I live in a rural (red, #DonaldTrump supporting) county and the local library is hosting this program, Dissent and...
I live in a rural (red, #DonaldTrump supporting) county and the local library is hosting this program, Dissent and National Security in the Founding Era. Although it's supposed to be non-partisan, all the books they're promoting are conservative in nature and now the discussion in the room seems to be all pro-conservstive ideologies.
Comments
Edit: Just did a search - nope. You're free to say whatever the fuck you want. Lawyers WILL use what was said during a hate act (crime) though.
They also often believe that the idea of "Separation of Church and State" is in the Constitution. It is not. Properly read, Article I is all about keeping the State out of the Church and not the inverse.
Because of gross ignorance, poor education, and willful misrepresentation, people forget the historical context of the entire concept. That being King Henry VIII tossing the Catholic Church and creating his own lite version that allowed divorce just so he could get divorced, marry his mistress, and have a legitimate male heir. To make sure they did what he wanted, he made himself (the Monarchy) the head of the Church. This is specifically the type of meddling in their religion that the Founding Fathers were trying to prevent. Not, for example, preventing prayer in schools or Ten Commandments plaques in court houses. The former which was pretty much a defacto standard in schools at the time and up until the middle of the last century, and the latter which probably wasn't unheard of, and certainly not un-Constitutional.
The problem really is about the view of the Constitution. The Right typically views the Constitution as a fixed set up rules and guidelines not meant to be fiddled with in order to protect them from being fiddled out of existence.
The Left chooses to view the Constitution as everything from a rough set of guidelines meant to bend and change with the flow of the prevailing societal winds, to an annoyance that prevents them from implementing their will (not hyperbole, Ginsberg has said pretty much exactly that).
The latter group is responsible for creating the rulings and opinions that have created such concepts as the modern idea of Separation of Church and State and Judicial Activism.
These are the facts of the matter, but of course some people do not like these facts and want to change them. That's their right. It's also the right of others to try and stop them. The conflict is eternal.
Forget about the past, forget about the Constitution.....
Is everything alright right now?
Are you happy?
Do you like what's happening?
"...and if I'm not mistaken you're Canadian, which I don't raise to state that you don't have the ability to know the US...."
Well, to ease your concerns on this, I lived in the U.S. as a (LEGAL) immigrant for several decades, and I lived and worked in more of it than most Americans I know. Aside from that I am married to an American, and have two American brothers so I get my fill of the "American Perspective".
The difference is I'm not indoctrinated to accept either the Right or Left versions of American thinking. I have the ability to view it as an outsider, while understanding it like an insider.
Wow, clearly you have a different perspective of what's going on than I do and I don't really want to get into that.
Regarding the direction, I'm happier about where I see it headed now than where it was headed between 2000 and 2016.
You probably would be too if you got outside and looked around the country and figured out for yourself what's going on rather than relying on others to tell you what's going on.