All great points. But that is yesterdays question; tomorrows question is when people deliberately use the ambiguity (to the advantage of violence) to get elected mayor or congress, in the name of religion that is explicitly and in practice, anti-religious freedom. [They also use the ambiguity of words and law, to take away arms of defense].
We shall see which way the western world wants to go. Though I imagine that the Dual-sovereignty of the US -Fed and State- will start to clash more heavily. The dissonance will increase. Our agreement is crumbling under the paradox of tolerance.
We’ve also accepted the blatant use of hypocrisy (some amendments are sacred; others not so much. One has a first amendment right to riot and dog-whistle all sorts of discrimination, but not a first amendment right to segregate—though in practice we realize that we can’t do anything about it; save for the token national guard forcing children to comply). Both sides have gone down that road; the paradox has no party affiliation. And if we agree that to be moral, one has sometimes to be immoral, well where is that line?
All great points. But that is yesterdays question; tomorrows question is when people deliberately use the ambiguity (to the advantage of violence) to get elected mayor or congress, in the name of religion that is explicitly and in practice, anti-religious freedom. [They also use the ambiguity of words and law, to take away arms of defense].
We shall see which way the western world wants to go. Though I imagine that the Dual-sovereignty of the US -Fed and State- will start to clash more heavily. The dissonance will increase. Our agreement is crumbling under the paradox of tolerance.
We’ve also accepted the blatant use of hypocrisy (some amendments are sacred; others not so much. One has a first amendment right to riot and dog-whistle all sorts of discrimination, but not a first amendment right to segregate—though in practice we realize that we can’t do anything about it; save for the token national guard forcing children to comply). Both sides have gone down that road; the paradox has no party affiliation. And if we agree that to be moral, one has sometimes to be immoral, well where is that line?