My recent discussion with an old fellow missionary who, after coming home, joined the dark side. That’s right, he’s a liberal. I have made no changes to his text. Here you go:
Me: So, you support a socialist for president, you applaud a supreme court who gives terrorists rights under the constitution, you applaud a supreme court who tells states that they can not execute child rapists, but you are disappointed when the supreme court actually upholds the constitution? I’m sorry, that’s just messed up.
Him: Wow. What happened to “be not quick to judge”? And, if I must clarify my opinions, I never mentioned anything about the case against specific instances of imposing the death penalty. And guess what! The man you call “socialist” actually disagreed with the Supreme Court on that one. Go figure! Wow, some people just don’t fit our biases and stereotypes, do they? And guess what, brother, you belong to a Church that advocates the Law of Consecration, which is more “socialist” than anything the Democrats have proposed, ever. Hmm… something to think about. And you know all those socialist countries in Scandinavia? Strangely, they’re doing better at taking care of their people than we are.
But what makes me most appalled is that you assume that all Guantanamo detainees, or “enemy combatants,” as named by the Bush administration in a blatant attempt to skirt the law, are “terrorists.” Have you read the news lately? I mean, other than watching Fox “News” and right-wing political “commentators”? Because many of the detainees in Guantanamo Bay have been cleared and sent home WITHOUT charges. It seems that any reasoning person would understand that you can’t be called a terrorist until it’s been shown that you committed a crime of some sort. Oops! I guess the army just gets to decide unilaterally who is guilty. Guess what! That’s against the Constitution AND international law, including treaties and conventions that WE have signed. Boy, am I glad that the army isn’t running our justice system. And you know, I’d bet that even you would be praying for a clear-headed and unbiased Supreme Court if you happened to be born in a different culture and were one of the unlucky ones thrown into the torture chambers without evidence or charges of any kind. How can you support such a tyrannical regime? Reminds me of King Noah.
You know, I’m sick of latter-day saints who think that you have to be a right-wing, apathetic, fatuous lemming in order to be a good Mormon. Neither party is perfect, that’s why I’m UNAFFILIATED. But I’m also informed, and I think Obama is the lesser of two evils.
And as for gun “rights,” if you read the second amendment, you’ll find that the right to bear arms falls in the same sentence as the words “well regulated” and “militia.” The Court was split 5-4 on this, because almost half of them were bright enough to realize that the right of individuals to own guns is not explicit in the text, as is often the case in the Constitution. I don’t feel like explaining four years of Political Science classes to you, but I will say this: guns might not “kill people,” but they sure do make it easier and more prevalent. Look at Europe. Safer gun laws, MUCH fewer gun deaths. And NO, not everyone simply reverts to kitchen knives, or whatever the right-wing NRA lobby claims.
I hope I answered all your accusations. Let me know if you have any more.
Me: Congratulations, Mr. Stout. You’ve just proven why some people, even those who have “four years of Political Science classes” are incapable of political debate. How comical that you lash out, claiming that I’m “quick to judge” and then you go on to presume that you are the only student of politics in this discussion. Your amazing four years of real life, in class study obviously makes you no more prepared to handle political debate than Ginsburg’s being the head of the ACLU did to prepare her to be an impartial Supreme Court Justice. But I digress, this is not about her and her political activism, her legislating from the bench. Her erroneous interpretation of the 14th Amendment to justify infanticide.
Let’s look at your argument one piece at a time. “[Y]ou belong to a Church that advocates the Law of Consecreatoin, which is more “socialist” than anything the Democrats have proposed, ever.” I disagree. First, I do not belong to the Church – it does not own me. I am a member of that church. And though the Law of Consecration may appear socialistic/communistic in nature, only a dull fool could actually compare the two. I have neither the time nor the energy to go through the history of communism with you. But I shouldn’t have too. After all, you are so well educated in the field of politics. Yet I must say that FORCED change and government control of everything, from news media to the way that people think, is not the Law of Consecration (Law). That is communism/socialism. The Law is voluntary. You do not have to accept it or participate in any way. Those who do, do it by choice not by government force. Big difference. As far as Scandinavia and them taking better care of their people. That may be true, but it is not a governments responsibility to take care of the citizenry. This is an evil lie that was introduced by FDR and the other progressives in the early 1900’s. The government is there to protect the people and uphold the law, not take from some to give to others because they will not do for themselves.
On to Guantanamo. In America, when someone is accused of a crime they are arrested and processed through the criminal justice system. This, we both know and understand. Enemy combatants, terrorists, detainees, whatever you want to call them, who are captured during war (yes, I know that war hasn’t been officially declared but it is still war. After all, do we refer to Vietnam as the Vietnam Police Action?) can be held as prisoners of war and questioned. A prisoner of war does not have rights under the US Constitution. The constitution is for citizens of this country. According to your logic, why not give US Constitutional rights to every person in this world? Along with Social Security and free (tax payer funded) health care? Oh wait, that is what Comrade Obama wants. We’ll get to that later. Military law and civil law are two different animals. I too am grateful that our military is not running the government because then we would be in a military dictatorship and not a Democratic Republic.
Treaties and conventions. The founders didn’t want us to enter into permanent treaties because it would weaken our ability to govern ourselves. Those who would bow to the rule of “international” law have no understanding of the great privileges that we as American’s enjoy. Privileges that are now being controlled by outside sources – our economy, what weapons we use in the military, what types of Federal laws we can and can’t pass.
Who gives a damn about Fox news? Oh wait, that is you assuming again. The Golfer, The Wall Banger and The Leprechaun can all screw themselves. For that matter, so can all of the clowns on ABC, CBS and NBC. NO news source is impartial. Fox is right, the three headed news dragon is left. Research must be done across the board on all topics independently to find the “truth,” whatever that may be.
I agree with your frustration of LDS church members who believe that Republican is the way to go. I would be interested to hear why you believe, or care, why people think you are a good/bad Mormon because of your political affiliation. I know that God doesn’t care what party you belong to, on
ly what policies you support. Congratulations on being an Independent. You are part of a growing movement that I believe will only continue. Please tell me how Obama is the lesser of two evils? He will exponentially expand the welfare state. He will take away rights on gun ownership, freedom of speech, he’ll continue to increase the current deficit as Bush so foolishly does. He’ll further sell America’s sovereignty to foreign nationals and entities. How is this better? Because he says hope and change a lot? I recently spoke with an Obamaniac. I asked, “why do you support him for president?”
The answer I received was, “because he has brought hope to America.”
“Hope for what,” I asked.
“Hope for change,” I was answered.
“What type of change?”
“The change of hope.”
I then stopped the conversation because I realized that the person I was speaking with was an apathetic, fatuous Obamaniac who could barely walk and chew gum at the same time. Thank God that the average citizenry of this country does not elect the president!!!
Gun rights. I know that you fear guns because you do not understand them. I do not understand why you want to legislate away my god-given right to defend myself and my family. Have you actually read the opinion and descent of the DC v. Heller case? If you had you would understand why the court upheld the constitution. Antonin Scalia, who wrote the opinion, is an originalist and a textualist. As for “the right to bear arms falls in the same sentence as the words “well regulated” and “militia.”” Have you actually studied the English language? If not, it’s OK. Justice Scalia gives you all of the tutoring you need on how this sentence is written. As for a student with “four years of Political Science classes” I thought that you would know that the Bill of Rights was implemented as a system of “individual” rights. That is why supporters of individual rights dating back to the colonial days expressed a desire not to solidify the constitution until they were promised a set of individual rights would be a proposed and approved. Also, Constitutional Law clearly states that the phrase “we the people” as found in the first, fourth, and ninth amendments supports individual rights. In all of those cases it implies individual rights, not state or collective rights. In which case “interpretation” must play a role, regardless of which side of the political fence you sit, right, left, or unaffiliated.
As for “Europe – safer gun laws, much fewer gun deaths. And NO, not everyone simply reverts to kitchen knives…,” explain to me why the British Parliament was considering passing a knife law that would outlaw certain types of knives and were considered “dangerous?” Because of the number of people that get knifed in muggings, robberies, etc.
Since we’re on the topic of the US Constitution, where does it say explicitly, as you prefer, anything about abortion, illegal immigration, welfare benefits, the great society, legislation from the bench, etc.? These are all positions that I’m sure you support. Back it up with the constitution. Please, please support it with the constitution.
I apologize that you felt my five sentence email was screaming with accusations. It is apparent that you are very sensitive when it comes to your political position. Usually sensitivity and surface emotion are only prevalent when people are insecure with their political position. And a student of politics should not be insecure. Best of luck in convincing the Electoral College to elect an elitist socialist to the US Presidency.
I’m looking forward to our continued correspondence, if you like.