Article: Should Mormonism Disqualify a Candidate?

Pt314 · Senior Member

Article: Should Mormonism Disqualify a Candidate?

salesortonscom · Wise and Revered Master

This is an excellent article!

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

Yay! This is one of the reasons I'm glad to be a Medhead! ;)

MM is one of the few intelligent voices left on talk radio... biggrin

And he more often than not tries to be an optimist and uplifting, despite his claim that he's a curmudgeon.

A society based upon "Religious plurality" is a foreign concept to many in our country right now. And I think this is very much the case among many religious conservatives as well as diehard ACLU members.

--Ray

arbilad · Head Chef

Michael Medved wrote pretty much exactly what I think on the subject - yes, the religion of a person matters, but only if that religion is on the extreme of the bad scale. For instance, if I found out that Ron Paul is a Satanist, there is no way I'd vote for him. And you judge a religion by its fruits. LDS, as a whole, are fine, upstanding people.

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

Ron Paul's a Satanist!? Now there's no way I'm voting for him!!

--Ray

lundbaek · Profuse Pontificator

I well remember the expressed concerns about the possibility of JFK taking direction from the Vatican. That was the first time I voted. On the basis of Mitt Romney's campaigns for the US Senate and later for governor and his actioin as governor, there should be no worry about him trying to run the country on the basis of LDS doctrine or principles.

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

Which is really too bad, Right Lundie?

Cuz we should compel our neighbors to live our high moral standards... rolleyes

lundbaek · Profuse Pontificator

Would somebody be so kind as to explain the connection between expecting an LDS president, or legislator or judge, or any LDS for that matter, to uphold Gospel principles and constitutional principles, and forcing our neighbors to live our high moral standards...

Please don't bother replying until you have read "Many Are Called But Few Are Chosen" which is at www.redhotlogo.com/MACBFAC4.htm and was recommended by Ezra Taft Benson, and Elder Benson's own "The Proper Role Of Government" at http://www.usiap.org/Legacy/Addresses/ProperRoleOfGovt.html or just Google the title.

PollyAnna · Senior Bucketkeeper

Moderator hat:

I believe it's really okay if others don't understand everything we do... or even everything we THINK we understand better than they do... Could we possibly leave the sarcasm to other forums where they don't feel a responsibility to "be nice"...???

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

I guess I can't comment then -- I'm not even sure I understand what it is you are asking to be explained. Do you want folks to explain why an LDS person in public office should not force others / our neighbors to live our high moral standards or explain the reason why they should force them to?

I made it through "The Proper Role Of Government" until the end of the subsection "The Value of Local Government." Interesting, what I read. Don't know that I necessarily agree with everything that was said, but it was interesting and at a high level made sense. I understand a little better where you come from now in viewpoint, lundbaek. I'll have to finish it some other time. And, I'll have to check out the other item you reference later as well. I do disagree with one thing that was said:

It is well to remember that the states of this republic created the Federal Government. The Federal Government did not create the states. That is only true insofar as the original colonies. Every state beyond the original colonies was created / subdivided by the Federal Government or petitioned to become a state (or was annexed to the Federal Government like Hawaii and Texas). And, I don't know that the model changes the further down in government levels one goes. Counties are created by the State. Cities, towns, villages, and townships receive their official charter or right to exist as an incorporated body from the State. Subdivisions are granted the right to be built by the municipality (and although it is a sketchy and questionable connection, the "right" to governance and "taxation" by unelected subdivision committees and subdivision fees).

Anyway, thanks for the links.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

Oh, Polly... precedence has stated use of

as the moderator, not

(

)

There is something about it that just carries so much more respect and authority with the use of the former than the latter.

Of course, if you'ld rather be a

, I guess that is your right as

in this area.

PollyAnna · Senior Bucketkeeper

Personally I always feel like I am a little

Besides... Mirk is Mr.

in my brain...

FWIW... I almost chose to use

-- Edited by PollyAnna at 09:24, 2007-06-02

Convert · Veteran Member

lundbaek if an elected official on any level intends to uphold Gospel and Constitutional principles, forcing our neighbors to live high moral standards is out of the question. A key element of the Gospel is after all free agency. The Constitution was created to protect individual freedom. The two go hand in hand. Forcing another to live particular standards is actually a violation of both.

Governments and people fall prey to the temptation to direct other people's lives. People use the government to do that which they can't do themselves, pressure others into a course of action they deem correct.

Our rights under the Constitution are guaranteed to us as long as in the exercise of those rights we don't infringe on the rights of others. Our laws were to be based on the 10 Commandments. Any activity not covered by the Commandments and where no one is hurt, shouldn't require action on the part of law enforcement. If someone is hurt, then the penalty needs to be severe enough so as to discourage it being repeated or to set a standard for anyone else engaging in the same activity.

A classic example is speed limits. When did God say we couldn't drive faster than (you add the speed)? He didn't. Common sense dictates what a safe speed is in a given circumstance. Should someone fail to use common sense, then there should be serious consequences. Having an insurance company bail you out doesn't instill accountability.

As a side note. The Federal Government does not create a State. When citizens of an area petition the Federal Government for Statehood, they are not petitioning the bureaucracy. They are petitioning citizens of the other States via the elected officials. Admittance into the Union has to be approved by Congress. This procedure applies to every level of government.

It's a shame public education doesn't teach such a simple concept. But then, for those desiring big government, teaching the truth is counter-productive.

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

Lundbaek: My comments were in reply to your implication that Romney wasn't going to uphold YOUR personal mormon standards... and that you seemed to imply that Romney was a bad candidate because he respects the agency of the people he would govern.

I prefer to think I was being satirical in the fine literary sense of Jonathan Swift... and not being sarcastic in the fine literary sense of the Simpsons... :)

--Ray

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

Convert wrote:

As a side note. The Federal Government does not create a State. When citizens of an area petition the Federal Government for Statehood, they are not petitioning the bureaucracy. They are petitioning citizens of the other States via the elected officials. Admittance into the Union has to be approved by Congress. This procedure applies to every level of government.

It's a shame public education doesn't teach such a simple concept. But then, for those desiring big government, teaching the truth is counter-productive.

Now isn't that just a matter of semantics?

I don't think that the people who live / lived in a territory went around petitioning the citizens in established states to support their request to be admitted to the Union as a state. As you yourself indicated, they would (in an ideal world) petition their representatives to the US House and Senate, who then would take it to their respective body and get a yea or nay vote. Congress does not make it a matter of national referendum that requires x number of the states to ratify the addition of a state to the Union. Somehow, calling a branch of the Federal Government mere bureaucracy doesn't seem accurate, even if it does tend to be full of bureaucratic hoops and red tape and wrangling that impedes getting things done. Congress is still not the same as going to whatever office one goes to in one's own state to register their vehicles or get a driver's license...

In reality, there were many, many times that the Federal government, under the auspices of Congress -- and even at guidance from the Executive branch -- created states, and where they altered the requirements necessary for admission into the Union as a state. Hmmm... West Virginia comes to mind, as a result of wishing to create a buffer between a state in secession and the vital transportation links between the two parts of the Union... Utah, which was not what the people in the area had petitioned for, but a much smaller, scaled down area and different name... and a whole number of states to keep a balance of power between pro-slavery and anti-slavery movements and states up to the Civil War. And now, there is the on-going question as to Puerto Rico. Are the pro-state movement folks in Puerto Rico out campaigning in our various existing states to admit them to the Union? No. They are working in their own locality to win the debate over state, remain status quo, or becoming independent of the U.S. again.

I guess it really is a shame that folks don't remember every little nuance about politics from the overview they get in high school government and college GE american history / government / poli-sci classes. I shall report to the sergeant at arms for the flogging I have earned as a result of all the accumulated demerits. Anyone else care to get in line? wink

Convert · Veteran Member

Now isn't that just a matter of semantics? On the surface it would seem so. Below the surface the difference is more evident. It boils down to the degree of authority people give to the government and the degree of authority the government takes upon itself to "govern" the people.

Remembering that the Federal government does not create States, that the people of the States created the Federal government alters the pecking order. The created is not greater than the creator. There were only a few of our founding fathers in favor of a powerful central government, hence the debate and subsequent writings found in the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers.

When a governmental body assumes dominion over the people instead of realizing they are acting at the behest of the people, it takes on a power not otherwise intended. Lack of understanding on the part of the people enables government to dominate the citizenry. We then function at the mercy of the elected officials but more importantly, at the mercy of the bureaucracy as people within the bureaucracy have forgotten they are public "servants". An informed citizenry would reel in the government and remind it of its place in the pecking order.calling a branch of the Federal Government mere bureaucracy doesn't seem accurate, The bureaucracy isn't a "branch" but rather the day to day administrative function of the government. That's all it is. Congress is a governmental body, not a/the bureaucracy. In reality, there were many, many times that the Federal government, under the auspices of Congress -- and even at guidance from the Executive branch -- created states, and where they altered the requirements necessary for admission into the Union as a state. When you create something you have control over it. To imply that the Federal Government "created" any State is to give it control over that State. That simply isn't true. The reverse is whats true. The States (Colonies) created the Federal Government and have (or was suppose to have) control over it. Requiring potential States to comply with given standards is not the same as creation. It is making sure that the applicant meets certain requirements as set forth by Union. I guess it really is a shame that folks don't remember every little nuance about politics from the overview they get in high school government and college GE American history / government / poli-sci classes. I shall report to the sergeant at arms for the flogging I have earned as a result of all the accumulated demerits. Anyone else care to get in line? You aren't getting testy are you? Look, we've all been taught the same things in school, whether high school or college. Does that mean what we were taught is correct? If that's all you know and if you've never researched the topic further then your answer might be yes. Patriots and Constitutionalist however would take issue with the answer. Continued research will eventually lead you into the manipulation of public education, the why and the how. That opens a whole new can of worms.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

Convert wrote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You aren't getting testy are you? Look, we've all been taught the same things in school, whether high school or college. Does that mean what we were taught is correct? If that's all you know and if you've never researched the topic further then your answer might be yes. Patriots and Constitutionalist however would take issue with the answer. Continued research will eventually lead you into the manipulation of public education, the why and the how. That opens a whole new can of worms.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Am I getting testy? I guess that is for you to decide. Could some of the comments you have made be seen as a tad bit condescending?

I think it is a huge generalization to assume that we all were taught the same things in high school and college. I think it is also probably a huge mistake to make that generalization. You don't always get 100% uniformity between teachers in the same school teaching the same subject on what key points are focused on, let alone from year to year. And so expand that to school to school, district to district, state to state...

It seems almost impossible to have a meaningful discussion with "Patriots and Constitutionalists" because you folks seem to be more interested in proving to the rest of the citizenry that the U.S. has lost it's way and is a RINO (Republic in Name Only) and that one just doesn't understand how duped the citizenry of this fallen republic is than to acknowledge that maybe some of us aren't as dumb as doorknobs... and then there is the seeming inference that unless folks agree with that viewpoint, they are not wise citizens and less patriotic than all y'alls.

Frankly, it gets old... rolleyes

Convert · Veteran Member

Could some of the comments you have made be seen as a tad bit condescending? That's for you to decide.

This reminds me of a few years ago when two young women came to my door representing their church. No, they weren't JW.'s. We talked for a bit and I asked if they had ever read the BOM. The oldest one responded that she'd seen a few verses people had shown her. A little later she forcefully tried telling me that Joseph Smith wrote the BOM. Its my considered opinion that unless one has at least read the book, they can't speak with any degree of authority. I hope you agree, but since it appears we aren't going to agree on much, maybe you don't. Do you think reminding her that she didn't have enough information to support her opinion was condescending? I see it as being factual, how she sees it would be up to her. If I've learned anything in my 59 years I've learned that I can't control how people feel nor can I blame others if I get angry. If someone wants to be offended, it isn't going to make a bit of difference how I say something, they're going to be offended.

I've had people tell me that my opinion was wrong and that further study was necessary. I didn't take offense because I'm quite comfortable knowing that I don't know everything.

I'm not trying to be condescending. There are a finite number of ways to get a point across. From where I'm sitting it appears the biggest problem is that I don't agree with you and I'm not bashful about it. By nature I'm fun loving and easy going, but I'm also opinionated. And I've learned the hard way that I better do my research or else. I think it is a huge generalization to assume that we all were taught the same things in high school and college. At least you realize my remark was a generalization. A generalization is just that, a generalization. It seems you're splitting hairs for the sake of an argument. It seems almost impossible to have a meaningful discussion with "Patriots and Constitutionalists" because you folks seem to be more interested in proving to the rest of the citizenry that the U.S. has lost it's way and is a RINO (Republic in Name Only) and that one just doesn't understand how duped the citizenry of this fallen republic is than to acknowledge that maybe some of us aren't as dumb as doorknobs... and then there is the seeming inference that unless folks agree with that viewpoint, they are not wise citizens and less patriotic than all y'alls.Whew, that was one long sentence. I almost ran out of breath reading it.

That you equate me a Patriot or Constitutionalist is a compliment considering I once held leadership positions in the Demo party. Nice to know that Karma no longer surrounds me.

It isn't difficult at all to have a "meaningful discussion" with a patriot. If you've read what they've read. Just as non-Mormons would have an easier time having a "meaningful discussion" with a Mormon if they bothered to read was a Mormon has read. It all depends if you want to get on the same page or not. A non-Mormon would love us to agree with their views and concepts but we can't because we know more. You would love a "Patriot or Constitutionalist" to agree with you but they can't because they know more.

Now then, don't you think its time to get back on the topic of following gospel principles and forcing others to live our higher standards? I do believe that's what started this whole exchange.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

FWIW, the exchange started because you challenged a comment I disagreed with in the reading assignment lundbaek made.

I postulate that even when folks read the reading lists "patriots / constitutionalists" put out, that unless one agrees with their viewpoint, the "patriots / constitutionalists" will maintain those folks still are just not informed enough or know enough.

If there seems to only be so many ways of getting a point across, then maybe it would behoove one to examine better how to broach the topic. I personally think it is rather rare that anyone is in a position where they are justified and have the moral authority to dogmatically impose their viewpoint or interpretation as the only valid one, particularly when it comes to politics and history. It makes no difference if one is 15 or 115. Longevity is no guarantee of superiority in anything except trips around the sun.

arbilad · Head Chef

I postulate that even when folks read the reading lists "patriots / constitutionalists" put out, that unless one agrees with their viewpoint, the "patriots / constitutionalists" will maintain those folks still are just not informed enough or know enough.

That's an interesting postulate, Cat. I suggest that you apply the scientific method and prove your postulate. Choose one of the books that lundbaek has recommended and read it. Especially one of the online ones (I think he said that some Ezra Taft Benson books are online), because you could get those for free and read them in your spare moments. Then start a discussion of the book here on Bountiful. Of course, if you agree with the reading then the experiment fails, because you are verifying whether patriots/constitutionalists would react the same to those who disagree, whether or not they read the material. But if you partially agree or entirely disagree with the reading, you could then prove your postulate by stating that you have read the material, and that you disagree with certain parts, which you then name. If the reaction of patriots/constitutionalists is the same, you have proven your postulate. If it is not, then you have disproven it.
Note that I have said nothing about convincing others of your point. That may or may not happen. But at least you would know if your point is correct or not.

dilbert · Senior Member

Arbilad, what you propose for Cat Herder would definitely be an interesting excercise, and would generate some interesting threads here. But I don't think he needs to do all of that to find evidence to support his postulate (which is that people who espouse the ideas that Convert espouses believe that the only reason people disagree with them is because they are ignorant of the facts--if people only knew what they knew then they could not possibly arrive at any other conclusion than the one they have arrived at).

You don't have to look any further than Convert's most recent post for evidence to support that position:

It isn't difficult at all to have a "meaningful discussion" with a patriot. If you've read what they've read. Just as non-Mormons would have an easier time having a "meaningful discussion" with a Mormon if they bothered to read was a Mormon has read. It all depends if you want to get on the same page or not. A non-Mormon would love us to agree with their views and concepts but we can't because we know more. You would love a "Patriot or Constitutionalist" to agree with you but they can't because they know more.
Convert, you seem to be operating under this assumption--that everyone would agree with you if they only knew what you know. You would do well to consider the possibility that this assumption may have created a blind spot in your world view.

I have a friend who thinks very much along these same lines. I have sometimes wanted to ask him, "does it bother you that other intellegent people have looked at the same information you have looked at, and have arrived at very different conclusions than you have about it?" (He is a libertarian and a constitutionalist, but his views also include many things that a lot of people would call conspiracy theories.) I haven't ever actually asked him that because when he saw that I didn't react the way he had hoped he backed off and we pretty much leave that topic undiscussed.

I support the notions of "original intent" and limited government. I agree with many things that libertarians say. But I find their insistence that there is only one way to look at things to be both insulting and damaging to their cause. I really wish that people who espouse these views would realize that there are ways of presenting an argument that increase credibility (and make the argument more persuasive), and there are ways that decrease credibility. I try to see past the presentation, but it seems that most people who talk to me about these kinds of things do so in a way that severely damages the credibility of what they are saying.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

Actually, a postulate is not subject to requiring a proof, even under math or logic. It is a claim, assumption, or assertion of the truth, reality, or necessity of, especially as a basis of an argument.

I did not state it was a hypothesis (A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.).

The two are not the same.

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

So... yer not doin' the experiment thingey? Or ... you are?

(Coco- Not so big on logic, but big on interesting threads.

)

Convert · Veteran Member

the ideas that Convert espouses believe that the only reason people disagree with them is because they are ignorant of the facts--if people only knew what they knew then they could not possibly arrive at any other conclusion than the one they have arrived at.Mmm, did I say that? How does having a "meaningful discussion" equate to one side being ignorant of the facts and if they weren't ignorant of those facts they would agree? I've read and studied what I'm assuming others have yet I'm not in full agreement with every Patriot Constitutionalist I talk with. We don't dispute the intent of the Constitution nor basic beliefs. We go on to discuss the particulars of events and legislation. All that is being asked of those who disagree with the basic beliefs is that they do some research. You don't have to look any further than Convert's most recent post for evidence to support that position: It isn't difficult at all to have a "meaningful discussion" with a patriot. If you've read what they've read. Just as non-Mormons would have an easier time having a "meaningful discussion" with a Mormon if they bothered to read was a Mormon has read. It all depends if you want to get on the same page or not. A non-Mormon would love us to agree with their views and concepts but we can't because we know more. You would love a "Patriot or Constitutionalist" to agree with you but they can't because they know more.So you grab one portion and call it evidence? If something is wrong with the comment you highlighted, then would I be correct is assuming you have no issue with non-Mormons vehemently debating the BOM even though they haven't read it? Or do you discard the added knowledge we've received and accept their views? Either you've never encountered that or you're bald from the experience. The discussion digresses rapidly and leads to a dead end street. Thanks but no thanks. Convert, you seem to be operating under this assumption--that everyone would agree with you if they only knew what you know.Nope. Not operating under that assumption at all. My view is two part, read the boatload of available information so that our "meaningful discussion" can have the same starting point and it might change your views. If you read it and don't believe it, then we can start the discussion. But if you haven't even read it, you have nothing on which to base your belief that I am wrong. You would do well to consider the possibility that this assumption may have created a blind spot in your world view.Are you talking about my blind spot or yours? Your assumption that I'm operating under an assumption has created a blind spot for you as well. "does it bother you that other intellegent people have looked at the same information you have looked at, and have arrived at very different conclusions than you have about it?"If that question is lurking in your mind, then you should ask it. So are you saying you've actually read the same things? I agree with many things that libertarians say. But I find their insistence that there is only one way to look at things to be both insulting and damaging to their cause.Good golly miss molly I hope you don't think I'm a libertarian. I agree with some of the things they espouse, but certainly not all. I'm not a democrat, not a republican, not a libertarian, not a constitutionalist. How about Derulicon. I just made that up by the way, it's a combination of all the afore mentioned parties.

Roper · Senior Bucketkeeper

I agree with many things that libertarians say. But I find their insistence that there is only one way to look at things to be both insulting and damaging to their cause.

That's certainly not the perspective of this mostly-libertarian. One can passionately advocate for one's political convictions and still be tolerant of other perspectives. In fact, that's pretty much a hallmark of the libertarian ideal.

Euphrasie · Senior Bucketkeeper

What are we even arguing about? Whether the Federal Government was intended to be subordinate to the states' rights? Or whether it, in fact, is at this point in time? Or whether it should be?

Or are we just pointing fingers at each other? 'Cause I'm good at that.

You would love a "Patriot or Constitutionalist" to agree with you but they can't because they know more.So you grab one portion and call it evidence? If something is wrong with the comment you highlighted, then would I be correct is assuming you have no issue with non-Mormons vehemently debating the BOM even though they haven't read it?
By the way, this seems like a false comparison. For one thing, we're not talking about a specific text (or if we are, I missed it somewhere...what, the Federalist Papers? The Constitution? ...both of which, I've read, by the way).
For another, I'm not sure there is a 'definitive' text for whatever political discussion we're having--there are different viewpoints with varying supporting arguments.

So, did you have a specific canon in your 'boatload' of information? You know, so we can get qualified to have a discussion?

arbilad · Head Chef

Roper wrote:

I agree with many things that libertarians say. But I find their insistence that there is only one way to look at things to be both insulting and damaging to their cause.

That's certainly not the perspective of this mostly-libertarian. One can passionately advocate for one's political convictions and still be tolerant of other perspectives. In fact, that's pretty much a hallmark of the libertarian ideal.

Libertarians are actually an extremely varied bunch. Their common characteristic is that they believe that there should be an absolute minimum of laws restricting personal freedoms. You have gay libertarians, liberal libertarians, conservative libertarians, etc. The criticism of a dogmatic ideology might more easily have been made of someone in the constitution party, since we tend to be more ideologically homogeonous. Still, there's lots of variation in the Constitution party.

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

Euph said-- "So, did you have a specific canon in your 'boatload' of information? You know, so we can get qualified to have a discussion?"

Yeah, how 'bout we read some thing and see what we all come up with?

Maybe just start small... something that won't take me 4 months to finish... not that I'm a slow reader (or slow learner! I knew that was coming!

) but you know, between kids and stuff... life gets busy.

Hey!! We could call it a "book club"!! What say!! No, no... let's call it some cool polieducational name. Euph, come up with something kewl!

Personally, I've crossed paths, if you will, with this line of thinking too many times in my life to just ignore it. I'm of the opinion that there actually IS one best way, just like there is one Lord, one faith and one baptism. But I'm not well-read enough to say much more than that.

But I'd be very interested in a discussion about a specific document or even a paragraph or two that hold fundamental and essential questions.

Convert · Veteran Member

Actually Euph the original question was
"Would somebody be so kind as to explain the connection between expecting an LDS president, or legislator or judge, or any LDS for that matter, to uphold Gospel principles and constitutional principles, and forcing our neighbors to live our high moral standards...". With the request that no one bother to reply until they had read, "many are called but few are chosen" and "the proper role of government".

Cat read part of "the proper role of government" and disagreed with It is well to remember that the states of this republic created the Federal Government. The Federal Government did not create the states.

I agreed with the above statement and disagreed with Cat. Period. From there the discussion went down hill.

As for my comment that you quoted, I hope you read the rest of the paragraph. The comment was an analogy. I wasn't talking about a specific text either.

The Federalist Papers are a good beginning. Too many people have never read them. To gain a better appreciation of those writing, may I suggest you also read the Anti-Federalist Papers (http://www.constitution.org/afp/afp.htm)

One thing I want to caution you on about reading the Constitution. It's a little more complex than you think when you read it. I thought I understood what it said, then I started studying it. I have several Supreme Court rulings from the 1800's that clearly show the original intent and numerous books on the subject. For me anyway it was a real eye opener.

If you want to learn more then I would suggest some additional books;
Cleon Skousen's "The making of America" (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0880800178/greaterthingsboo)

Alexis de Tocqueville's "Democracy in America", (http://www.libraryofamerica.org/volume.jsp?RequestID=202)

"The Law", by Fredrick Bastiet
(http://www.fightthebias.com/Resources/Rec_Read/the_law.htm)

There are others, but these are the first ones that came to mind.

No you don't need to read a "boatload", sheesh.

I would just as soon the nonsense of pointing fingers be put to rest and we get back on topic. This discussion has become so juvenile its ridiculous.

The Proper Role of Government was originally suggested by lundbaek and it can be found on line. Its as good a place as any to start but that just a suggestion.

Euphrasie · Senior Bucketkeeper

I did see the original disagreement; it just seemed that the current argument was no longer connected to that discussion. I couldn't figure out where it got off the tracks or what the current discussion even was. "Went down hill" seems to be a succinct way of putting it.

I did read the rest of the analogy; however, I still see it as a false comparison.

To me it sounds like you're saying, "Just like antis can't intelligently discuss something they know nothing about, you can't discuss patriotism/the constitution/government/politics because you know nothing about it." I know that's not what you're actually saying, and I agree that a common basis and understanding is necessary to meaningful discussion. Without common basis or accepted foundation, we'd only be talking past one another.

Thanks for the list. I have read some of the AFP (though not all) and "Democracy in America." (I have looked at "The Proper Role..." before when lundbaek has linked to it previously as well.)

I'll have to see if I can make time in my reading list for some of the others.