In fact, when church and state are concerned, you often see liberals deciding to force the church to comply with the state, violating a constitutional law.
The problem here is that the Constitution doesn't say that. Churches are not granted exemption from the law in the Constitution; rather, the government cannot pass a law regarding an establishment of religion. "No murder" is an acceptable law for a church to be bound by according to the Constitution. "No murder, unless it's part of a religious ceremony" is arguably acceptable under certain readings of "establishment of religion", since it doesn't have to do with any establishment, instead being a general rule. "No murder, unless it's demanded by Catholic doctrine regarding witches", is inarguably an unacceptable law because it is a law regarding a particular religious establishment.
For that matter, I don't see an inherent value in the Constitution. It's a practical tool, to be sure, and exceptionally well-crafted considering the social changes since its creation and the degree to which so much of it actually is still applicable. But let's not make a golden calf out of adherence to the letter of the law written on a piece of paper. If nothing else, respect is better demonstrated by attempting to understand
why it was written the way it was, and hoping to change it to meet those same goals. To do otherwise is akin to refusing to adopt the printing press, because it's traditionally understood that the best way to produce many copies of literature is to encourage people to become monastic scribes.
Unfortunately, "why" is ambiguous. It's the same problem as I encounter pretty much on a weekly basis with D&D, only on a far vaster scale and with stuff that actually matters (which, regardless of one's opinion on the value of recreation and tabletop roleplaying, does not include the status of a kobold as a true dragon, to pick an arbitrary example).
EDIT: Oh, and, uh. I kinda got caught up in a stream of consciousness there, but I also meant to say that Nadaka's being way too black and white about what "a conservative" is. When you're telling somebody how they define themselves, that is a bit of a problem. And more tact would be nice:
Nadaka, whether or not conservatives deserve whatever vitriol you can throw their way (I'm not convinced that they do, but let's say for the sake of argument that I'm wrong on that), all you're going to do is give them ammunition for ignoring what you actually want to say, solidifying their own biases, and more importantly, make them look like the underdogs to third parties. I hope you realize that, even if you're completely right, you're doing the best possible job of undermining yourself, and any liberal who actually wants to post in a thread that doesn't revolve into a circlejerk of "Ha ha, yeah, Republicans suck" because we've scared off any potential differing viewpoints. I'd much rather convince them, personally, but that's just me.
Author
Topic: Is America being "conservative" good? (Read 25983 times)