The Constitution in a Multicultural Society

[Uncensored2008]

a. The Constitution takes precedence over religious loyalties.
That is true for two of the three major religions.

@PoliticalChic
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."
or
"The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."
which is more important to you?

Why does it matter, since they don't conflict.

 

[ogibillm]

a. The Constitution takes precedence over religious loyalties.
That is true for two of the three major religions.

@PoliticalChic
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."
or
"The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."
which is more important to you?

Why does it matter, since they don't conflict.

She said the Constitution takes precedence over religious loyalties. I'm just curious if she really believes that.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

The origination and the history of cultural Marxism is well-documented. —M. D. Rawlings​

Here we go!

The idea of Cultural Marxism theory reached greater prominence, particularly in Europe, when it was established that Norwegian white nationalist Anders Behring Breivik, who killed dozens of people in 2011, had placed this view of "cultural marxism" as a cornerstone of his ideology, placing a copy of William Lind's 2004 pamphlet on the subject at the beginning of his manifesto. Breivik's manifesto "explicitly equates liberalism and multiculturalism with cultural Marxism, something Breivik says is destroying European Christian civilization." This view was adopted by European white nationalists from American ones, and is grounded in the claim that Cultural Marxism has suppressed white nationalism and racial identity, while African Americans and Latinos have been able to build a strong cultural identity and institutions. As Jared Taylor put it in 2004, "Racial pride is fine for blacks and everyone else, but verboten... for whites. Not just American whites mind you, but all whites everywhere."

Frankfurt School conspiracy theory

We regret to interrupt the irregular programing of g5000's most recent episode of The Twilight Zone, but we must insist on getting back to reality and the topic of the OP. . . .


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=552
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism

The Institute emerged from a week-long symposium held in Ilmenau, Germany in 1922. The First Marxist Workweek was organized and funded by German-Argentinean agricultural magnate Felix Weil with the purpose of combining the different trends of Marxism. The symposium was attended by Georg Lukács, Karl Korsch, Karl August Wittfogel, and Friedrich Pollock, among others. The event was reportedly so successful that Weil set about erecting a building and funding salaries for a permanent "Institute for Marxism" modeled upon the Marx-Engels Institute in Moscow.

In 1923, with the help of the German Communist Party, the Institute for Social Research was opened at Frankfurt University with Carl Grünberg as its first Director.

The initial work at the Institute was oriented towards exploring Marxism as a scientific and economic methodology, but after the death of Grünberg and the temporary directorship of Pollock, Jewish Marxist Max Horkheimer was appointed the to the chair and changed the direction of the Institute from promoting an orthodox Marxist philosophy to what would later be called "cultural Marxism," better known as "political correctness."

http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School​

Critical Theory, like Political Correctness, is a polite term for multiculturalism, which is a euphemism for Marxism that is used to conceal its true ideology. Ergo, Critical Theory is Marxism. It is a concept developed by a group of Marxist German intellectuals at the Frankfurt School in Frankfurt Germany where they created Cultural Marxism to replace economic Marxism. It was integral to their goal of completely destroying the values, morals, social structure, and culture of Western Civilization and replacing them with Marxist ideology that was considered as utopian. They envisioned this as being achieved through a peaceful cultural revolution that used academia, the media, and communications to propagate their message to pave the way towards egalitarianism and ultimately a totalitarian state.

http://suthenboy.com/scriptfolder-blog/preview_archive.php?id=4&p=&search= ​

 

[ScienceRocks]

The only reason it has "kind" of worked up to now is because only one culture dominates.

 

[PoliticalChic]

@PoliticalChic - Is the Sermon on the Mount more important to you than the repeal of prohibition?
"blessed are the alcohol makers, for they are the spreaders of joy"

As a novel approach, how about you stick to what I actually say.

i have. you claimed that the constitution was paramount over religion for 2 of 3 major religions.

so i'm just asking you which is more important to you?

Nonsense.

This is a secular society,not a theocracy.

Americans obey the Constitution....unless they are Liberal Democrats, for whom it is merely a suggestion.

Mark 12:17
And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marvelled at him.

 

[ogibillm]

@PoliticalChic - Is the Sermon on the Mount more important to you than the repeal of prohibition?
"blessed are the alcohol makers, for they are the spreaders of joy"

As a novel approach, how about you stick to what I actually say.

i have. you claimed that the constitution was paramount over religion for 2 of 3 major religions.

so i'm just asking you which is more important to you?

Nonsense.

This is a secular society,not a theocracy.

Americans obey the Constitution....unless they are Liberal Democrats, for whom it is merely a suggestion.

Mark 12:17
And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marvelled at him.

i'm glad you recognize that we do not live in a theocracy.

now, do you still believe that the constitution takes precedence over religion for 2 of 3 religions? or have you realized that was a stupid statement?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Uncensored and PoliticalChic, I would like to help you make your transition to White Natonalism a little easier. You have adopted many of their phrases and outlooks on life, so let me give you another term they use for people like me who are right wing conservatives who hate bigoted WN assholes like yourselves.

They call us "cultural marxists".

Go ahead. Use it. See how well it feels as it rolls off your tongue, little fuhrers! Doesn't it just perfectly encapsulate what has been boiling in your alleged brains?

Just as gays felt a lot of relief when they came out of the closet, you and PoliticalChic, too, can enjoy that same freeing sensation as you both come out as White Nationalists.

"A court decision issued last month about same-sex marriage received almost no news coverage in the United States, yet the decision could have significant implications when the U.S. Supreme Court decides whether the Constitution requires it.

The case, Hamalainen v. Finland, was decided by the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights, which ruled in an overwhelming majority opinion that no right to same-sex marriage exists under the European Convention on Human Rights.

The European Court of Human Rights is no ordinary court. It is the supreme human rights court in Europe and has jurisdiction over 47 European nations."
KISKA La RUE Europe stands strong for traditional definition of marriage - Washington Times

 

[ogibillm]

Uncensored and PoliticalChic, I would like to help you make your transition to White Natonalism a little easier. You have adopted many of their phrases and outlooks on life, so let me give you another term they use for people like me who are right wing conservatives who hate bigoted WN assholes like yourselves.

They call us "cultural marxists".

Go ahead. Use it. See how well it feels as it rolls off your tongue, little fuhrers! Doesn't it just perfectly encapsulate what has been boiling in your alleged brains?

Just as gays felt a lot of relief when they came out of the closet, you and PoliticalChic, too, can enjoy that same freeing sensation as you both come out as White Nationalists.

"A court decision issued last month about same-sex marriage received almost no news coverage in the United States, yet the decision could have significant implications when the U.S. Supreme Court decides whether the Constitution requires it.

The case, Hamalainen v. Finland, was decided by the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights, which ruled in an overwhelming majority opinion that no right to same-sex marriage exists under the European Convention on Human Rights.

The European Court of Human Rights is no ordinary court. It is the supreme human rights court in Europe and has jurisdiction over 47 European nations."
KISKA La RUE Europe stands strong for traditional definition of marriage - Washington Times

why do you believe that the european court of human rights would have an impact on the supreme courts rulings on a constitutional matter?

 

[PoliticalChic]

@PoliticalChic - Is the Sermon on the Mount more important to you than the repeal of prohibition?
"blessed are the alcohol makers, for they are the spreaders of joy"

As a novel approach, how about you stick to what I actually say.

i have. you claimed that the constitution was paramount over religion for 2 of 3 major religions.

so i'm just asking you which is more important to you?

Nonsense.

This is a secular society,not a theocracy.

Americans obey the Constitution....unless they are Liberal Democrats, for whom it is merely a suggestion.

Mark 12:17
And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marvelled at him.

i'm glad you recognize that we do not live in a theocracy.

now, do you still believe that the constitution takes precedence over religion for 2 of 3 religions? or have you realized that was a stupid statement?

Your education continues:

Although Christianity in its many varieties was the religion of the original colonies, Christianity does not preach operational dominance over the body politic in America.
Tocqueville compared this aspect to Islam:
“Mohammed professed to derive from Heaven, and has inserted in the Koran, not only religious doctrines, but political maxims, civil and criminal laws, and theories of science. The Gospel, on the contrary, speaks only of the general relations of men to God and to each other, beyond which it inculcates and imposes no point of faith. This alone, besides a thousand other reasons, would suffice to prove that the former of these religions will never long predominate in a cultivated and democratic age, while the latter is destined to retain its sway at these as at all other periods.”
Tocqueville, “Democracy in America,” vol.2, p. 23.


Now, aren't you glad you stuck around to note the veracity of my post?

Say thank you.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

1. The fact is, the Constitution, the 'law of the land,' may not be consistent with what many wish for, a multicultural society.

2. The Constitution promises freedom of thought, and of speech, yet any criticism of minority cultures, or any aspect of same endorsed by the elites, is censored from the public debate as gauche, impolite, ignorant, .....even cause for dismissal from one's employment, e.g., BrendanEich.

a. On the other hand, upon entering this nation illegally, one is perfectly able to reside, even as an antagonist, and enjoy all of the rights and privileges that are the reward of citizenship.
See Emerson, "American Jihad: The Terrorists Living Among Us."




3. Those who doubt that we can have a successful 'multicultural society' advocate an alternative idea, e.g., we should desire a political culture based on pride in this nation, with the country as the object of a common loyalty, and a secular view of law in which religion is a concern of family and society, but not of the state.
My view.

a. As a group, Liberals are largely in favor of the balkanization that follows multiculturalism.

"Liberals care less - Pew divided their sample into different categories across the left-right political spectrum. When asked if respondents “often feel proud to be American,” a majority of strong liberals, 60 percent, said no.
The only group that solidly agreed with the statement was conservatives, ranging from 72 percent to 81 percent."
Stunner: 44 percent not proud to be American | WashingtonExaminer.com





4. Often, the center of the argument is the question of religion. Is there room for religion in the public arena???

My pal, ErroneousJoe, wrote this: "And if you Wingnuts think theocracy is so bad, why do you keep trying to impose one here?"

It seems obvious that, for the Left, religion should be excluded from all state related functions, that there must be some sort of fanatical expulsion of faith that has been practiced in America.
Not so: Religion should invest social institutions in which citizens engage: there is no reason that prayers should not occur in schools, which, after all, are not political institutions but are social institutions funded by the state. No one that I know of is endorsing religious control of the state.

a. The Constitution takes precedence over religious loyalties.
That is true for two of the three major religions.




5. Why the sudden need for 'multi-cultures' in the nation?
What is the culture of America?

Enterprise, freedom, and pursuit of success. What follows is this announcement when viewing success: "Congratulations! It is wonderful to see what you've built!" Our heritage is one in which freedom of the individual is the highest aim of government.
Scruton, "The West and The Rest."




At least, that was true in an earlier iteration of this nation.

a. It is more than surprising to see Americans tricked into believing in the collective, with the motto "You didn't build that!"

'Shocking' is the term that comes to mind.

you should probably look at actual caselaw.

the only thing "shocking" is that you, who benefitted from multiculturalism and SHOULD know what was done to people who immigrated here over the years, takes issue with multiculturalism.

that or you have a warped definition of how people are entitled to be treated under our constitution.

What case law are you alluding to? And why don't tell us what multiculturalism is in your estimation.

 

[JakeStarkey]

". . . cultural Marxism is the deconstruction of Western culture, of the influences of Christianity especially, and the expropriation of ideas and expression."

Consensus science, cultural Marxism, confirmation bias: distorted unrepresentative tools by the far right reactionaries and social cons to retrench cultural Anglo-European imperialism in the 21st century.

What those first three terms are reflects the 'complete studipity' and fear of folks who should know better but refuse to know better.

Tough to be them.

 

[ogibillm]

@PoliticalChic - Is the Sermon on the Mount more important to you than the repeal of prohibition?
"blessed are the alcohol makers, for they are the spreaders of joy"

As a novel approach, how about you stick to what I actually say.

i have. you claimed that the constitution was paramount over religion for 2 of 3 major religions.

so i'm just asking you which is more important to you?

Nonsense.

This is a secular society,not a theocracy.

Americans obey the Constitution....unless they are Liberal Democrats, for whom it is merely a suggestion.

Mark 12:17
And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marvelled at him.

i'm glad you recognize that we do not live in a theocracy.

now, do you still believe that the constitution takes precedence over religion for 2 of 3 religions? or have you realized that was a stupid statement?

Your education continues:

Although Christianity in its many varieties was the religion of the original colonies, Christianity does not preach operational dominance over the body politic in America.
Tocqueville compared this aspect to Islam:
“Mohammed professed to derive from Heaven, and has inserted in the Koran, not only religious doctrines, but political maxims, civil and criminal laws, and theories of science. The Gospel, on the contrary, speaks only of the general relations of men to God and to each other, beyond which it inculcates and imposes no point of faith. This alone, besides a thousand other reasons, would suffice to prove that the former of these religions will never long predominate in a cultivated and democratic age, while the latter is destined to retain its sway at these as at all other periods.”
Tocqueville, “Democracy in America,” vol.2, p. 23.


Now, aren't you glad you stuck around to note the veracity of my post?

Say thank you.

so you do believe that what is in the consitution takes precedence over religions law - and that for christianity there is no government that it would oppose, correct?
so that should be the end of your opposition to gay marriage and abortion, right?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Uncensored and PoliticalChic, I would like to help you make your transition to White Natonalism a little easier. You have adopted many of their phrases and outlooks on life, so let me give you another term they use for people like me who are right wing conservatives who hate bigoted WN assholes like yourselves.

They call us "cultural marxists".

Go ahead. Use it. See how well it feels as it rolls off your tongue, little fuhrers! Doesn't it just perfectly encapsulate what has been boiling in your alleged brains?

Just as gays felt a lot of relief when they came out of the closet, you and PoliticalChic, too, can enjoy that same freeing sensation as you both come out as White Nationalists.

"A court decision issued last month about same-sex marriage received almost no news coverage in the United States, yet the decision could have significant implications when the U.S. Supreme Court decides whether the Constitution requires it.

The case, Hamalainen v. Finland, was decided by the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights, which ruled in an overwhelming majority opinion that no right to same-sex marriage exists under the European Convention on Human Rights.

The European Court of Human Rights is no ordinary court. It is the supreme human rights court in Europe and has jurisdiction over 47 European nations."
KISKA La RUE Europe stands strong for traditional definition of marriage - Washington Times

why do you believe that the european court of human rights would have an impact on the supreme courts rulings on a constitutional matter?

When will you recognize that I am never wrong?
And, commensurate with that query, when will you realize that my depth of knowledge is far greater than yours?


Here....let's prove that:

1. Justice Kennedy wrote the majority in Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005) in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that it is unconstitutional to impose capital punishment for crimes committed while under the age of 18.Kennedy referred favorably to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the International Convent on Civil and Political Rights. He also cited an European Union brief.He excused himself by that these were not “controlling,” but the Court “has referred to the laws of other countries and to international authorities as instructive for its interpretation of the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of ‘cruel and unusual punishments.’ “
Roper v. Simmons - 03-633 (2005) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center


2. . In the last few years, Kennedy, Breyer, Ginsburg, O’Connor and Stevens have all invoked foreign law in making decisions and filing dissents.
Fonte, “Sovereignty or Submission,” p. 110.


a. In 2003, Breyer, Ginsburg, and O’Connor met with French president Chirac to discuss French views on the death penalty.This, as the French were a prime mover on the Council of Europe with the announced intention of “abolishing capital punishment in the United States.”
Multilateralism comes to the courts > Public Interest > National Affairs

b. “ In Grutter, Justice Ruth BaderGinsburg (joined by Justice Stephen Breyer) cited both the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (which the United States has ratified) and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (which it has not) as evidence of an “international understanding of the office of affirmative action.”In Justice Ginsburg’s view, these international conventions provide the grounds for “temporary special measures aimed at accelerating de facto equality.” Ibid.

c. “In Lawrence, Justice Anthony Kennedy prominently recurred to a friend-of-the-Court brief on foreign law and court decisions filed by Mary Robinson, the former U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, and to a key decision of the European Court of Human Rights.” Ibid.



3. So…we see the Liberal regularly attempting to marginalize American law and American history, to supplant same with foreign versions.

a. Liberals intend to replace American law. Need more proof? See Breyer’s dissent in Prinz v United States, touting European concepts over American. And in Knight v.Florida, he quotes India and even Zimbabwe.

 

[Mac1958]

The social democrats are enjoying the increasing divisions.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Uncensored describes himself above, a confirmed white nationalist.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The cultural white nationalists are coming unglued.

 

[Mac1958]

The cultural white nationalists are coming unglued.

You'll have your social democracy within 15 or 20 years, Jake, be patient.

I hope you'll be a gracious winner.

.

 

[JakeStarkey]

We have been an American social democracy since 1912 with some push backs that have always been broken. The right wing is progressive, beholden to Big Business and social conservatism, the left wing is progressive as well. Neither wing is Marxist, though the left is infected with socialism and the right with fascism.

 

[ogibillm]

3. So…we see the Liberal regularly attempting to marginalize American law and American history, to supplant same with foreign versions.

a. Liberals intend to replace American law. Need more proof? See Breyer’s dissent in Prinz v United States, touting European concepts over American. And in Knight v.Florida, he quotes India and even Zimbabwe.

just so we're clear here, you're saying that liberal's are attempting to supplant us law with international law, until you agree with it, and then it's okay.
can you show a case not dealing with the 8th amendment that has used foreign law and court cases as a deciding factor?

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. The fact is, the Constitution, the 'law of the land,' may not be consistent with what many wish for, a multicultural society.

2. The Constitution promises freedom of thought, and of speech, yet any criticism of minority cultures, or any aspect of same endorsed by the elites, is censored from the public debate as gauche, impolite, ignorant, .....even cause for dismissal from one's employment, e.g., BrendanEich.

a. On the other hand, upon entering this nation illegally, one is perfectly able to reside, even as an antagonist, and enjoy all of the rights and privileges that are the reward of citizenship.
See Emerson, "American Jihad: The Terrorists Living Among Us."




3. Those who doubt that we can have a successful 'multicultural society' advocate an alternative idea, e.g., we should desire a political culture based on pride in this nation, with the country as the object of a common loyalty, and a secular view of law in which religion is a concern of family and society, but not of the state.
My view.

a. As a group, Liberals are largely in favor of the balkanization that follows multiculturalism.

"Liberals care less - Pew divided their sample into different categories across the left-right political spectrum. When asked if respondents “often feel proud to be American,” a majority of strong liberals, 60 percent, said no.
The only group that solidly agreed with the statement was conservatives, ranging from 72 percent to 81 percent."
Stunner: 44 percent not proud to be American | WashingtonExaminer.com





4. Often, the center of the argument is the question of religion. Is there room for religion in the public arena???

My pal, ErroneousJoe, wrote this: "And if you Wingnuts think theocracy is so bad, why do you keep trying to impose one here?"

It seems obvious that, for the Left, religion should be excluded from all state related functions, that there must be some sort of fanatical expulsion of faith that has been practiced in America.
Not so: Religion should invest social institutions in which citizens engage: there is no reason that prayers should not occur in schools, which, after all, are not political institutions but are social institutions funded by the state. No one that I know of is endorsing religious control of the state.

a. The Constitution takes precedence over religious loyalties.
That is true for two of the three major religions.




5. Why the sudden need for 'multi-cultures' in the nation?
What is the culture of America?

Enterprise, freedom, and pursuit of success. What follows is this announcement when viewing success: "Congratulations! It is wonderful to see what you've built!" Our heritage is one in which freedom of the individual is the highest aim of government.
Scruton, "The West and The Rest."




At least, that was true in an earlier iteration of this nation.

a. It is more than surprising to see Americans tricked into believing in the collective, with the motto "You didn't build that!"

'Shocking' is the term that comes to mind.

you should probably look at actual caselaw.

the only thing "shocking" is that you, who benefitted from multiculturalism and SHOULD know what was done to people who immigrated here over the years, takes issue with multiculturalism.

that or you have a warped definition of how people are entitled to be treated under our constitution.

What case law are you alluding to? And why don't tell us what multiculturalism is in your estimation.

"And why don't tell us ...."

Us?

You have a tapeworm?

Don't be afraid to stand up by yourself....."me," not "us."



I can help you put a little iron in your spine:

"Dare to be a Daniel, Dare to stand alone
Dare to have a purpose firm, Dare to make it known!"

From From the hymn “Hold the Fort!” First Congregational Church of Chicago, Illinois.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The eugenicists were affiliated with the anti-immigration movement as well.

Eugenicists like Planned Parenthood founder Margret Sanger, leftist hero Franklin Roosevelt - who advocated "euthanasia for imbeciles?"

Funny, you read the list of Eugenicists and it is exactly the same as the list of the radical left.

Leftists were ghoulish fuckwads then, just as they are now.

Social Origins of Eugenics

Excerpt:

"The sheer number of new arrivals troubled many U.S. citizens. In the late 1870's, the annual average number of immigrants fell just short of 150,000. By the turn of the century, that number had increased to almost 800,000, and in 1907 it passed 11/4 million.

As the numbers of immigrants increased, eugenicists allied themselves with other interest groups to provide biological arguments to support immigration restriction."

You people love guilt by association arguments so much...

...love that one...