Point #1: Enshrined in our constitution is the statement that all men are created equal, not just all U.S. citizens. Point #2: Extending from point #1 above, all men--not just U.S. citizens--were...
We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Point #1: Enshrined in our constitution is the statement that all men are created equal, not just all U.S. citizens.
Point #2: Extending from point #1 above, all men--not just U.S. citizens--were endowed with those unalienable rights.
Point #3: The 8th amendment, among the first ten amendments drafted as part of our constitution known as the Bill of Rights, guarantees the following:
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
I would argue that ripping children from their parents unnecessarily would constitute a form of cruel and unusual punishment, particularly for the children. That stands counter to the aforementioned ideals that our country is supposed to represent, the very ideals that are enshrined in our constitution. And yet I continue to see people defending this, as though the fact that they're immigrants or even just the fact that they're breaking the law is somehow justification for the sort of inhumane treatment that our country is supposed to be avoiding.
I don't care how you feel about illegal immigration and immigration policy in general, but we should be able to at least agree that this is unacceptable and un-American.
Edit: As pointed out by @treed, I made the admittedly silly mistake of attributing a statement to the constitution when it's actually from the declaration of independence. Although the documents are connected in spirit, it's an error nonetheless and I feel that it's important to point it out. I blame the long day and mental fatigue ;)
When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.
Actually, that does matter, thank you. Long day, so I wasn't thinking clearly. I'll leave the mistake but add a disclaimer, so that my shame may be known :)
Actually, that does matter, thank you. Long day, so I wasn't thinking clearly. I'll leave the mistake but add a disclaimer, so that my shame may be known :)
Yeah... it would be pretty hypocritical to include that in the Constitution while also enshrining, in law. that slaves are 3/5s of a person for population and have no right to vote... Good on you...
Yeah... it would be pretty hypocritical to include that in the Constitution while also enshrining, in law. that slaves are 3/5s of a person for population and have no right to vote...
It's the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution, but I agree with your overall point. Separating children from their parents, putting them in cages and traumatizing them is cruel and...
It's the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution, but I agree with your overall point. Separating children from their parents, putting them in cages and traumatizing them is cruel and unusual punishment and needs stopped immediately.
And so it begins... Not having a dedicated politics group here means these type of political agenda posts with "articles" by outlets like commondreams, breitbart, vox, shareblue, newsmax, etc.,...
And so it begins...
Not having a dedicated politics group here means these type of political agenda posts with "articles" by outlets like commondreams, breitbart, vox, shareblue, newsmax, etc., will be posted to ~news. :(
iirc the idea was that it existing would encourage more political posts, which deimos suspected would be a bad idea early on in tildes' life because of how contentious they can be. It seems to me...
iirc the idea was that it existing would encourage more political posts, which deimos suspected would be a bad idea early on in tildes' life because of how contentious they can be. It seems to me that most things are political in some fashion or another, so making the distinction is tricky. It also seems to me that part of what makes tildes attractive is the ostensible ability to have conversations about contentious issues with civility being enshrined as a virtue here.
I agree with that sentiment. With the ability to "hide" certain tags I think that those who do not wish to participate in political discussions could avoid seeing them at all. A win for all sides!
I agree with that sentiment. With the ability to "hide" certain tags I think that those who do not wish to participate in political discussions could avoid seeing them at all. A win for all sides!
It's hard to imagine any sort of news forum that doesn't have a political bias. A lot of bias in a news network has to do with the ratio of articles they publish that are in favor or against some...
It's hard to imagine any sort of news forum that doesn't have a political bias. A lot of bias in a news network has to do with the ratio of articles they publish that are in favor or against some political issue. A lot of times, most of the facts in those articles are accurate, but by focusing on one side of the argument more, that news network has bias. I think the best way to decrease bias on a news forum is to try to make different political views more representatively incorporated in the community.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and take the administration at face value. The point that Jeff Sessions and Sarah Huckabee-Sanders (among other administration officials) seem to be making is...
I'm going to go out on a limb here and take the administration at face value.
The point that Jeff Sessions and Sarah Huckabee-Sanders (among other administration officials) seem to be making is that it's against the law to have a minor housed in a prison. It is this law that conflicts with the value of keeping apprehended undocumented immigrants (or those whose papers have expired) connected with their children.
Now we can take issue with that interpretation (especially because the Obama administration engaged the same law and didn't see nearly as much a need to go so aggressively after all undocumented immigrants without question), but I think it's worthwhile to try to engage the best argument put forward, not the most outrageous one.
In other words, it would be nice to talk about the specific laws and people impacted, rather than getting riled up about soundbites and supposed religious hypocrisy. Nothing about this article is newsworthy. It is piggybacking on a newsworthy story. Having a gotcha-off to see who can quote more bible verses and who is more "christian" has no value to me.
Point #1: Enshrined in our constitution is the statement that all men are created equal, not just all U.S. citizens.
Point #2: Extending from point #1 above, all men--not just U.S. citizens--were endowed with those unalienable rights.
Point #3: The 8th amendment, among the first ten amendments drafted as part of our constitution known as the Bill of Rights, guarantees the following:
I would argue that ripping children from their parents unnecessarily would constitute a form of cruel and unusual punishment, particularly for the children. That stands counter to the aforementioned ideals that our country is supposed to represent, the very ideals that are enshrined in our constitution. And yet I continue to see people defending this, as though the fact that they're immigrants or even just the fact that they're breaking the law is somehow justification for the sort of inhumane treatment that our country is supposed to be avoiding.
I don't care how you feel about illegal immigration and immigration policy in general, but we should be able to at least agree that this is unacceptable and un-American.
Edit: As pointed out by @treed, I made the admittedly silly mistake of attributing a statement to the constitution when it's actually from the declaration of independence. Although the documents are connected in spirit, it's an error nonetheless and I feel that it's important to point it out. I blame the long day and mental fatigue ;)
And unbiblical. "Love thy neighbour."
There's also this little piece right here:
Not that I think it matters, but that first quote is from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.
Actually, that does matter, thank you. Long day, so I wasn't thinking clearly. I'll leave the mistake but add a disclaimer, so that my shame may be known :)
Yeah... it would be pretty hypocritical to include that in the Constitution while also enshrining, in law. that slaves are 3/5s of a person for population and have no right to vote...
Good on you for adding the edit.
It's the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution, but I agree with your overall point. Separating children from their parents, putting them in cages and traumatizing them is cruel and unusual punishment and needs stopped immediately.
Yeah, I'm aware of the mistake, hence the edit and @treed's comment that prompted it :)
Ah, sorry, should have read all the way. :)
And so it begins...
Not having a dedicated politics group here means these type of political agenda posts with "articles" by outlets like commondreams, breitbart, vox, shareblue, newsmax, etc., will be posted to ~news. :(
Totally agree, there should be a ~politics. I'm not sure why there isn't one already.
iirc the idea was that it existing would encourage more political posts, which deimos suspected would be a bad idea early on in tildes' life because of how contentious they can be. It seems to me that most things are political in some fashion or another, so making the distinction is tricky. It also seems to me that part of what makes tildes attractive is the ostensible ability to have conversations about contentious issues with civility being enshrined as a virtue here.
I agree with that sentiment. With the ability to "hide" certain tags I think that those who do not wish to participate in political discussions could avoid seeing them at all. A win for all sides!
It's hard to imagine any sort of news forum that doesn't have a political bias. A lot of bias in a news network has to do with the ratio of articles they publish that are in favor or against some political issue. A lot of times, most of the facts in those articles are accurate, but by focusing on one side of the argument more, that news network has bias. I think the best way to decrease bias on a news forum is to try to make different political views more representatively incorporated in the community.
Topic filters are here now.
Galatians 6:2
I'm going to go out on a limb here and take the administration at face value.
The point that Jeff Sessions and Sarah Huckabee-Sanders (among other administration officials) seem to be making is that it's against the law to have a minor housed in a prison. It is this law that conflicts with the value of keeping apprehended undocumented immigrants (or those whose papers have expired) connected with their children.
Now we can take issue with that interpretation (especially because the Obama administration engaged the same law and didn't see nearly as much a need to go so aggressively after all undocumented immigrants without question), but I think it's worthwhile to try to engage the best argument put forward, not the most outrageous one.
In other words, it would be nice to talk about the specific laws and people impacted, rather than getting riled up about soundbites and supposed religious hypocrisy. Nothing about this article is newsworthy. It is piggybacking on a newsworthy story. Having a gotcha-off to see who can quote more bible verses and who is more "christian" has no value to me.