Someone asked for some suggestions on party platforms of what the Democrats could opt for. I was thinking about this, and alot of people feel the dems are more center then where they "ostensibly" should be, taking this into consideration. In order to gain the majority of votes, shouldn't they argue from protecting the constitutional rights view? I mean that's what they represent, freedoms and the right to live the way we choose to, without government interference. So I am postulating that we could go along this line of thought.
You could define the marriage equality debate by going to the root of it all. Teach your voters their rights, that they have a right to freedom of religion, explain what it means. That congress does not have the right to make a law that infringes on someone else. Straight out, Rightwing neocon belief system does NOT belong in our Federal, State, or local governments. It's that simple.
But here I am always being simple, boiling down the complicated arguments to the least common denominator. Isn't it always easier to work with the least common denominator and keep your goal in sight? Clear out the riffraf and focus on what is the ultimate goal, and how is the best way to get there?
Obviously the resistance is going to say that this isn't a religious belief, yet they use the Bible to compell it among those who are religious. Excuse but this is my first defense. You are allowed to practice your religion however you see fit, but your not allowed to force me to live by it. Regardless of my status. If I am a US Citizen, I can deny your belief and believe whatever the hell I want. The minute you attempt to foist your beliefs on the rest of us, is the second your freedom of religion stops.
This also applies to any other right. Your right to freedom of expression, throwing a punch, hurting someone, stops at their face. This is the basis of our Constitution and it should NOT be diluted with facsist regimes, ideas or beliefs that foister any sort of social behavior. We do have social restrictions on what is considered acceptable behaviour and what isn't acceptable. That is for living closely in civilization. I felt I needed a qualifier for my broad statement.
It makes me sick that no one else so far, beside the founding fathers ever had this kind of clear thought. Obviously they were racist, and didn't see that black people should be allowed these rights. However, SOMEONE did when they wrote it. They obviously felt that every single person; male, female, child deserved to be treated equally, otherwise the wording would not be so eloquent, so simply straight forward. No beating around the bush, on any kind of stinking definitions.
IF someone anylyzed their words, they would find a spark of truth that everyone today, (who fights for rights) sees. An absolute truth, that shines bright in every Liberal American's heart, Freedom. When we look at some of the laws on the books, we weep with grief for a dying constitution. An ideal that hundreds of thousands of Americans, have given unselfishly, their lives. Do you honestly believe that your world is so important, that you have a right to deny the other American's who live around you, their right to live the way they choose? How can you call yourself an American? Is this really the new thought?
That should be our quantifier. That should automatically tell you whether a law is constitutional or not. Put yourself on the other side of the argument. Would you want to live by those RULES?
IF your answered "no". Then it's not a constitutional obligation to fight for, but against it. And we have a way to fight against these laws, and these types of laws. It's in the First Amendment. Read my previous diary for a listing and explination.
Most People enjoy the complicated broke down in to simple terms. It's easy to grasp, it's easy to see the balance of justice. It's easy to compare and contrast. Polititions enjoy mudding the waters with beliefs, why? It evokes emotion, hatered, and fear. It works to their advantage. People are scared of their comfortable lives changing. They are not taught in school what our democracy MEANS. It's simple and yet so complicated. Yes, you MUST allow all them Fred Felps wannabee's to protest and rant, insult and hurt. I am sorry but that's the meaning of the first amendment. I won't defend HIM, but I will die defending his right to say it. Same on the otherside, if you're a religious fanatic, walking door to door to spread the word of the gospel, I won't defend you either, but I will defend your right to do it.
I realize that not alot of people see this way, there is always some other "defensism". They resist change, they resist to leave their comfort zone. But you can force them to see the truth, they may not like it, and they may become defensive. But once the truth has been revealed, it has a sneaky way of setting someone free. Free from the influence of religious tendancies that make them sheeple. Free from the brainwashing of the past generations mistakes. Free to see the suffering in our ruined democracy. This is what the democrats need to say. The absolute truth, unveiled and unadulterated. Honest and forthwith. Defend our rights damn it all, defend them and we will walk WITH YOU defending them. I follow no one, I walk side by side with them in our quest for freedom.
Whoever coined the term Truth will set you free, was speaking as a witness to the experience of being set free. The christians seem to have attempted to coin the phrase, however we can use it right back at them. evil grin And won't they have a conudrum trying to fight that?
Obviously there is alot of innocent tendencies in my ideaology. I haven't been studying politics for all my life. I just recently got interested, within the last 10 years. I am registered independent b/c the democratic party just can't speak for me. I don't believe in gun control, it's a constitutional right, sorry people kill not guns. I don't believe in capital punishment either. It's a double standard, if we aren't allowed to "kill" neither should the damn state or federal.
Some regulations obviously are there with a spirit of protecting us, but I am very skeptical about "protecting" me. Why? The more freedoms you give up for your so called protection, the less free you are. If I was allowed to have my right to bare arms, I could protect myself just fine tyvm. Changing times I suppose. But wearing the mantel of responsibility to protect something you love, has enough of a moral obligation to teach very many people to apprieciate the things they have, and to treat them with respect.
Giving people something, has an opposite affect in that they take for granted what was given, and throw it in the trash, unapprieciated, unloved. So it's no surprise that we are faced today with loosing that which we hold so dear. I just hope we are not the minority.