The Constitution in a Multicultural Society

[PoliticalChic]

PC, what aspects of a multi-cultural society do you think contradict the Constitution?
concisely, and in your own words, please.
I think that answering that question will greatly elevate the conversation.

There is a great deal of unintentional humor in your post....e.g., suggesting that you can tell me how to post.

 

[Carla_Danger]

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.

More racist bullshit. I don't have freedom of speech at work, and unless you own your own company, nobody does.

Perhaps it's because you simply say dumb things, as in this post.

It's a stupid fucking thread. I can't talk to our buyers any way I want, and expect to keep my job. #1 rule at work....no talking politics or religion.



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.

1. Your language certainly supports the conclusion of my earlier post.

2.If the post is as you describe it, you're in the right place.

I take it you're unemployed.

 

[Carla_Danger]

PC, what aspects of a multi-cultural society do you think contradict the Constitution?
concisely, and in your own words, please.
I think that answering that question will greatly elevate the conversation.

There is a great deal of unintentional humor in your post....e.g., suggesting that you can tell me how to post.

Translation: I have no clue.

 

[ogibillm]

PC, what aspects of a multi-cultural society do you think contradict the Constitution?
concisely, and in your own words, please.
I think that answering that question will greatly elevate the conversation.

There is a great deal of unintentional humor in your post....e.g., suggesting that you can tell me how to post.

i'm not telling you how, i'm just asking that you clearly and concisely spell out to us in your own words which aspects of a multi-cultural society are in conflict with the Constitution.

i think making your argument succinctly will help move the conversation forward.

for instance, I may say that the Constitution guarantees a multi-cultural society, since we have been guaranteed freedom of speech, assembly, relgion, equal protection...

it's as if the framers didn't think we were all one homogeneous group, or that we would need to be in order to have a strong nation.

do you disagree with that?

 

[NYcarbineer]

PC, what aspects of a multi-cultural society do you think contradict the Constitution?
concisely, and in your own words, please.
I think that answering that question will greatly elevate the conversation.

The parts that are un-constitutional, which of course the courts can deal with. What the author of the thread is crybabying about are the rights we have to criticize conservatives.

 

[JoeNormal]

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.

Society? I thought right wingers rejected the notion that society even exists.

As a result of this post, you have no basis for ever using the word "thought."

If you can't see it's true, it's probably because you post more than you read.

 

[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.

Society? I thought right wingers rejected the notion that society even exists.

As a result of this post, you have no basis for ever using the word "thought."

If you can't see it's true, it's probably because you post more than you read.

So....it's a race to the bottom of the class between the two of you.

Good luck.

 

[JakeStarkey]

PC, what aspects of a multi-cultural society do you think contradict the Constitution?
concisely, and in your own words, please.
I think that answering that question will greatly elevate the conversation.

There is a great deal of unintentional humor in your post....e.g., suggesting that you can tell me how to post.

That unwarranted hubris of yours clearly reveals why you are not respected here or elsewhere for your natterings.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

PC, what aspects of a multi-cultural society do you think contradict the Constitution?
concisely, and in your own words, please.
I think that answering that question will greatly elevate the conversation.

There is a great deal of unintentional humor in your post....e.g., suggesting that you can tell me how to post.

i'm not telling you how, i'm just asking that you clearly and concisely spell out to us in your own words which aspects of a multi-cultural society are in conflict with the Constitution.

i think making your argument succinctly will help move the conversation forward.

for instance, I may say that the Constitution guarantees a multi-cultural society, since we have been guaranteed freedom of speech, assembly, relgion, equal protection...

it's as if the framers didn't think we were all one homogeneous group, or that we would need to be in order to have a strong nation.

do you disagree with that?

But, then, she's talking about cultural Marxism, better known today as multiculturalism or political correctness, the nature of which is patently statist, oppressive, contrary to "a multi-cultural society" that promotes unfettered "freedom of speech, assembly, religion, equal protection." Has she, I and others not provided ample information regarding what the nature of multiculturalism is and what the political persuasion of its proponents is?

I think we have, but the response that we're getting from the political left on this thread is that it doesn't exist, that it's the stuff of conspiracy. LOL! Classical liberals are just imagining institutionalized speech codes or public accommodation codes, for example, intended to marginalize, silence or sanction the expressions of the opposition.

And now we have you asking a disingenuous question as if we were not in fact exposing multiculturalism's assault on inalienable civil liberties in a diverse society.

Does PC's scorn for your suggestion make sense to you now?

How about now?

Tick Tock. Tick Tock. Tick Tock.

How about now?

 

[NYcarbineer]

[

But, then, she's talking about cultural Marxism, better known today as multiculturalism or political correctness, the nature of which is patently statist, oppressive, contrary to "a multi-cultural society" that promotes unfettered "freedom of speech, assembly, religion, equal protection." ?

And on which side of that equation does conservative opposition to equal rights for same sex couples fall?

 

[NYcarbineer]

PC, what aspects of a multi-cultural society do you think contradict the Constitution?
concisely, and in your own words, please.
I think that answering that question will greatly elevate the conversation.

There is a great deal of unintentional humor in your post....e.g., suggesting that you can tell me how to post.

i'm not telling you how, i'm just asking that you clearly and concisely spell out to us in your own words which aspects of a multi-cultural society are in conflict with the Constitution.

i think making your argument succinctly will help move the conversation forward.

for instance, I may say that the Constitution guarantees a multi-cultural society, since we have been guaranteed freedom of speech, assembly, relgion, equal protection...

it's as if the framers didn't think we were all one homogeneous group, or that we would need to be in order to have a strong nation.

do you disagree with that?

But, then, she's talking about cultural Marxism, better known today as multiculturalism or political correctness, the nature of which is patently statist, oppressive, contrary to "a multi-cultural society" that promotes unfettered "freedom of speech, assembly, religion, equal protection." Has she, I and others not provided ample information regarding what the nature of multiculturalism is and what the political persuasion of its proponents is?

I think we have, but the response that we're getting from the political left on this thread is that it doesn't exist, that it's the stuff of conspiracy. LOL! Classical liberals are just imagining institutionalized speech codes or public accommodation codes, for example, intended to marginalize, silence or sanction the expressions of the opposition.

And now we have you asking a disingenuous question as if we were not in fact exposing multiculturalism's assault on inalienable civil liberties in a diverse society.

Does PC's scorn for your suggestion make sense to you now?

How about now?

Tick Tock. Tick Tock. Tick Tock.

How about now?

When has 'multiculturalism' actually overcome the protections of rights provided in the Constitution?

 

[JakeStarkey]

she's talking about cultural Marxism, better known today as multiculturalism or political correctness,

That mimsy gyre is a made up nonsense term from the world of far right reactionary Jabberwocky.

 

[ogibillm]

PC, what aspects of a multi-cultural society do you think contradict the Constitution?
concisely, and in your own words, please.
I think that answering that question will greatly elevate the conversation.

There is a great deal of unintentional humor in your post....e.g., suggesting that you can tell me how to post.

i'm not telling you how, i'm just asking that you clearly and concisely spell out to us in your own words which aspects of a multi-cultural society are in conflict with the Constitution.

i think making your argument succinctly will help move the conversation forward.

for instance, I may say that the Constitution guarantees a multi-cultural society, since we have been guaranteed freedom of speech, assembly, relgion, equal protection...

it's as if the framers didn't think we were all one homogeneous group, or that we would need to be in order to have a strong nation.

do you disagree with that?

But, then, she's talking about cultural Marxism, better known today as multiculturalism or political correctness, the nature of which is patently statist, oppressive, contrary to "a multi-cultural society" that promotes unfettered "freedom of speech, assembly, religion, equal protection." Has she, I and others not provided ample information regarding what the nature of multiculturalism is and what the political persuasion of its proponents is?

I think we have, but the response that we're getting from the political left on this thread is that it doesn't exist, that it's the stuff of conspiracy. LOL! Classical liberals are just imagining institutionalized speech codes or public accommodation codes, for example, intended to marginalize, silence or sanction the expressions of the opposition.

And now we have you asking a disingenuous question as if we were not in fact exposing multiculturalism's assault on inalienable civil liberties in a diverse society.

Does PC's scorn for your suggestion make sense to you now?

How about now?

Tick Tock. Tick Tock. Tick Tock.

How about now?

the short answer is 'no'
you need to be able to tell us where a multi-cultural society conflicts with the constitution.
have you shown that? i must have missed it.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

PC, what aspects of a multi-cultural society do you think contradict the Constitution?
concisely, and in your own words, please.
I think that answering that question will greatly elevate the conversation.

There is a great deal of unintentional humor in your post....e.g., suggesting that you can tell me how to post.

i'm not telling you how, i'm just asking that you clearly and concisely spell out to us in your own words which aspects of a multi-cultural society are in conflict with the Constitution.

i think making your argument succinctly will help move the conversation forward.

for instance, I may say that the Constitution guarantees a multi-cultural society, since we have been guaranteed freedom of speech, assembly, relgion, equal protection...

it's as if the framers didn't think we were all one homogeneous group, or that we would need to be in order to have a strong nation.

do you disagree with that?

But, then, she's talking about cultural Marxism, better known today as multiculturalism or political correctness, the nature of which is patently statist, oppressive, contrary to "a multi-cultural society" that promotes unfettered "freedom of speech, assembly, religion, equal protection." Has she, I and others not provided ample information regarding what the nature of multiculturalism is and what the political persuasion of its proponents is?

I think we have, but the response that we're getting from the political left on this thread is that it doesn't exist, that it's the stuff of conspiracy. LOL! Classical liberals are just imagining institutionalized speech codes or public accommodation codes, for example, intended to marginalize, silence or sanction the expressions of the opposition.

And now we have you asking a disingenuous question as if we were not in fact exposing multiculturalism's assault on inalienable civil liberties in a diverse society.

Does PC's scorn for your suggestion make sense to you now?

How about now?

Tick Tock. Tick Tock. Tick Tock.

How about now?

the short answer is 'no'
you need to be able to tell us where a multi-cultural society conflicts with the constitution.
have you shown that? i must have missed it.

You're a sociopath.

 

[PoliticalChic]

[

But, then, she's talking about cultural Marxism, better known today as multiculturalism or political correctness, the nature of which is patently statist, oppressive, contrary to "a multi-cultural society" that promotes unfettered "freedom of speech, assembly, religion, equal protection." ?

And on which side of that equation does conservative opposition to equal rights for same sex couples fall?

"...conservative..."???


"The highest human rights court in Europe shattered hopes that it would judicially impose same-sex marriage when it told a male to female transsexual and his wife that a civil union should be good enough for them.

European human rights law does not require countries to “grant access to marriage to same-sex couples,” according to a judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in a case that tests the remote boundaries of possibility in law and fact.

The parties to the litigation and supporters of same-sex marriage acknowledge the result was predictable. Nevertheless the judgment has a devastating effect on gay rights in Europe, dashing hopes that same-sex “marriage” can become a reality there. The facts of the case are distinctive."
European court Gay marriage is not a human right News LifeSite

 

[NYcarbineer]

[

But, then, she's talking about cultural Marxism, better known today as multiculturalism or political correctness, the nature of which is patently statist, oppressive, contrary to "a multi-cultural society" that promotes unfettered "freedom of speech, assembly, religion, equal protection." ?

And on which side of that equation does conservative opposition to equal rights for same sex couples fall?

"...conservative..."???


"The highest human rights court in Europe shattered hopes that it would judicially impose same-sex marriage when it told a male to female transsexual and his wife that a civil union should be good enough for them.

European human rights law does not require countries to “grant access to marriage to same-sex couples,” according to a judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in a case that tests the remote boundaries of possibility in law and fact.

The parties to the litigation and supporters of same-sex marriage acknowledge the result was predictable. Nevertheless the judgment has a devastating effect on gay rights in Europe, dashing hopes that same-sex “marriage” can become a reality there. The facts of the case are distinctive."
European court Gay marriage is not a human right News LifeSite

Why do you list one court in Europe instead of the many courts in the US who have ruled the opposite?

The poster above is claiming that opposing same sex marriage rights is Marxist. You either agree with him or you don't.

Which is it?

 

[PoliticalChic]

[

But, then, she's talking about cultural Marxism, better known today as multiculturalism or political correctness, the nature of which is patently statist, oppressive, contrary to "a multi-cultural society" that promotes unfettered "freedom of speech, assembly, religion, equal protection." ?

And on which side of that equation does conservative opposition to equal rights for same sex couples fall?

"...conservative..."???


"The highest human rights court in Europe shattered hopes that it would judicially impose same-sex marriage when it told a male to female transsexual and his wife that a civil union should be good enough for them.

European human rights law does not require countries to “grant access to marriage to same-sex couples,” according to a judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in a case that tests the remote boundaries of possibility in law and fact.

The parties to the litigation and supporters of same-sex marriage acknowledge the result was predictable. Nevertheless the judgment has a devastating effect on gay rights in Europe, dashing hopes that same-sex “marriage” can become a reality there. The facts of the case are distinctive."
European court Gay marriage is not a human right News LifeSite

Why do you list one court in Europe instead of the many courts in the US who have ruled the opposite?

The poster above is claiming that opposing same sex marriage rights is Marxist. You either agree with him or you don't.

Which is it?

Habits start out like cobwebs but end up as strong as steel cables.....and, in old age, your longtime habit of lying and/or change of subject have become a sort of involuntary tic.
You're certainly not able to chart a new course at this late stage.

This post of yours, a perfect example.

Did you not claim that the view was "conservative"?

Would you continue on and claim that the EU, or the UN or "The highest human rights court in Europe" is conservative?


I certainly wouldn't put it past you, as lying is your mode of operation, isn't it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[

But, then, she's talking about cultural Marxism, better known today as multiculturalism or political correctness, the nature of which is patently statist, oppressive, contrary to "a multi-cultural society" that promotes unfettered "freedom of speech, assembly, religion, equal protection." ?

And on which side of that equation does conservative opposition to equal rights for same sex couples fall?

"...conservative..."???


"The highest human rights court in Europe shattered hopes that it would judicially impose same-sex marriage when it told a male to female transsexual and his wife that a civil union should be good enough for them.

European human rights law does not require countries to “grant access to marriage to same-sex couples,” according to a judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in a case that tests the remote boundaries of possibility in law and fact.

The parties to the litigation and supporters of same-sex marriage acknowledge the result was predictable. Nevertheless the judgment has a devastating effect on gay rights in Europe, dashing hopes that same-sex “marriage” can become a reality there. The facts of the case are distinctive."
European court Gay marriage is not a human right News LifeSite

Why do you list one court in Europe instead of the many courts in the US who have ruled the opposite?

The poster above is claiming that opposing same sex marriage rights is Marxist. You either agree with him or you don't.

Which is it?

Habits start out like cobwebs but end up as strong as steel cables.....and, in old age, your longtime habit of lying and/or change of subject have become a sort of involuntary tic.
You're certainly not able to chart a new course at this late stage.

This post of yours, a perfect example.

Did you not claim that the view was "conservative"?

Would you continue on and claim that the EU, or the UN or "The highest human rights court in Europe" is conservative?


I certainly wouldn't put it past you, as lying is your mode of operation, isn't it.

I referred to conservative opposition to same sex marriage rights. If you want to prove there is no such thing, by all means go ahead.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[

But, then, she's talking about cultural Marxism, better known today as multiculturalism or political correctness, the nature of which is patently statist, oppressive, contrary to "a multi-cultural society" that promotes unfettered "freedom of speech, assembly, religion, equal protection." ?

And on which side of that equation does conservative opposition to equal rights for same sex couples fall?

"...conservative..."???


"The highest human rights court in Europe shattered hopes that it would judicially impose same-sex marriage when it told a male to female transsexual and his wife that a civil union should be good enough for them.

European human rights law does not require countries to “grant access to marriage to same-sex couples,” according to a judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in a case that tests the remote boundaries of possibility in law and fact.

The parties to the litigation and supporters of same-sex marriage acknowledge the result was predictable. Nevertheless the judgment has a devastating effect on gay rights in Europe, dashing hopes that same-sex “marriage” can become a reality there. The facts of the case are distinctive."
European court Gay marriage is not a human right News LifeSite

Why do you list one court in Europe instead of the many courts in the US who have ruled the opposite?

The poster above is claiming that opposing same sex marriage rights is Marxist. You either agree with him or you don't.

Which is it?

Habits start out like cobwebs but end up as strong as steel cables.....and, in old age, your longtime habit of lying and/or change of subject have become a sort of involuntary tic.
You're certainly not able to chart a new course at this late stage.

This post of yours, a perfect example.

Did you not claim that the view was "conservative"?

Would you continue on and claim that the EU, or the UN or "The highest human rights court in Europe" is conservative?


I certainly wouldn't put it past you, as lying is your mode of operation, isn't it.

The poster above is claiming that opposing same sex marriage rights is Marxist. You either agree with him or you don't.

Which is it?

 

[JoeNormal]

Society? I thought right wingers rejected the notion that society even exists.

As a result of this post, you have no basis for ever using the word "thought."

If you can't see it's true, it's probably because you post more than you read.

So....it's a race to the bottom of the class between the two of you.

Good luck.

You're being obtuse. I'm sure you're aware of the views of Margaret Thatcher and Ayn Rand (two of the most worthless pieces of shit this world has ever produced) regarding society. They're probably your personal heroes / saviors.