Colorado Supreme Court Disqualifies Trump on the 2024 ballot

[BugI02]

I'm not even sure what the conversation is anymore.

Its about everything that comes before tension

 

[KG1]

I think Bug likes to play head games sometimes by intentionally putting a mask on references to something else you have said in the past and it's up to you to try and figure out exactly what he's referring to.

Best not to humor him while he's talking in secret coded references and gets back to having a real discussion without playing games.

 

[BugI02]

 

[KG1]

Nobody but you.

 

[jamil]

That makes 2 of us. For some reason Bug likes to drag my faith into random conversations over the years. Never have figured out why. I don't mind it but I don't understand what he's getting at.

You guys were talking about definitions in the constitution and stuff, and it was at first an interesting conversation. Next thing I know you're arguing about what Jesus wants and if or whether you're taking him at his word.

 

[jamil]

Its about everything that comes before tension

 

[KG1]

Give it up jamil. Only he knows what he's talking about, and you'll never get it until he wants to elaborate.

 

[BugI02]

Let us review

Is The standard that the constitution be self defining? that seems to be a change from the norm.

The constitution didn't really define militia either.

What are the roles of historical context and interpretation? The federalist papers? The writings of the chur er founding fathers?

You guys were talking about definitions in the constitution and stuff, and it was at first an interesting conversation. Next thing I know you're arguing about what Jesus wants and if or whether you're taking him at his word.

Post was made insinuating that the founding fathers were mouthpieces for the church (which one isn't indicated). I felt a bit of pushback on that point was in order, so I asked if the poster was mad that they weren't influenced by a church he favored

Following a couple of disjointed jumps through some opaque religious theory or other, in which I simply point out that it is likely dangerous to be too certain that one knows God's will, it becomes a whinge that I'm picking on whatever brand of faith he is hinting at, and have been since time immemorial

Thus we arrive at the present, such as it is

Back to our regularly scheduled discussion of less idiosyncratic issues, perhaps?

 

[bobzilla]

I'm not even sure what the conversation is anymore.

I don't even know what is is anymore.

 

[BugI02]

I reject the idea that modern times require updating what the founders 'meant' to say or ignoring the political and societal realities that would have influenced what and how they said it

Originalism is a better sense to view our founding documents through when not enough context is provided to use only constitutionalism. It is dangerous to allow the legal whims of the day to interpret gray areas of the constitution. That is how we end up in interminable arguments about what 'shall not be infringed' awktually means because it is mentioned in the same sentence as the militia (another concept that current sensibilities woefully misinterpret because of a lack of understanding of its 'original' meaning)

 

[actaeon277]

Not up to a court to "update" language.

There is a provision to update, already.
The legislature

Otherwise they will say it means whatever they say it means

 

[KG1]

Well, I agree that the simplest of terms to define a 'natural born citizen" should be one that is born of two US citizens that have an allegiance to this country no matter where the child is born.

 

[BugI02]

Well, I agree that the simplest of terms to define a 'natural born citizen" should be one that is born of two US citizens that have an allegiance to this country no matter where the child is born.

Correct, which is why you can be born in Timbuktu and you are still an American if your parents are American. In earlier times, that status used to devolve exclusively from the father but we're not allowed to do that anymore

 

[KLB]

Well, I agree that the simplest of terms to define a 'natural born citizen" should be one that is born of two US citizens that have an allegiance to this country no matter where the child is born.

One parent, not both.

Although repealed in 1795, that 1790 law actually did spell it out.

 

[foszoe]

Let us review


Post was made insinuating that the founding fathers were mouthpieces for the church (which one isn't indicated). I felt a bit of pushback on that point was in order, so I asked if the poster was mad that they weren't influenced by a church he favored

Ah. You misunderstood my post and ran with it.

That wasn't at all what I was insinuating or even thinking really. All I was insinuating is the founding fathers are like the church fathers of whatever church one attends, at least for those whom I know/interact with that would say they are religous; mostly Christians.

If anything, I was subconsciously thinking about a theory I have said here before, more than once. That in many ways, America is a religion in the following sense.

The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are the scriptures.

The difficulty comes in the kergyma, hermeneutics, and the exegesis. The choice of commentaries usually defaults to the outcome of that trinity. The federalist papers being one that seems to have widespread conservative acceptance but there are other examples.

The end result is just as sola scriptura results in disagreements so does the American religion. The religious fervor with which one's position is defended though, seems to be at variance between American Christianity and the American Religion.

While it seems like a paradox, it is easier to agree to disagree on all the essentials of biblical interpretation than it is on what is essential in the American Religion. Yet, for the sincere religious, Salvation would/should be more important to "get right" than the American Religion. In fact, it is a grail of American Christianity to come up with new teachings.

To bring it back to the subject of most political threads, Trump, that's why I think he is a religious figure as much as he is a political figure.

Of course there is a lot more to my theory than this brief sketch, and I don't plan on defending it here on INGO. After all, a theory is just an opinion.

 

[jamil]

Let us review


Post was made insinuating that the founding fathers were mouthpieces for the church (which one isn't indicated). I felt a bit of pushback on that point was in order, so I asked if the poster was mad that they weren't influenced by a church he favored

Following a couple of disjointed jumps through some opaque religious theory or other, in which I simply point out that it is likely dangerous to be too certain that one knows God's will, it becomes a whinge that I'm picking on whatever brand of faith he is hinting at, and have been since time immemorial

Thus we arrive at the present, such as it is

Back to our regularly scheduled discussion of less idiosyncratic issues, perhaps?

Ah. Sounds like the standard Protestant vs Catholic thing. Carry on.

 

[jamil]

Ah. You misunderstood my post and ran with it.

That wasn't at all what I was insinuating or even thinking really. All I was insinuating is the founding fathers are like the church fathers of whatever church one attends, at least for those whom I know/interact with that would say they are religous; mostly Christians.

If anything, I was subconsciously thinking about a theory I have said here before, more than once. That in many ways, America is a religion in the following sense.

The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are the scriptures.

The difficulty comes in the kergyma, hermeneutics, and the exegesis. The choice of commentaries usually defaults to the outcome of that trinity. The federalist papers being one that seems to have widespread conservative acceptance but there are other examples.

The end result is just as sola scriptura results in disagreements so does the American religion. The religious fervor with which one's position is defended though, seems to be at variance between American Christianity and the American Religion.

While it seems like a paradox, it is easier to agree to disagree on all the essentials of biblical interpretation than it is on what is essential in the American Religion. Yet, for the sincere religious, Salvation would/should be more important to "get right" than the American Religion. In fact, it is a grail of American Christianity to come up with new teachings.

To bring it back to the subject of most political threads, Trump, that's why I think he is a religious figure as much as he is a political figure.

Of course there is a lot more to my theory than this brief sketch, and I don't plan on defending it here on INGO. After all, a theory is just an opinion.

It's not like a religion. You're talking about the difficulty in consistent interpretations of written word, especially when the writings are old. Trying to interpret what some Old English document meant I think should require some knowledge about the history and understanding of what stuff meant then. Same with our constitution. It was written in late 18th century. To understand some of the terms used we kinda need to know what those terms meant at the time it was ratified. Because THAT's what was duly adopted. People who try to force a meaning of those words using today's dictionaries means that where meanings have changed, they're interpreting things in a way no one voted on and approved.

 

[jamil]

The problem with viewing the constitution as a living document, where we interpret it according to today's meaning, is that no one ratified today's meaning. They ratified the meaning it had back then. If the people think the constitution needs updating there's a way to do that.

 

[foszoe]

It's not like a religion. You're talking about the difficulty in consistent interpretations of written word, especially when the writings are old. Trying to interpret what some Old English document meant I think should require some knowledge about the history and understanding of what stuff meant then. Same with our constitution. It was written in late 18th century. To understand some of the terms used we kinda need to know what those terms meant at the time it was ratified. Because THAT's what was duly adopted. People who try to force a meaning of those words using today's dictionaries means that where meanings have changed, they're interpreting things in a way no one voted on and approved.

With the exception of your first sentence, you provide further support for my theory.

 

[BugI02]

It's not like a religion. You're talking about the difficulty in consistent interpretations of written word, especially when the writings are old. Trying to interpret what some Old English document meant I think should require some knowledge about the history and understanding of what stuff meant then. Same with our constitution. It was written in late 18th century. To understand some of the terms used we kinda need to know what those terms meant at the time it was ratified. Because THAT's what was duly adopted. People who try to force a meaning of those words using today's dictionaries means that where meanings have changed, they're interpreting things in a way no one voted on and approved.

The temptation to precess into a religious discussion (which is anathema for 10% or so of INGO) is quite strong and you're not helping any