(August 19, 2011 at 1:19 am)Atheistfreethinker Wrote:(August 19, 2011 at 1:10 am)Rhythm Wrote: While we're keeping religion out of all of those places, perhaps we should keep the pitfalls of religious thought, infallibility for example, out of our idea of the constitution. It's a minor nitpick. Welcome aboard btw.
I see your point. I have such a great respect and admiration of the constitution though. I do see it as infallible and it upsets me to no end to see religious fundamentalists and zealots try and screw it up with their superstition. Thank you for the welcome.
I highly respect the Constitution, but I don't believe it to be infallible. In fact, it's falings are why we have such disagreements on so many important matters today. I don't believe the founding fathers, or anyone who came after, intended for it to be infallible. I believe that they intended for it to be a living document subject to revision and change, but I could be wrong.
For instance, I think we could strengthen the 1st amendment to include wording that makes it clear that the separation of religion and government is not negotiable, and spell out more clearly what that means, and what freedom of expression means.
I also believe we could weaken the 2nd amendment to indicate that the right to bear arms is not absolute, and doesn't include the right for everyone to possess an assault weapon and a bazooka, particularly the mentally disturbed and criminals with violent records. But that's just me.
I also believe that the constitution can be clarified as to what states rights mean. For instance, most states have a religious test for office encoded in their own constitutions. There needs to be an amendment making it clear that this cannot be allowed.
I could go on, but I think I've gotten my point across.
'The difference between a Miracle and a Fact is exactly the difference between a mermaid and seal. It could not be expressed better.'
-- Samuel "Mark Twain" Clemens
"I think that in the discussion of natural problems we ought to begin not with the scriptures, but with experiments, demonstrations, and observations".
- Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
"In short, Meyer has shown that his first disastrous book was not a fluke: he is capable of going into any field in which he has no training or research experience and botching it just as badly as he did molecular biology. As I've written before, if you are a complete amateur and don't understand a subject, don't demonstrate the Dunning-Kruger effect by writing a book about it and proving your ignorance to everyone else! "
- Dr. Donald Prothero
-- Samuel "Mark Twain" Clemens
"I think that in the discussion of natural problems we ought to begin not with the scriptures, but with experiments, demonstrations, and observations".
- Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
"In short, Meyer has shown that his first disastrous book was not a fluke: he is capable of going into any field in which he has no training or research experience and botching it just as badly as he did molecular biology. As I've written before, if you are a complete amateur and don't understand a subject, don't demonstrate the Dunning-Kruger effect by writing a book about it and proving your ignorance to everyone else! "
- Dr. Donald Prothero
