I've never read that guy. I was raised in a racist household, but I've never had anyone try to tell me that blacks or any other race weren't human. I've read posts at FSTDT, where people said they were apes, and putting clothes on them didn't make them not apes. It's a little funny and sad when I first read the post, and the person was talking about the "ape" in the store. I'm like what is an ape doing in the store, because it's just an alien concept to me.

I was told not to play with them, and when I was older I was told not to date them, but I was never told they were a different species.

(December 15, 2013 at 11:26 pm)Brakeman Wrote: ...it is the current population of Americans that honor an evolved constitution that protects us.

We are supposed to be a country ruled by laws, not men. The danger of an 'evolved' constitution is that it allows our rulers to slowly undermine its protections by making it mean what they want.

(December 15, 2013 at 11:26 pm)Brakeman Wrote: The constitution is only as powerful as the ruling class want it to be.

The ruling class is only as powerful as the people allow it to be. If we do not hold them to what the constitution says vs. what they want it say then we invite tyranny, example: Kelo

Quote:The danger of an 'evolved' constitution is that it allows our rulers to slowly undermine its protections by making it mean what they want.

It also enabled us to free the slaves and let women vote.

I realize these things are probably unimportant to you...........

Any laws need to change over time. That's why the bible is so outdated nowadays. It's best to go with a plan that maximizes happiness for everyone, while minimizing harm. By everyone, I mean everyone. No ifs, ands, or buts. Problems arise when you get this us vs them mentality.

(December 16, 2013 at 9:24 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: We are supposed to be a country ruled by laws, not men. The danger of an 'evolved' constitution is that it allows our rulers to slowly undermine its protections by making it mean what they want.

"Supposed" is a key word there, but an evolving constitution assumes that we as people learn from our mistakes and grow in our compassion. Our founding fathers were men of their time and not perfect. They knowingly made concessions to several competing interests during the formation of the constitution. They hoped we would make it better with time, not worse, but they knew if the worse came that a revolution would reset the clock so to speak.

(December 16, 2013 at 9:24 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(December 15, 2013 at 11:26 pm)Brakeman Wrote: The constitution is only as powerful as the ruling class want it to be.

The ruling class is only as powerful as the people allow it to be. If we do not hold them to what the constitution says vs. what they want it say then we invite tyranny, example: Kelo

How do you plan on holding them to the constitution? We've had two presidents now that have ignored it in big ways. How do you propose to hold them accountable?

[quote='Kitanetos' pid='562282' dateline='1386904794']
[quote]Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association said Tuesday that the founding fathers intended the First Amendment to only protect Christianity, not Islam or any other religions.

On his radio program, called Focal Point, Fischer said the word “religion” in the First Amendment referred to Christianity alone. That is why, according to Fischer, Satanists cannot seek equal representation at the Oklahoma statehouse grounds. [/quote]

Hmm. Let me see if I can get it straight:

[quote]Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[/quote]
Where does any of this say "Christians only?"

[quote]“At the time of the founding [of the United States], 99.8 percent of the population of the colonies were Christians. The other 0.2 percent were Jews,” he said.[/quote]
I can't help but notice that someone's missing from this equation... and I'm not even talking about the atheists and people who didn't go for organised religion; I'm talking about the "pagan" Native Americans who were still in the colonies and being decimated.


[quote]“They weren’t providing any cover or shelter for the free exercise of Islam or even Judaism or even atheism.[/quote]
Nice to know you don't think that Jews have a right to their own religion under the Constitution, Bryan. With enlightened views like those, it's no wonder RationalWiki counts you as being "batshit crazy."

[quote] They weren’t saying you can’t do it — I want to be clear on that — they weren’t prohibiting that, they were just saying that is not what we are talking about here.”[/quote]
Well, as I can see, the text seems to state that their religion has no place in government, but, otherwise, we've got no quarrel with your religious practices. That's what "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" means.

(December 16, 2013 at 9:24 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: We are supposed to be a country ruled by laws, not men. The danger of an 'evolved' constitution is that it allows our rulers to slowly undermine its protections by making it mean what they want.

And if the world remained completely static and new things never popped up, you might have a point. Oh, and also if the government wasn't beholden to the people in the form of elections.

But if we lived in a world where things change and people learn things, it'd be more weird to stubbornly stick to a set of old laws that would soon be outpaced by the country they supposedly serve.

(December 16, 2013 at 9:07 pm)Chad32 Wrote: I was told not to play with them, and when I was older I was told not to date them, but I was never told they were a different species.

My mom said something like, "I know they're people just like we are, but I don't want you to date a black woman." Which she didn't really have to worry because I've never been attracted to black women. But I wonder how she'd have felt had I come home with an Asian woman from the Philippines...

I'm not really attracted to most black women either. Some I have found cute, but I doubt any black woman would be worth the risk of alienating my family. I rely on them because I'm kind of the Jethro of my family, if you know what I mean.

I find Japanese people attractive, but they're pretty white.

I find men of any race attractive. I have been with a black man, though I have not been with Latino or Asian men.