US Political culture

I do miss the very old days when there were spirited discusions between a hard core of US traditional conservatives, and others.
Speaking as someone from an outwardly similar culture, I was able to glean quite a lot about the US conservative mindset.
If set the task of defining aspects of it I would have said that what particularly struck me was their super strong beliefs in -
1. The US Constitution, being a perfect document that definitely wasn't living as many other countries believed theirs to be.
2. The right of people to hold arms to forcibly change the government if they believed it had lost its way. This one was particularly striking, as every other democratic government would call that treason and armed insurrection.
3. Highly Christian religious, despite obvious contradictions between actions and beliefs.
4. Obsessed with "Socialism". Which was a very short step away from totalitarian communism. Despite countries like the Scandinavians, Canada, UK, NZ, Australia and quite a few others having been Social Democracies for a century or so, yet still free and equal.
5. The second amendment. As a registered gun owner in my country this was interesting. I have no problem with well regulated guns, but the idea of an 18 year old just going in and buying a semi auto rifle or pistol was demonstratively stupid.

Anyway, if any US conservatives are still viewing this page, I would respectfully love to get your opinion on Trump's America?

Daryl wrote:I do miss the very old days when there were spirited discusions between a hard core of US traditional conservatives, and others.
Speaking as someone from an outwardly similar culture, I was able to glean quite a lot about the US conservative mindset.
If set the task of defining aspects of it I would have said that what particularly struck me was their super strong beliefs in -

--skip --

2. The right of people to hold arms to forcibly change the government if they believed it had lost its way. This one was particularly striking, as every other democratic government would call that treason and armed insurrection.
3. Highly Christian religious, despite obvious contradictions between actions and beliefs.

I expect that I am more middle of the road, than hard-shell conservative.

My understanding of the Founding Fathers is that they were more Deist, than highly Christian; but there certainly is a segment of the current population that considers themselves highly Christian.

Although Thomas Jefferson said some things that approach #2, the writers were mainly against a standing army and so wrote in the Second Amendment to ensure the population would have a familiarity with guns, if they needed to be called up for immediate defense. Treason and armed insurrection still apply, if they try to overthrow the government; the right is to have arms, not necessarily to use them illegally. See the US Civil War, for example*.

*: I do expect there is a process whereby a state could secede, it would proceed in a similar way to a state joining the union. First a majority would vote in a proclamation to secede and then a bill would pass Congress and be signed by the President to implement that secession. In the actual event, after voting for the proclamation to secede, the state militia took control of all Federal property in the state; even to the extent of firing on Fort Sumter (President Lincoln was very concerned that the Union did not fire the first shot).

There were battles in that Civil War where the winning commander could be elated if his force had only been decimated (lost 1 man out of every 10).

tlb wrote:

Daryl wrote:I do miss the very old days when there were spirited discusions between a hard core of US traditional conservatives, and others.
Speaking as someone from an outwardly similar culture, I was able to glean quite a lot about the US conservative mindset.
If set the task of defining aspects of it I would have said that what particularly struck me was their super strong beliefs in -

--skip --

2. The right of people to hold arms to forcibly change the government if they believed it had lost its way. This one was particularly striking, as every other democratic government would call that treason and armed insurrection.
3. Highly Christian religious, despite obvious contradictions between actions and beliefs.

I expect that I am more middle of the road, than hard-shell conservative.

My understanding of the Founding Fathers is that they were more Deist, than highly Christian; but there certainly is a segment of the current population that considers themselves highly Christian.

Although Thomas Jefferson said some things that approach #2, the writers were mainly against a standing army and so wrote in the Second Amendment to ensure the population would have a familiarity with guns, if they needed to be called up for immediate defense. Treason and armed insurrection still apply, if they try to overthrow the government; the right is to have arms, not necessarily to use them illegally. See the US Civil War, for example*.

*: I do expect there is a process whereby a state could secede, it would proceed in a similar way to a state joining the union. First a majority would vote in a proclamation to secede and then a bill would pass Congress and be signed by the President to implement that secession. In the actual event, after voting for the proclamation to secede, the state militia took control of all Federal property in the state; even to the extent of firing on Fort Sumter (President Lincoln was very concerned that the Union did not fire the first shot).

There were battles in that Civil War where the winning commander could be elated if his force had only been decimated (lost 1 man out of every 10).

I believe there were occasions in 1861 where local militia took control of Federal property BEFORE the state legislature/convention voted for succession.

Daryl wrote:...
2. The right of people to hold arms to forcibly change the government if they believed it had lost its way. This one was particularly striking, as every other democratic government would call that treason and armed insurrection.
...

Just a note in the New Hampshire constition.

From:https://www.nh.gov/glance/bill-of-rights.htm

Quote

[Art.] 10. [Right of Revolution.] Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.
June 2, 1784

End Quote

I love the last sentence. But that is me.

If a government no longer represents the people is it insurrection/treason when a government no longer represents them?

Every king in the past would like a word.

Not going to argue it.

T2M

PS. On the whole religion thing.

1st Amendment to the US constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

How does that square with not allowing people to pray in school? Sounds like a prohibition of of the free exercise thereof.

Just by for fun.

Just for fun, I do enjoy a comparison of cultures. The phrase "whenever the ends of government are perverted" is interesting, as who determines that? An entire country votes then a disaffected group decides that they know better, and have the right to determine the future of the majority? It does puzzle me in that I can't imagine the conservative states tolerating a Democrat President treating your Constition as cavalierly as Trump is?

Then we have "no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".
As I said different cultures are interesting. The US isn't a theocracy like Iran or the Saudis, but also is further from the secular than many. That phrase wouldn't fly in many democracies, as they are not anywhere as religious, nor are they prepared to put up with some of the more outrageous cults out there.
What if some purported religion has paedophilia as part of its doctrine?

thinkstoomuch wrote:

Daryl wrote:...
2. The right of people to hold arms to forcibly change the government if they believed it had lost its way. This one was particularly striking, as every other democratic government would call that treason and armed insurrection.
...

Just a note in the New Hampshire constition.

From:https://www.nh.gov/glance/bill-of-rights.htm

Quote

[Art.] 10. [Right of Revolution.] Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.
June 2, 1784

End Quote

I love the last sentence. But that is me.

If a government no longer represents the people is it insurrection/treason when a government no longer represents them?

Every king in the past would like a word.

Not going to argue it.

T2M

PS. On the whole religion thing.

1st Amendment to the US constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

How does that square with not allowing people to pray in school? Sounds like a prohibition of of the free exercise thereof.

Just by for fun.

thinkstoomuch wrote:PS. On the whole religion thing.

1st Amendment to the US constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

How does that square with not allowing people to pray in school? Sounds like a prohibition of of the free exercise thereof.

Just by for fun.

Oh, are people really forbidden to pray in school? That's news to me, here I thought that anyone can pray as long as it doesn't interfere with their and other people's school activities.

The phrasing of your question also implies that any student can disrupt classes for everyone else by loudly speaking whatever they want since forbidding them to speak can't be squared with the 1A.

It's very simple but people tend to want to make it more complicated than it is. It has been held that the rights of students in schools are slightly circumscribed to foster an environment conducive to learning without disruptions.

So if a student wants to pray they can on their own time, but don't expect schools to have government mandated prayer sessions because that is explicitly forbidden in the 1A. Whether anyone will enforce the constitution in a meaningful way the next years is a more relevant argument than wonder about something that has been long established.

thinkstoomuch wrote:PS. On the whole religion thing.

1st Amendment to the US constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

How does that square with not allowing people to pray in school? Sounds like a prohibition of of the free exercise thereof.

Just by for fun.

Joat42 wrote:Oh, are people really forbidden to pray in school? That's news to me, here I thought that anyone can pray as long as it doesn't interfere with their and other people's school activities.

The phrasing of your question also implies that any student can disrupt classes for everyone else by loudly speaking whatever they want since forbidding them to speak can't be squared with the 1A.

It's very simple but people tend to want to make it more complicated than it is. It has been held that the rights of students in schools are slightly circumscribed to foster an environment conducive to learning without disruptions.

So if a student wants to pray they can on their own time, but don't expect schools to have government mandated prayer sessions because that is explicitly forbidden in the 1A. Whether anyone will enforce the constitution in a meaningful way the next years is a more relevant argument than wonder about something that has been long established.

Exactly, no one is preventing a student from saying a silent prayer before taking a test nor pointing to heaven after scoring a goal. More toxic to the First Amendment is the Oklahoma School Superintendent requiring each school to purchase and teach the Bible, specifically Trump's version as originally ordered. Fortunately the Oklahoma Supreme Court blocked that, but the Super Maghat is still determined to work the Bible into the OK High School curriculum.

PS: Originally the amendments were only restrictions on what the Federal government could do; but the Fourteen Amendment extended these provisions to the states.

It has long been recognized by the courts that there were reasonable restrictions on the specified rights: for example, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. wrote in a 1919 case that "free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic".

These day Elon Musk seems to be fighting a case in Wisconsin where he wants to permit false or misleading statements as "protected speech".