TheProgressivePatriot
Platinum Member
Introduction and Background
For some time now (1) emilynghiem | US Message Board
Political Discussion Forum and I have been sparring over various social and legal issues from decidedly different philosophies and perspectives. Those differences most often centered on LGBT issues, as has the most recent encounter:
Supreme Court justices RIP ruling forcing states to recognize same-sex marriages - 'Threat To Religious Freedom!' | Page 45 | US Message Board Political Discussion Forum
It would be a gross understatement to say that we have differing views of the role of government in relation to social issues. Emely is a self-described Constitutionalist (1) which seems to fit well with her view that the courts should not be creating rights such as “gay marriage” but rather, should adhere to a more literal and limited view of the constitution.
While I believe in a living constitution, her views are more akin to a Textualist or Originalist interpretation. While there are nuanced differences among those modes of interpretation, the common denominator is a bent toward a conservative, as opposed to a progressive Moral Reasoning (2) approach. Lastly, the Constitutionalism being referred to is not to be confused with Living Constitutionalism(3) ( References appear below)
Adding to our differences is the fact that Emily has been adamant about accommodating all ideologies and points of view, imagining some sort of fantasy land were everyone could live as they wish in an environment free of conflict, as though that would be possible . I naturally took umbrage to that suggestion, the reasons for which I make clear in my letter. While at first I thought that taking such a position was the product of misguided idealism, I have come to see it in a different light, Now the letter
______________________________________________________________
Dear Emily,
The time has come to be direct and cut to the chase. You have been presenting yourself as someone who seeks to create some sort of Utopian promise land where everyone’s needs, beliefs and political ideologies are accommodated, although you have never actually explained how that would work in reality. The best that you offered was vague references to organizing people according to the beliefs by political parties or churches.
For a long while, I allowed myself to believe that this was all simply due to idealistic naiveite on your part. However, as we go along, I can not help be to conclude that there is something sinister and nefarious about your politics and philosophy. Your insistence on presenting all ideologies as equally deserving of consideration- where the oppressor is given a seat at the table alongside of the oppressed while government stays out of the way is a form of social Darwinism, and it is dangerous. Equality, which you claim to seek will never be achieved by subjecting one group to the capricious and arbitrary whims of the other when the balance of power is inherently unequal, and I think that you know it.
All ideologies are not equal because they have different impacts on different groups. The difference often comes down to-on one hand- the desire extend rights to others while doing so has little or no impact on those who oppose those rights. On the other hand you have those who are seeking to withhold rights and forcing others to live according to the beliefs and prejudices because of some irrational and nebulous fear.
Attempting to accommodate and appease all ideologies regardless of their agenda and intentions, while promoting limited government and a toothless judiciary is to empower the forces of tyranny. To do so in the name of greater freedom and equality is disingenuous and opprobrious. The simple fact is –that while the bestowing of rights does not have to be a zero sum game - there are certain groups, if given free reign, will indeed trample on and diminish the rights of others out of the irrational fear that allowing those rights will cost them something
I have (slightly) more respect for those who are upfront with their intentions to discriminate against and marginalize others, than I do for people who claim that they want freedom for all and push these Constitutionalist or Libertarian arguments as a means towards that end. Libertarians especially are fond of bleating about “freedom” and a limited government that does not intrude of people's lives. They shy away from promoting laws that they perceive as oppressive. They are also quick to shun measures like hate crime and anti discrimination laws. As such, they give a green light to those outside of government to do the dirty work for them. The result is that some are more free than others, but in reality no one is free until we are all free.
In any case, the outcome can only be socially regressive, which is why I found it especially laughable that you, at one point suggested that you are progressive. Progressives believe in progress. I am for moving forward. Your policies and philosophy would clearly take us backward. Game over Emily. You fool me no more .
Regards, Progresive Patriot
PS There were not “fine people on both sides” as Trump proclaimed after the Charlottesville Va. killing of Heather Heyer as Trump proclaimed.
________
Note(1) A constitutionalist is someone who believes in the principles of limited government and individual rights. The term is often used to describe someone who wants to adhere strictly to the constitution. It can also be used more generally to describe someone who believes that government should be limited by constitutional law.
What Is a Constitutionalist? - Constitution of the United States
Note (2) Another approach to constitutional interpretation is based on moral or ethical reasoning—often broadly called the ethos of the law. 1 Under this approach, some constitutional text employs or makes reference to terms that are infused with (and informed by) certain moral concepts or ideals, such as equal protection or due process of law. 2
Moral Reasoning and Constitutional Interpretation | Constitution ...
Note (3) The Living Constitution, or judicial pragmatism, is the viewpoint that the United States Constitution holds a dynamic meaning that evolves and adapts to new circumstances even if the document is not formally amended. The Constitution is said to develop alongside society's needs and provide a more malleable tool for governments.
Living Constitution - Wikipedia
For some time now (1) emilynghiem | US Message Board
Political Discussion Forum and I have been sparring over various social and legal issues from decidedly different philosophies and perspectives. Those differences most often centered on LGBT issues, as has the most recent encounter:Supreme Court justices RIP ruling forcing states to recognize same-sex marriages - 'Threat To Religious Freedom!' | Page 45 | US Message Board
Political Discussion ForumIt would be a gross understatement to say that we have differing views of the role of government in relation to social issues. Emely is a self-described Constitutionalist (1) which seems to fit well with her view that the courts should not be creating rights such as “gay marriage” but rather, should adhere to a more literal and limited view of the constitution.
While I believe in a living constitution, her views are more akin to a Textualist or Originalist interpretation. While there are nuanced differences among those modes of interpretation, the common denominator is a bent toward a conservative, as opposed to a progressive Moral Reasoning (2) approach. Lastly, the Constitutionalism being referred to is not to be confused with Living Constitutionalism(3) ( References appear below)
Adding to our differences is the fact that Emily has been adamant about accommodating all ideologies and points of view, imagining some sort of fantasy land were everyone could live as they wish in an environment free of conflict, as though that would be possible . I naturally took umbrage to that suggestion, the reasons for which I make clear in my letter. While at first I thought that taking such a position was the product of misguided idealism, I have come to see it in a different light, Now the letter
______________________________________________________________
Dear Emily,
The time has come to be direct and cut to the chase. You have been presenting yourself as someone who seeks to create some sort of Utopian promise land where everyone’s needs, beliefs and political ideologies are accommodated, although you have never actually explained how that would work in reality. The best that you offered was vague references to organizing people according to the beliefs by political parties or churches.
For a long while, I allowed myself to believe that this was all simply due to idealistic naiveite on your part. However, as we go along, I can not help be to conclude that there is something sinister and nefarious about your politics and philosophy. Your insistence on presenting all ideologies as equally deserving of consideration- where the oppressor is given a seat at the table alongside of the oppressed while government stays out of the way is a form of social Darwinism, and it is dangerous. Equality, which you claim to seek will never be achieved by subjecting one group to the capricious and arbitrary whims of the other when the balance of power is inherently unequal, and I think that you know it.
All ideologies are not equal because they have different impacts on different groups. The difference often comes down to-on one hand- the desire extend rights to others while doing so has little or no impact on those who oppose those rights. On the other hand you have those who are seeking to withhold rights and forcing others to live according to the beliefs and prejudices because of some irrational and nebulous fear.
Attempting to accommodate and appease all ideologies regardless of their agenda and intentions, while promoting limited government and a toothless judiciary is to empower the forces of tyranny. To do so in the name of greater freedom and equality is disingenuous and opprobrious. The simple fact is –that while the bestowing of rights does not have to be a zero sum game - there are certain groups, if given free reign, will indeed trample on and diminish the rights of others out of the irrational fear that allowing those rights will cost them something
I have (slightly) more respect for those who are upfront with their intentions to discriminate against and marginalize others, than I do for people who claim that they want freedom for all and push these Constitutionalist or Libertarian arguments as a means towards that end. Libertarians especially are fond of bleating about “freedom” and a limited government that does not intrude of people's lives. They shy away from promoting laws that they perceive as oppressive. They are also quick to shun measures like hate crime and anti discrimination laws. As such, they give a green light to those outside of government to do the dirty work for them. The result is that some are more free than others, but in reality no one is free until we are all free.
In any case, the outcome can only be socially regressive, which is why I found it especially laughable that you, at one point suggested that you are progressive. Progressives believe in progress. I am for moving forward. Your policies and philosophy would clearly take us backward. Game over Emily. You fool me no more .
Regards, Progresive Patriot
PS There were not “fine people on both sides” as Trump proclaimed after the Charlottesville Va. killing of Heather Heyer as Trump proclaimed.
________
Note(1) A constitutionalist is someone who believes in the principles of limited government and individual rights. The term is often used to describe someone who wants to adhere strictly to the constitution. It can also be used more generally to describe someone who believes that government should be limited by constitutional law.
What Is a Constitutionalist? - Constitution of the United States
Note (2) Another approach to constitutional interpretation is based on moral or ethical reasoning—often broadly called the ethos of the law. 1 Under this approach, some constitutional text employs or makes reference to terms that are infused with (and informed by) certain moral concepts or ideals, such as equal protection or due process of law. 2
Moral Reasoning and Constitutional Interpretation | Constitution ...
Note (3) The Living Constitution, or judicial pragmatism, is the viewpoint that the United States Constitution holds a dynamic meaning that evolves and adapts to new circumstances even if the document is not formally amended. The Constitution is said to develop alongside society's needs and provide a more malleable tool for governments.
Living Constitution - Wikipedia
