Constitution Promotes Ignorance

[michijo]

I have a haphazard theory that the freedoms in the constitution force one to ignore other people and take away one's right to complain. Ultimately, freedom of religion means a bizarre respect given to religions. Every right in the constitution issues an ultimatum: either you ignore something or stage a counter-protest to that thing.

If there are religious protesters numbering in 80 blocking the sidewalk and entry to a Planned Parenthood building, I can either stage a counter-protest or ignore them. I am not given the right to issue a general complaint, such as: the protesters are incidentally damaging the sales of a local restaurant, as in the following article:

Maine restaurateur driven to take steps against nuisance

I find the USA has an unconditional bias for religious protesters. Only one state that I know of Utah has really cracked down on them.

Street Preachers could Face Harsher Penalties (HB 131) | MormonInfo.org

Also I think they were banned from Times Square for a while and also currently banned from Bourbon street in New Orleans during certain hours:

Preachers Exiled from Bourbon Street: This Week in Bans - John Metcalfe - The Atlantic Cities

I have noticed many cities like New York have bred a sort of ignorance into their citizens. New Yorkers are so adept at ignoring everything, they have almost developed a sort of urbane conservatism, where rather than protest anything untoward, they completely ignore it, such as the Virgin Dung painting, the bothered some conservatives, but caused many New Yorkers merely to look the other way.

Virgin dung: Art as religious bigotry

I have also noticed that other ignorance are common in New Yorkers. One for instance, when stopped on the street, admitted he had not heard of Edward Snowden, but was not surprised by what he leaked. The freedoms in the constitution, rather than promote free information and free thought, actually encourage ignorance and an ability to ignore other people who are exercising freedoms. The ability to not be bothered by anything is prised highly in the USA for this reason, whereas other nations like Germany and the UK are allowed to complain more.

 

[johndylan1]

I have a haphazard theory that the freedoms in the constitution force one to ignore other people and take away one's right to complain. Ultimately, freedom of religion means a bizarre respect given to religions. Every right in the constitution issues an ultimatum: either you ignore something or stage a counter-protest to that thing.

If there are religious protesters numbering in 80 blocking the sidewalk and entry to a Planned Parenthood building, I can either stage a counter-protest or ignore them. I am not given the right to issue a general complaint, such as: the protesters are incidentally damaging the sales of a local restaurant, as in the following article:

Maine restaurateur driven to take steps against nuisance

I find the USA has an unconditional bias for religious protesters. Only one state that I know of Utah has really cracked down on them.

Street Preachers could Face Harsher Penalties (HB 131) | MormonInfo.org

Also I think they were banned from Times Square for a while and also currently banned from Bourbon street in New Orleans during certain hours:

Preachers Exiled from Bourbon Street: This Week in Bans - John Metcalfe - The Atlantic Cities

I have noticed many cities like New York have bred a sort of ignorance into their citizens. New Yorkers are so adept at ignoring everything, they have almost developed a sort of urbane conservatism, where rather than protest anything untoward, they completely ignore it, such as the Virgin Dung painting, the bothered some conservatives, but caused many New Yorkers merely to look the other way.

Virgin dung: Art as religious bigotry

I have also noticed that other ignorance are common in New Yorkers. One for instance, when stopped on the street, admitted he had not heard of Edward Snowden, but was not surprised by what he leaked. The freedoms in the constitution, rather than promote free information and free thought, actually encourage ignorance and an ability to ignore other people who are exercising freedoms. The ability to not be bothered by anything is prised highly in the USA for this reason, whereas other nations like Germany and the UK are allowed to complain more.

When one becomes informed enough to know that each person's Idea of what is best for their own persuit of happiness is unable to be codified nor controlled by government, they come to appreciate the genius of the constitution and the protection it provides.

 

[Master PO]

When one becomes informed enough to know that each person's Idea of what is best for their own persuit of happiness is unable to be codified nor controlled by government, they come to appreciate the genius of the constitution and the protection it provides.

excellent!

 

[ReformCollege]

I have a haphazard theory that the freedoms in the constitution force one to ignore other people and take away one's right to complain. Ultimately, freedom of religion means a bizarre respect given to religions. Every right in the constitution issues an ultimatum: either you ignore something or stage a counter-protest to that thing.

If there are religious protesters numbering in 80 blocking the sidewalk and entry to a Planned Parenthood building, I can either stage a counter-protest or ignore them. I am not given the right to issue a general complaint, such as: the protesters are incidentally damaging the sales of a local restaurant, as in the following article:

Maine restaurateur driven to take steps against nuisance

I find the USA has an unconditional bias for religious protesters. Only one state that I know of Utah has really cracked down on them.

Street Preachers could Face Harsher Penalties (HB 131) | MormonInfo.org

Also I think they were banned from Times Square for a while and also currently banned from Bourbon street in New Orleans during certain hours:

Preachers Exiled from Bourbon Street: This Week in Bans - John Metcalfe - The Atlantic Cities

I have noticed many cities like New York have bred a sort of ignorance into their citizens. New Yorkers are so adept at ignoring everything, they have almost developed a sort of urbane conservatism, where rather than protest anything untoward, they completely ignore it, such as the Virgin Dung painting, the bothered some conservatives, but caused many New Yorkers merely to look the other way.

Virgin dung: Art as religious bigotry

I have also noticed that other ignorance are common in New Yorkers. One for instance, when stopped on the street, admitted he had not heard of Edward Snowden, but was not surprised by what he leaked. The freedoms in the constitution, rather than promote free information and free thought, actually encourage ignorance and an ability to ignore other people who are exercising freedoms. The ability to not be bothered by anything is prised highly in the USA for this reason, whereas other nations like Germany and the UK are allowed to complain more.

I really wish the "freedom of religion" was worded more like "freedom from religion."

 

[ChezC3]

I really wish the "freedom of religion" was worded more like "freedom from religion."

and in that, the genius of its author...

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

In my opinion, the Constitution (in and of itself) is not capable of promoting ignorance. Although not perfect, it is the greatest document of law we have.

If people have a desire to learn about the Constitution and supporting founding history, the information is available. I don't believe there is any excuse not to learn about the Constitution.

 

[Objective Voice]

I disagree w/the OP. The Constitution neither forces people to ignore one another nor does it take away one's right to complain on religious grounds. The problem is more in how people/organizations choose to stage their protests.

Take the religious organization that protested returning veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan. Granted, these people disagreed with both was moreso on grounds of being conscientious objectors than how wrong the believe war to be, but staging such anti-war protests at funerals is the wrong venue to vent your anger against your government's foreign policies. As such, when the grieving family's privacy rights are upheld suddenly the anti-war/anti-war crowds decree suppression of free speech than trying to understand why the public view their protest as morally wrong.

It's not that people are saying they don't have the right to peaceful protest. It's that they firmly believe there are other ways or other venues to get their voices heard.

 

[KokomoJojo]

I have a haphazard theory that the freedoms in the constitution force one to ignore other people and take away one's right to complain. Ultimately, freedom of religion means a bizarre respect given to religions. Every right in the constitution issues an ultimatum: either you ignore something or stage a counter-protest to that thing.

If there are religious protesters numbering in 80 blocking the sidewalk and entry to a Planned Parenthood building, I can either stage a counter-protest or ignore them. I am not given the right to issue a general complaint, such as: the protesters are incidentally damaging the sales of a local restaurant, as in the following article:

Maine restaurateur driven to take steps against nuisance

I find the USA has an unconditional bias for religious protesters. Only one state that I know of Utah has really cracked down on them.

Street Preachers could Face Harsher Penalties (HB 131) | MormonInfo.org

Also I think they were banned from Times Square for a while and also currently banned from Bourbon street in New Orleans during certain hours:

Preachers Exiled from Bourbon Street: This Week in Bans - John Metcalfe - The Atlantic Cities

I have noticed many cities like New York have bred a sort of ignorance into their citizens. New Yorkers are so adept at ignoring everything, they have almost developed a sort of urbane conservatism, where rather than protest anything untoward, they completely ignore it, such as the Virgin Dung painting, the bothered some conservatives, but caused many New Yorkers merely to look the other way.

Virgin dung: Art as religious bigotry

I have also noticed that other ignorance are common in New Yorkers. One for instance, when stopped on the street, admitted he had not heard of Edward Snowden, but was not surprised by what he leaked. The freedoms in the constitution, rather than promote free information and free thought, actually encourage ignorance and an ability to ignore other people who are exercising freedoms. The ability to not be bothered by anything is prised highly in the USA for this reason, whereas other nations like Germany and the UK are allowed to complain more.

IMO you should consider both a broader and narrower sense of what religion is.

the secular state is in fact a religion as well as atheism.

religion is what you believe in and use to govern yourself.

When that belief is a result of someone bigger is going to beat you up then its no longer a religion.

The meaning of freedom at the time of the creation of government meant franchise with the government. You had 2 choices a chain around the ankle or a collar around your neck UNLESS you were a sovereign. Then you dictated everyones elses choices.

When people form a quorum they now become a whats called a political group.

Political groups were the legitimate intent of state.

The missing component in the first amendment is the "exercise" thereof. The states abolished it in their constitutions and the only right you have regarding religion is the right to kneel and pray to your God. Exercise is reserved for the state religion. They are your conscience that you shall act upon.

when they stopped whipping you and took the chains from around your ankles off, put your name on the incorporation list, the "free range" collar around your neck (so you can be taxed) you became "free".

sort of like a license to exist among other people within a community.

when we toss constitutional words around its important we use the dictionaries of the time.

 

[KokomoJojo]

It's not that people are saying they don't have the right to peaceful protest. It's that they firmly believe there are other ways or other venues to get their voices heard.

who should be the authority of what the proper venue should be and how much hurt feelings are too much?

Though I agree some protests are crass, nonetheless who has been granted the "legitimate" authority?

 

[KokomoJojo]

when they stopped whipping you and took the chains from around your ankles off, put your name on the incorporation list, the "free range" collar around your neck (so you can be taxed) you became "free".

case in point, in america, no black directly paid taxes, they were viewed the same way as a taxable piece of farm machinery. The owner used his machines for production then paid taxes on production.

so the owner paid taxes for their slaves on the agreed 3/5ths ratio.

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

Indians being aboriginal are not free refused to be free and hence were not taxed.

So if the government has your name you are a legal Person [corporate sole] and considered subject to the jurisdiction, not only to the common law as a man or woman but in addition you are subject to the statutes as a legal person, and if you defy their collaring you despite no contract you will be tortured until you are assimilated. resistance is futile.

so how can freedom mean anything other than the english legal definition of the time of the creation of the constitution which was to remove from slavery and incorporate into the tax paying body politic just liek lincoln did with the slaves here in the US?

Freedom from which is the way people visualize it and freedom to [with the permission of state] which is the reality.

 

[Tetelestai]

case in point, in america, no black directly paid taxes, they were viewed the same way as a taxable piece of farm machinery. The owner used his machines for production then paid taxes on production.

so the owner paid taxes for their slaves on the agreed 3/5ths ratio.



Indians being aboriginal are not free refused to be free and hence were not taxed.

So if the government has your name you are a legal Person [corporate sole] and considered subject to the jurisdiction, not only to the common law as a man or woman but in addition you are subject to the statutes as a legal person, and if you defy their collaring you despite no contract you will be tortured until you are assimilated. resistance is futile.

so how can freedom mean anything other than the english legal definition of the time of the creation of the constitution which was to remove from slavery and incorporate into the tax paying body politic just liek lincoln did with the slaves here in the US?

Freedom from which is the way people visualize it and freedom to [with the permission of state] which is the reality.

That is how it has been distorted. If you look at ALL the writing of our founding fathers, they most certainly meant real freedom. In fact, there was no income tax or anything at the time. As government got bigger, it demanded more, so it took more. Now we are to the point of being slaves to the government. Freedom is when the government fears the people; tyranny is when the people fear the government.

 

[hado117]

That is how it has been distorted. If you look at ALL the writing of our founding fathers, they most certainly meant real freedom. In fact, there was no income tax or anything at the time. As government got bigger, it demanded more, so it took more. Now we are to the point of being slaves to the government. Freedom is when the government fears the people; tyranny is when the people fear the government.

we have been at the point of being slaves to the gov. for a long time. jefferson promoted the idea that the people were supposed to overthrow such a government.

 

[hado117]

case in point, in america, no black directly paid taxes, they were viewed the same way as a taxable piece of farm machinery. The owner used his machines for production then paid taxes on production.

so the owner paid taxes for their slaves on the agreed 3/5ths ratio.



Indians being aboriginal are not free refused to be free and hence were not taxed.

So if the government has your name you are a legal Person [corporate sole] and considered subject to the jurisdiction, not only to the common law as a man or woman but in addition you are subject to the statutes as a legal person, and if you defy their collaring you despite no contract you will be tortured until you are assimilated. resistance is futile.

so how can freedom mean anything other than the english legal definition of the time of the creation of the constitution which was to remove from slavery and incorporate into the tax paying body politic just liek lincoln did with the slaves here in the US?

Freedom from which is the way people visualize it and freedom to [with the permission of state] which is the reality.

the 3/5 thing came about because the south wanted blacks numbered as part of the population, but the northies didnt want southies to have that much representation so it was northies came up with 3/5 for the black population.

 

[hado117]

When one becomes informed enough to know that each person's Idea of what is best for their own persuit of happiness is unable to be codified nor controlled by government, they come to appreciate the genius of the constitution and the protection it provides.

name the criminal that is informed as such, and ill show you a person or people whose pursuit is limited by the government.

 

[johndylan1]

name the criminal that is informed as such, and ill show you a person or people whose pursuit is limited by the government.

I'm sorry you misunderstood what I wrote. Read it again and maybe you can respond sensibly.

 

[hado117]

I'm sorry you misunderstood what I wrote. Read it again and maybe you can respond sensibly.

I understand what is written. I chose the words name the criminal just for some added flair. my point was that no persons pursuit of happiness is not controlled by the gov. originally instead of pursuit of happiness it was going to read as pursuit of property.

 

[johndylan1]

I understand what is written. I chose the words name the criminal just for some added flair. my point was that no persons pursuit of happiness is not controlled by the gov. originally instead of pursuit of happiness it was going to read as pursuit of property.

Not so, free choices are made each day. With each step one makes, one pursues happiness. The constitutional protection of this pursuit of happiness however only extends in so far as one does not interfere with another. Criminal activity obviously interferes with others.

 

[Eric7216]

I think that you are overly concerned about "religious" speech and actions. So many things get labeled as religious when people want to denigrate it when one could argue that the issue is more cultural or social. The Bible doesn't mention abortion and only mentions homosexuality in one sentence in the old Testament yet many consider opposition to be religion while hardly anyone criticizes entitlement programs to aid the poor as religious despite numerous references to such behavior in the Bible and Obama actually stating that he supports these programs because the Bible tells him so. But I digress.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 18, says it best:

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

There is no distinction between "religious" thought and "normal" thought and people are allowed to manifest their beliefs in public and with other people. !98 or so countries signed this so all these countries should be on the same sheet of music here.

 

[darkrecess]

case in point, in america, no black directly paid taxes, they were viewed the same way as a taxable piece of farm machinery. The owner used his machines for production then paid taxes on production.

so the owner paid taxes for their slaves on the agreed 3/5ths ratio.

I can't believe no one has called you on this yet. The 3/5's compromise had nothing to do with taxes and everything to do with bolstering southern representation in Congress. Without the slave population counted as citizens towards the districting of Congress, northern states would have had a easy edge in Congress, allowing them to steamroll the South with whatever legislation they wanted. Since this was favorable to the North, they didn't want to let Southern states count slaves as a full citizen (and Southern states really didn't want to, either), but Southern states knew they needed the numbers to maintain balance in the federal Congress. Thus, the 3/5's compromise.

Indians being aboriginal are not free refused to be free and hence were not taxed.

So if the government has your name you are a legal Person [corporate sole] and considered subject to the jurisdiction, not only to the common law as a man or woman but in addition you are subject to the statutes as a legal person, and if you defy their collaring you despite no contract you will be tortured until you are assimilated. resistance is futile.

so how can freedom mean anything other than the english legal definition of the time of the creation of the constitution which was to remove from slavery and incorporate into the tax paying body politic just liek lincoln did with the slaves here in the US?

Freedom from which is the way people visualize it and freedom to [with the permission of state] which is the reality.

First, define torture and assimilate. I don't think these words mean what you think they mean.

Second, it sounds to me like you are describing man emerging from the state of nature to live in a rational society. Each man gives up certain rights (the right to punish someone for committing a trespass against me) for the protection of the society (the society as a whole will punish the transgressor). As much fun as anarchy might seem, it only works in a delusional fantasy land. Even if we could run our country domestically without the need for any government at all, it still leaves us powerless against other countries whose societies would still be supported by a state government. As soon as one of these countries decides to be a pest, what real recourse could we have, without the organization provided by a central government of some sort?

 

[American]

I really wish the "freedom of religion" was worded more like "freedom from religion."

That way the government could sit in judgment of each person's thought, and pass draconian laws to subjugate them........and that would please you.

 

[hado117]

Not so, free choices are made each day. With each step one makes, one pursues happiness. The constitutional protection of this pursuit of happiness however only extends in so far as one does not interfere with another. Criminal activity obviously interferes with others.

where did you get the idea of a constitutional protection of the pursuit of happiness? the words pursuit of happiness are found in the declaration of ind. which was directed at king george and gran britania.

 

[ginwood]

yeah, if such a protest was at my brother's funeral, and he was dead from fighting overseas, they wouldn't be there very GD long, count on it. despite the fact that I'd consider him a fool for going there. The sheer disrespect would blow my top and that would have severe, sudden effects on such "people".

 

[CRUE CAB]

I have a haphazard theory that the freedoms in the constitution force one to ignore other people and take away one's right to complain. Ultimately, freedom of religion means a bizarre respect given to religions. Every right in the constitution issues an ultimatum: either you ignore something or stage a counter-protest to that thing.

If there are religious protesters numbering in 80 blocking the sidewalk and entry to a Planned Parenthood building, I can either stage a counter-protest or ignore them. I am not given the right to issue a general complaint, such as: the protesters are incidentally damaging the sales of a local restaurant, as in the following article:

Maine restaurateur driven to take steps against nuisance

I find the USA has an unconditional bias for religious protesters. Only one state that I know of Utah has really cracked down on them.

Street Preachers could Face Harsher Penalties (HB 131) | MormonInfo.org

Also I think they were banned from Times Square for a while and also currently banned from Bourbon street in New Orleans during certain hours:

Preachers Exiled from Bourbon Street: This Week in Bans - John Metcalfe - The Atlantic Cities

I have noticed many cities like New York have bred a sort of ignorance into their citizens. New Yorkers are so adept at ignoring everything, they have almost developed a sort of urbane conservatism, where rather than protest anything untoward, they completely ignore it, such as the Virgin Dung painting, the bothered some conservatives, but caused many New Yorkers merely to look the other way.

Virgin dung: Art as religious bigotry

I have also noticed that other ignorance are common in New Yorkers. One for instance, when stopped on the street, admitted he had not heard of Edward Snowden, but was not surprised by what he leaked. The freedoms in the constitution, rather than promote free information and free thought, actually encourage ignorance and an ability to ignore other people who are exercising freedoms. The ability to not be bothered by anything is prised highly in the USA for this reason, whereas other nations like Germany and the UK are allowed to complain more.

Yep, you are right. That is pretty haphazard.

 

[johndylan1]

where did you get the idea of a constitutional protection of the pursuit of happiness? the words pursuit of happiness are found in the declaration of ind. which was directed at king george and gran britania.

The declaration of independence is a document that gives reason for the severing of the relationship between the government and the governed, the reasoning is preceded by a general statement of human nature and ones natural rights as a human being. This human condition is understood as "self evident", it is presupposed and persists throughout all human relations including the relationship with ones government even as expressed within the constitution. Do all people recognize this philosophy? No, not at all. Do we?

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

I have a haphazard theory that the freedoms in the constitution force one to ignore other people and take away one's right to complain.

My theory is that you are either a troll or in middle school.