A letter to my uncle has ended up in great debates. So be it. Devout “Christians” would place the ten commandments over our courthouses and roll back liberty.
I propose an alternative. We clearly need to remind our judges and politicians that our country is founded on the spirit of liberty, no matter the words of law. I would prefer instead, to place the guiding spirit of our constitution over all court and state houses.
We hold these true.
All are equal in right of peaceful quest.
All are innocent until proven guilty of threat to peaceful quest.
It is the duty of government to secure these rights for all through regulation and justice.
I can only imagine that tyrants would oppose this and that only skeptics would debate this.
Should we place these words over our court and statehouses? Why or why not.
ItS
Peace through Liberty
r~
P.S. Any agreement or encouragement in this peaceful quest is gladly accepted. Pass it on.
I am wary of anything that says “place these words over every court and statehouse (or school.)” It’s awfully hard to find a statement that’s appropriate for every such place, let alone one that everyone agrees on.
Four times, I tried to be very eloquent in this paragraph, but I deleted the whole lot. I’ll leave you to imagine what I might have said.
I seem to have left the straight dope speechless. Again.
I was actually hoping someone would attempt a debate.
Still, I can imagine many reasons no one else responded:
It’s not worth debating because it is so clearly true.
So what, I have a good life, I have my liberty and happiness.
Whoosh.
Fear to commit to “radical” ideals.
Fear of self-incrimination.
Why should we not immediately place the pledge of liberty over our state and court houses? I think of it as a do over. Is it still not yet time to make things right?
anyone: Is this a good idea or not?
moderator: If no angel gives me a sign by the morrow, please send this thread to the pit. I wish to find out where all of the patriots and samaritans are hiding. I fear they are all held hostage.
In the meantime, if there are any understanding angels out there, please send me a sign. I need a hug.
How are you defining “peaceful quest?” Until I know this, I can’t defend everyone’s right to it.
Your affirmations are similar to, but not quite the same as, principles already laid down in some of our founding documents. The last statement, for example, comes at the protection of rights from a different angle than you’d find in the bill of rights. In there, it’s couched as, “We have these rights, and these amendments prohibit taking them away.”
Your statement asserts that “It is the duty of government to secure these rights for all through regulation and justice.” That would seem to start from a position of the rights not already being secure, and asserts that more governmental action is necessary to secure rights that the Bill of Rights says we already have.
I question the concept of posting stuff on public buildings. A sign or engraving does not have the force of law, so the posting serves no purpose, only symbolism. That is, unless your goal is creating jobs for stoneworkers and sign makers.
Because, until your terms are defined, they are nothing much than empty platitudes. I, for one, do not feel the need for yet more platitudes, no matter if they are true or not, to be placed in courthouses or capital buildings. Your statements are nothing more than reworkings of general concepts already used, and some displayed, in courthouses around the country.
I’ll weigh in as another poster who has no idea what the OP means with his little quotes. However, I do seem to recall in earlier threads that he was pushing for a view that justice is somehow seperate from law, and that judges should be more concerned with the former than the latter. It sounds wonderful and idealistic, but when put into practice, there is no guarantee it will produce the result that the OP thinks it will. If we all had the same concept of what justice is, we wouldn’t need to codify that into law.
A rather simple thing to achieve if nobody can actually understand what you’re talking about. You’ll never get a worthwhile debate going if you don’t define your terms.
Let’s take peaceful quest. Is this a quest for peace, or a quest that is peaceful? If the former, then it’s unidiomatic; if the latter, what are you actually questing for?
You see the problem? Debating with undefined terms is an exercise in futility - mere noise, signifying nothing.
My problem with posting the 10 commandments is. . . which version of the 10 commandments. In my collection of religious texts I can find 3 different versions and I’m sure there are other versions out there since the ones I have are editor selected versions from earlier texts.
While that’s an interesting technical issue, I hardly think it gets to the heart of the matter. My objection is that commandment numnero uno says not to worship any other God other than the God of the Bible. How’s that compatible with freedom of religious worhip? And only 2 of the other 10 are actually part of your criminal code (stealing and killing). Yes, the 10 Cs have historical significance, but very little to do with our legal system, and are most definitely a religious text, not a legal one.
But first it needs defining and explaining. Are you going to tell us what the hell you mean, or just let us guess and only reply when you think we’re wrong? :dubious:
It seems so clear to me; I have trouble understanding why it is not as easily understood by others.
Translate the spirit of liberty as found in the Declaration of Independence into the words of your choice. Share them with me. I am always looking for better and fewer words. These are the best thirty nine I have found to date.
These words are not only symbolic of US; it is the spirit in these words that gives our government legitimacy. Any law or authority that contradicts this spirit is not constitutional, no matter the words.
What words do you not understand? peaceful (def): Undisturbed by strife or turmoil. quest (def): The act of pursuing something; a search.
Why should a specific activity make a difference as long as it is peaceful and does not threaten another’s peace?
If you do not understand that many are still denied and prohibited from peaceful quest and pursuit of happiness, I do not know how to remove your blinders. In that case, I am sorry to say that I understand why you do not.
That is why I wish children and supreme court judges to memorize these words by heart. I am hoping they will eventually understand.
If “peaceful quest” simply means “life, liberty and the pusuit of happiness” why not stick with the original phrase, since it’s clearer. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
If LLatPoH were emblazoned on every courhouse it would strike me as empty ceremony, but not at all objectionable, since that phrase is, in fact, what this country was founded upon, not the 10C.
What you are proposing is easily recognized as a Libertarian ideal. The problem is, the US was not founded as a Libertarian ideal. Also, you are confusing the Declaration of Independence with the Constitution. The former is about severing ties with a country, the latter is about how to govern a new one. We’re a Constitutional Republic with a representative democracy for a government.
I personally think many of the founders had a fairly libertarian idea in mind for the federal government, but not for the states. If you think otherwise, you are mistaken.
Seems to me posting a succinct With Liberty and Justice for All would fit the bill perfectly, though as has been pointed out, the signs themselves have only symbolic value and aside from the make-work value of their creation and erection, serve no practical purpose whatsoever.
If anything, the OP’s suggestion reminds me of a section in Joseph Heller’s Catch 22 in which the base commander starts requiring the pilots to sign loyalty oaths, and gradually adds more and more tests until each pilot has to sing the national anthem before he’ll be allowed to eat breakfast. The 39-word proposal adds just another stone around the leg of the justice system, another meaningless bureaucratic ritual. What about the county that doesn’t want to comply because they don’t want to spend the money altering the facade of their historic courthouse, which they feel is just fine the way it is? Hit them with fines? Sanctions? Send U.S. Marshals (or specially appointed “peaceful quest police”) to shut them down?
But suppose you get 100% compliance and yet the incidence of peaceful questing does not change? Will you want to erect more reminders? At what point would you declare yourself satisfied? When does your peaceful quest reach its end?