Page 3 of 12 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 119
Thanks Tree32Thanks

Thread: Here's my problem...

  1. #21
    We choose both. Amelia's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    45,643
    Thanks
    27505

    From
    Wisconsin
    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    Because the Constitution was written to be a document that would be consistently relevant, and applicable regardless of cultural, technological, or intellectual changes, and advancements. Your comment implies that the Bible can only be understood, and properly applied if read in the context of the ancient desert dwellers who wrote it. If that is the case, then why should it be recognised as anything other than an archaic book of old myths with no real relevance to today's culture?


    "was written to be a document that would be consistently relevant, and applicable regardless of cultural, technological, or intellectual changes"

    I disagree with you. The people who wrote it didn't have an inkling of the kind of cultural, technological and intellectual changes we would face today.

    Just look at the 2nd amendment and how so many today think that's out of place.

    And then move on to the 4th amendment and the challenges our current technological capabilities present to that.


    And we have "found" things in the Constitution which simply aren't there, because that was needed in order to deal with modern day sensibilities.


    The amount which our Constitution diverges from the challenges of today just seems less than how much the Bible seems to diverge because it's only 250 years away from our current time instead of thousands of years. But the divergence is significant nonetheless.

  2. #22
    Veteran Member Czernobog's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    35,411
    Thanks
    17664

    From
    Phoenix, AZ
    Quote Originally Posted by Amelia View Post
    "was written to be a document that would be consistently relevant, and applicable regardless of cultural, technological, or intellectual changes"

    I disagree with you. The people who wrote it didn't have an inkling of the kind of cultural, technological and intellectual changes we would face today.
    They didn't need to. That was why they wrote it to be a living document, able to be updated (ammended) as necessary to keep up with any changes, even those that they could never have imagined.

    Quote Originally Posted by Amelia View Post
    Just look at the 2nd amendment and how so many today think that's out of place.
    The problem isn't that the 2nd Amendment is "out of place"; it is that the courts have interpreted it in questionable ways.

    Quote Originally Posted by Amelia View Post
    And then move on to the 4th amendment and the challenges our current technological capabilities present to that.
    Which we are dealing with, still within the construct of the Constitution.

    Quote Originally Posted by Amelia View Post
    And we have "found" things in the Constitution which simply aren't there, because that was needed in order to deal with modern day sensibilities.
    Such as?

    Quote Originally Posted by Amelia View Post
    The amount which our Constitution diverges from the challenges of today just seems less than how much the Bible seems to diverge because it's only 250 years away from our current time instead of thousands of years. But the divergence is significant nonetheless.
    I don't concede that you have found any divergence.

  3. #23
    We choose both. Amelia's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    45,643
    Thanks
    27505

    From
    Wisconsin
    The "right to privacy" of Roe v. Wade was magically found in the Constitution, because it needed to be.


    Anyway, just because the writers of the Bible had different concerns from knight, that doesn't make the Bible irrelevant.

    Now, the Bible being sealed and not open for amendments is a man-made idea which not all faiths adhere to, so for some faiths the scriptures are more of a living document in the sense that the Constitution is.

  4. #24
    Veteran Member Czernobog's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    35,411
    Thanks
    17664

    From
    Phoenix, AZ
    Quote Originally Posted by Amelia View Post
    The "right to privacy" of Roe v. Wade was magically found in the Constitution, because it needed to be.


    Anyway, just because the writers of the Bible had different concerns from knight, that doesn't make the Bible irrelevant.

    Now, the Bible being sealed and not open for amendments is a man-made idea which not all faiths adhere to, so for some faiths the scriptures are more of a living document in the sense that the Constitution is.
    That's rather an oversimplification of the ruling. "Privacy" wasn't so much "found in the constitution" as much as it was found to be a necessary right in order for the rights that are protected by the Constitution to function.

    Take the fourth, for example. If individuals do not have to right of privacy, then how does one employ the Constitution to protect their right of private property against government intrusion.

    Privacy is not a right "found" in the Constitution, rather it is an implied right that is necessary in order to protect the rights that are enumerated in the Constitution.
    Thanks from Friday13

  5. #25
    HayJenn Fan Boi knight's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    8,407
    Thanks
    7652

    From
    Galaxy ZRF
    Quote Originally Posted by Amelia View Post
    Why is The Constitution considered relevant today?
    Hardly the same thing. First of all, for the most part, the constitution makes sense.

  6. #26
    HayJenn Fan Boi knight's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    8,407
    Thanks
    7652

    From
    Galaxy ZRF
    Quote Originally Posted by Amelia View Post
    The "right to privacy" of Roe v. Wade was magically found in the Constitution, because it needed to be.


    Anyway, just because the writers of the Bible had different concerns from knight, that doesn't make the Bible irrelevant.

    Now, the Bible being sealed and not open for amendments is a man-made idea which not all faiths adhere to, so for some faiths the scriptures are more of a living document in the sense that the Constitution is.
    I never meant to imply that I thought it should adhere to what I think it should be... Quite the opposite is my point, actually.

  7. #27
    We choose both. Amelia's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    45,643
    Thanks
    27505

    From
    Wisconsin
    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    ...

    Take the fourth, for example. If individuals do not have to right of privacy, then how does one employ the Constitution to protect their right of private property against government intrusion.

    ...
    That protection is directly there. One doesn't have to contrive a broader "right to privacy" in order to protect the right to private property.

  8. #28
    Veteran Member Czernobog's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    35,411
    Thanks
    17664

    From
    Phoenix, AZ
    Quote Originally Posted by Amelia View Post
    That protection is directly there. One doesn't have to contrive a broader "right to privacy" in order to protect the right to private property.
    Not what I was saying. The only reason that the fourth works is because it contains the concept of private property. The right of "privacy" is an underlying right that is acknowledged by drafting an amendment that protects "private property".

    Another example of this underlying principle is the fifth. If you do not have the right to keep your private thoughts private, then there would be no defence of protecting a person's right to not incriminate themselves.

  9. #29
    We choose both. Amelia's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    45,643
    Thanks
    27505

    From
    Wisconsin
    Another example of a specific right ... which doesn't justify the generalized right to privacy of Roe v. Wade.

    That generalized right was found because it was needed ... not because it was actually in the Constitution or even in the traditions which led to the Constitution.

  10. #30
    Veteran Member Czernobog's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    35,411
    Thanks
    17664

    From
    Phoenix, AZ
    Quote Originally Posted by Amelia View Post
    Another example of a specific right ... which doesn't justify the generalized right to privacy of Roe v. Wade.

    That generalized right was found because it was needed ... not because it was actually in the Constitution or even in the traditions which led to the Constitution.
    I would disagree. The very reasons that it was found was that it was part of the traditions, and expectations that went into crafting the Constitution. And the Supreme Court said as much in their ruling in Roe v Wade.

    And the fifth demonstrates that. "I have the right to not incriminate myself," Why? Which fundamental right affords me that guarantee?
    Last edited by Czernobog; 29th January 2018 at 10:35 PM.

Page 3 of 12 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 94
    Last Post: 27th January 2013, 02:33 PM
  2. Guns aren't the problem. HANDGUNS are the problem!!!!
    By Oscar99 in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 256
    Last Post: 9th May 2012, 03:56 PM
  3. The Debt problem is an international problem.
    By kmiller1610 in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 4th August 2011, 10:30 AM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 3rd August 2011, 09:27 PM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 30th November 2010, 09:56 AM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed