I can't imagine being outside my bubble, so don't know why people who have different perspectives think the way they do".
If you know the history of the document, the enlightenment and revolutionary ideals it is a culmination of, and its overall place in history, you'd probably have a better appreciation of the US Constitution being more than a set of laws. Take the fact that almost every written democratic constitution in the world is very directly inspired by the US Constitution.
It's really interesting how the chosen people view themselves. After all, everyone's fReE to write their own history :ninja:
I'm not chosen lol. My entire comment was prefaced with the fact that I'm an immigrant. I did not grow up indoctrinated in "America greatest!" jingoism. I chose to uproot my life and come to this country, a choice millions others make each year, and one of the core reasons was because of the ideals that it stood for.
Not sure it's a great thing.
How do you suggest we judge a system of ideas? I'm a pretty simple person and if they sounded good in the 18th century and they sound good now, they seem pretty timeless and great to me.
"God bless America"
-Every US presidents
Sure, they can say that. But they can't force any citizen to say that. And they can't nakedly make policy with that view. It will be challenged in court, and be struck down. Atheists in this country have objected to saying the "one nation under God" line in the pledge of allegiance, and their rights have been recognised and protected.
damn, might as well skip philosophy class and study the Constitution.
What even is this? Are just being flippant for its own sake or do you have a point here? Don't want to be drawn into a pissing match with a child.
Why are Americans always comparing their country to a continent (/Europe) though ? Instead of a country. Is it because of the word "Union" ? But like, it's far from being the same stuff.
Reading comprehension, buddy.
1. I didn't compare the US to all of Europe as a united entity. "Europe" in my comment was a placeholder for individual countries in that continent.
2. For other cases, comparing the US to Europe is the fairest comparison to make, since that is what makes the area and population (both in numbers and in diversity) scales comparable.
Also, there are many different kinds of separations from church and State as there are secular countries I guess. Not every country has to be the same.
Sure. But the American constitution is pretty unambiguous about its separation. It's not a position that has evolved over time and is a "practically for all intents and purposes" bit. For reference, Europe was having multiple Catholic vs Protestant vs Orthodox vs the Caliphate wars around the time the constitution was written. Catholics were very much pariah in the UK as were Protestants in France. And for an example much closer to now, the European legal system still has room for wackiness that is burqa bans. Those would never fly in the US.
A nation supposedly dedicated to protecting its original values. Yet despite the clearly intended separation of church and state, Christianity is constantly encroaching on our government and taking away rights and allowing for anti-science policies.
There's nuance here. Lawmakers can use their sense of morality, which is often guided by their religion, to make laws. However, they cannot make laws on religious grounds alone. This will be challenged in court and thrown out.
And then there's this.
Am I crazy or is the entire article about how he's being criticised for that opinion? Fringe loonies exist everywhere, and this has nothing to do with the Constitution itself or what the founders intended.
And the people who do all of that are the ones claiming that they are the "true" defenders of the constitution.
Cool straw man fallacy you have there.