I've been saying for a while that all the right needs to do in order to get constitutional carry is to start insisting that Constitutionalism is religion, the Founding Fathers are their prophets, and side arms are their religious garb. If Sikhs can carry ritual daggers, then Constitutionalists can carry Sacred Six Shooters.
As an additional benefit, any infringement on freedom of speech by a private party becomes religious discrimination.
Great definition of religious beliefs! I am extremely delighted that we can have some solid common ground for the esoteric discussion about the "two phenotypes".
-----------------
MS: "I am a big believer in myth and religion. In the sense that I think people must share common myths to collaborate. I think every state must have an official religion and only people who adhere to that religion may hold state office above certain level."
GS: "Instituting a state religion just won't be popular, and it will convert power potential allies into enemies."
Looks like here you are proposing to establish Americanism as the state religion for the US. And make no mistake, once you establish it as the official religion you will have to devise ways to keep heretics (anti-Americans) out of the positions of power. Better do it explicitly and honestly then, not through subversion of the educational institutions and the like the way Progressives have been doing it.
Elsewhere you outline the main principles of Americanism: Liberty, Republicanism, Individualism, Natural Rights, The Rule of Law. Suppose we define them in more detail, and turn them into an oath of office for the President and other high-level office holders (instead of the current vague "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution".) Do it in such a way that anti-Americans won't be able to recite it aloud in public (similarly to how an LDS, a Jew, or an atheist would never recite the Nicene Creed.) And behold you have your religious test of office.
There's a catch-22 here that would prevent Americanism from being a state religion, namely, that having a state religion would be anti-American. Americans would be ideologically bound to resist anti-American attempts to exert power and influence over the political process through constitutionally acceptable means only. There is an asymmetry here, but each side of this divide as strategic advantages and disadvantages. The main point I was trying to make with this post is that the legal definition of a religion is broader than what most people think, and that this can be used to expand the protections afforded to individuals related to freedom of expression while also potentially keep religions incompatible with Americanism out of government (like CRT). I know this looks like establishing Americanism as the state religion, but I wouldn't call it a religion as much as a collection of beliefs that legally qualify as religious. Trying to have the cake and eat it too, but since you can in practice almost any religion and still be an American, I don't think Americanism qualifies as a religion unto itself. Can you have 2 religions at once? I don't think so, but I don't know. Maybe someone like me could call it a religion, but the way it probably works for traditionally religious Americans is they have their religious beliefs then maybe some additional beliefs on top that make them fully American. I don't think anti-Americans should be explicitly excluded from political office, or discriminated against in ways that violate RFRA, but I do think it is acceptable to discriminate against them in any way that is legal. This also gets complicated because discrimination used to be legal, and if not for the civil rights act it would still be legal. Forcing people to provide goods or services to people they don't want to is a violation of natural rights, but this was made constitutional. If you get into the details there is a lot of nuance and potential for the utility of the paradigm to break down for edge cases. For the most part, though, the managerial class is aggressively anti-American and vocally disdainful of rights clearly protected by the constitution. Barring these folks from government is what they're trying to do with Americans now. I refuse to become the thing I hate. Another nice parallel to the current fight is with the false dichotomy of racists and anti-racists. One of my FB friends just declared loudly and proudly that there are no "good" whites, and that you're either one or the other. Of course, the way they define racist against the common definition makes that technically true, but practically they mean racist the way we all think of it which makes it a disingenuous rhetorical trick. I think most anti-Americans know that they hate the ideas that founded America and want to remake the country into something better in the name of progress, they would just be opposed to the branding. I think unlike racist and anti-racist, everyone is indeed either American or anti-American, even if it doesn't always have a ton of utility (especially outside of the U.S. for people who aren't interested in immigration). Thanks for reading this and giving me feedback, it's very helpful!
[Addressing only the points I mostly disagree with or would like to clarify]
>There's a catch-22 here
It's called a contradiction, not "catch-22". You are trying to have your cake and eat it, too. It seems to me that it's because you are trying to define too much into "American" vs "anti-American". For example, I do not think that establishment of religion is anti-American. The fact that many people think so is because they heard it so many times that they just take it for granted.
In the same vein, you define "American" so rigidly that a lot of people would fail. For example, individualism in my opinion is *not* a defining factor. It is probably one of the traits of what one might call the American Character, but it is not essential to being an American.
> but I wouldn't call it a religion as much as a collection of beliefs that legally qualify as religious
If it walks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck... It's a difference without distinction.
> Can you have 2 religions at once? I don't think so, but I don't know.
"You shall have no other gods before me", not "you shalt not practice more than one religion". So if the other religion does not insist in believing in a different god it might be fine.
Putting it slightly differently, a religion defines a set of non-falsifiable beliefs. That set cannot encompass all possible beliefs. So if you have another set that does not contradict the first one you can have two religions at once.
> I don't think anti-Americans should be explicitly excluded from political office, or discriminated against in ways that violate RFRA
I am not intimately familiar with RFRA, but my understanding is that it deals with traditional religious beliefs, which are largely not anti-American (with the possible exception of Islam).
However, believers in anti-American ideas must be discriminated against and excluded from certain political offices. To the *minimal possible extent*, but there is no choice. You cannot have a person who believes in tyranny wield too much power. And since money is power ergo you can't let such people control too much resources. I think this is simple practical logic - compare to the Paradox of Tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
>but I do think it is acceptable to discriminate against them in any way that is legal.
I am not talking about what is legal now, I am talking about what should be legal or illegal in a "perfectly American" society.
>Barring these folks from government is what they're trying to do with Americans now. I refuse to become the thing I hate.
This is irrational. The fact that your enemies use certain means does not mean that you must eschew those means. It's the ends that matter most. (To be clear: I am not saying that ends always justify the means.)
Also, what you really hate is that they are doing it in the underhanded and deceptive manner. You would be doing it in the transparent and explicit manner.
The establishment of a state religion would definitely be anti-American. The country was founded on individual liberty and freedom of expression. The state endorsing one particular religion isn't consistent with this.
->individualism is *not* a defining factor [of Americanism]
I disagree. Again, individual liberty is central to the Americanism. Not collective liberty, or collective well-being. I feel that characterizing collectivism as anti-American is fair.
-> It's a difference without distinction.
Looking at the common definitions of "religion" vs. "religious belief" there are substantive differences in common usage. Since there aren't firmly agreed upon definitions of either I think it might be fair to say your religion is the comprehensive amalgam of your religious beliefs, but there is a functional difference between the two that would be important to consider both for matters of law and philosophical ratiocination.
-> "believers in anti-American ideas must be discriminated against and excluded from certain political offices" Technically they already are if they are required to swear an oath to the constitution. It really comes down to who decides if you want there to be more active prohibitions. Just like I don't trust anyone within the state to make such a determination about what constitutes acceptable speech, I don't trust anyone to "officially" arbitrate who is anti-American. I think we have to rely on what is believed demotically to be reflected by the electoral process.
I see what you're saying, but I believe the ends never justify the means. I don't believe in heaven and hell, I believe what we experience is what we have, and to abandon our principles in our actions is to admit that we don't really hold those principles. If Americans play it straight and stick to their principles I don't think we can lose. Either this isn't effective to prevent anti-Americans from achieving complete totalitarian control over society, which will cause it to collapse and pave the way for agorism, or it exposes anti-Americans as the hypocrites they are facilitating a populist reformation. I see my idealism as pragmatism as my actions and goals are aligned with principles that I am no more able to abandon than you would be able to denounce Christ.
We'll have to disagree on most of those points, then.
One point which I agree with is that Individualism as you define it is American. There is a caveat. On one foot for now: it's liberty and individualism for the quasi-aristocracy/elites; common people mostly have no use for it and do renounce it in practice. However, as long as no one is legally barred from joining the elites ("No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States...", "No State shall ... grant any Title of Nobility") we can say it applies to everybody.
> I don't trust anyone to "officially" arbitrate who is anti-American
Then it will be done unofficially. The way Progressives and Wokesters are doing it now. There are many other examples throughout history both on the "left" and the "right". Depending who controlled the officially unofficial State Church.
>I believe the ends never justify the means
No, you don't really believe that. E.g. achieving order, peace, and tranquility requires punishing offenders against that order.
>and to abandon our principles in our actions is to admit that we don't really hold those principles
I am not asking you to be a opportunist, I am asking you to reconsider the validity of your principles.
We already have the State Religion. And it's anti-American. Let's substitute it with the American one.
> I think we have to rely on what is believed demotically to be reflected by the electoral process
The electoral process is another thing I really do not believe in. For sure not when everybody has the franchise. Too easy to manipulate the populace with propaganda and handouts.
> If Americans play it straight and stick to their principles I don't think we can lose
This is a purely irrational belief. The Zealots also thought they could not lose if they stick to their principles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zealots . How did it work out for them?
> I am no more able to abandon than you would be able to denounce Christ
I am not a Christian (Christians are not the only trads out there), but I do get your point. I am trying to say is that in my opinion some of your principles (first and foremost the non-establishment principle) are not essential.
Here are the essential principles: "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity". *Everything else is subsidiary*. If we find that a subsidiary principle gets seriously in the way of essential ones it has to be abandoned.
We might agree more than you think. I think if I make one clarification it will address most of these points. The principle I'm most committed to is the non-aggression principle (NAP). I'm fine with unofficial violation of the non-establishment principle as only officially violating it would subvert the constitution. The reason I'm so supportive of the constitution is because it closely aligns with the NAP, especially if we consider only fedgov. If government is going to violate the NAP, I would prefer it to be at the lowest level possible, which is promoted by federalism. When I say if we adhere to our principles we can't lose, that is a logically based philosophical position. I believe that I can't lose if I stick to my principles because I've defined success in life as adhering to my principles. Call it a tautology if you want, but it isn't irrational. I would rather live on my feet than die on my knees. I think this is a very American sentiment, perhaps derived from stoicism. I agree that there is a distinction between essential and non-essential principles. For me, I adhere to the NAP, that is essential for me. In promoting the constitution (which does allow for violation of the NAP at some level) I recognize that expecting everyone else to adhere to the NAP gets in the way of moving towards a system that is more closely aligned with the NAP than what we have today. Also, it is the law that everyone ostensibly is bound by. I'm essentially trying to show that my ideological enemies are hypocrites, so I'm doing everything I can not to become one myself.
We need to return to American Colonial Common Law in all respects, social and judicial. God made man, man made government, therefore government is subserviently to man, and man is subserviently to God. This must be restored.
In that tradition, there are two fundamental rights that are not discussed enough. One is the right to KEEP ONE'S OWN CONSCIENCE. No man has the right to compel another to do what he believes is wrong.. The other is THE RIGHT TO BE LET ALONE. The latter should be obvious.
I've been saying for a while that all the right needs to do in order to get constitutional carry is to start insisting that Constitutionalism is religion, the Founding Fathers are their prophets, and side arms are their religious garb. If Sikhs can carry ritual daggers, then Constitutionalists can carry Sacred Six Shooters.
As an additional benefit, any infringement on freedom of speech by a private party becomes religious discrimination.
Ditto anti-conservative hiring practices.
I'm a big fan of whatever-the-fuck-works so why not.
Great definition of religious beliefs! I am extremely delighted that we can have some solid common ground for the esoteric discussion about the "two phenotypes".
-----------------
MS: "I am a big believer in myth and religion. In the sense that I think people must share common myths to collaborate. I think every state must have an official religion and only people who adhere to that religion may hold state office above certain level."
GS: "Instituting a state religion just won't be popular, and it will convert power potential allies into enemies."
Looks like here you are proposing to establish Americanism as the state religion for the US. And make no mistake, once you establish it as the official religion you will have to devise ways to keep heretics (anti-Americans) out of the positions of power. Better do it explicitly and honestly then, not through subversion of the educational institutions and the like the way Progressives have been doing it.
Elsewhere you outline the main principles of Americanism: Liberty, Republicanism, Individualism, Natural Rights, The Rule of Law. Suppose we define them in more detail, and turn them into an oath of office for the President and other high-level office holders (instead of the current vague "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution".) Do it in such a way that anti-Americans won't be able to recite it aloud in public (similarly to how an LDS, a Jew, or an atheist would never recite the Nicene Creed.) And behold you have your religious test of office.
There's a catch-22 here that would prevent Americanism from being a state religion, namely, that having a state religion would be anti-American. Americans would be ideologically bound to resist anti-American attempts to exert power and influence over the political process through constitutionally acceptable means only. There is an asymmetry here, but each side of this divide as strategic advantages and disadvantages. The main point I was trying to make with this post is that the legal definition of a religion is broader than what most people think, and that this can be used to expand the protections afforded to individuals related to freedom of expression while also potentially keep religions incompatible with Americanism out of government (like CRT). I know this looks like establishing Americanism as the state religion, but I wouldn't call it a religion as much as a collection of beliefs that legally qualify as religious. Trying to have the cake and eat it too, but since you can in practice almost any religion and still be an American, I don't think Americanism qualifies as a religion unto itself. Can you have 2 religions at once? I don't think so, but I don't know. Maybe someone like me could call it a religion, but the way it probably works for traditionally religious Americans is they have their religious beliefs then maybe some additional beliefs on top that make them fully American. I don't think anti-Americans should be explicitly excluded from political office, or discriminated against in ways that violate RFRA, but I do think it is acceptable to discriminate against them in any way that is legal. This also gets complicated because discrimination used to be legal, and if not for the civil rights act it would still be legal. Forcing people to provide goods or services to people they don't want to is a violation of natural rights, but this was made constitutional. If you get into the details there is a lot of nuance and potential for the utility of the paradigm to break down for edge cases. For the most part, though, the managerial class is aggressively anti-American and vocally disdainful of rights clearly protected by the constitution. Barring these folks from government is what they're trying to do with Americans now. I refuse to become the thing I hate. Another nice parallel to the current fight is with the false dichotomy of racists and anti-racists. One of my FB friends just declared loudly and proudly that there are no "good" whites, and that you're either one or the other. Of course, the way they define racist against the common definition makes that technically true, but practically they mean racist the way we all think of it which makes it a disingenuous rhetorical trick. I think most anti-Americans know that they hate the ideas that founded America and want to remake the country into something better in the name of progress, they would just be opposed to the branding. I think unlike racist and anti-racist, everyone is indeed either American or anti-American, even if it doesn't always have a ton of utility (especially outside of the U.S. for people who aren't interested in immigration). Thanks for reading this and giving me feedback, it's very helpful!
[Addressing only the points I mostly disagree with or would like to clarify]
>There's a catch-22 here
It's called a contradiction, not "catch-22". You are trying to have your cake and eat it, too. It seems to me that it's because you are trying to define too much into "American" vs "anti-American". For example, I do not think that establishment of religion is anti-American. The fact that many people think so is because they heard it so many times that they just take it for granted.
In the same vein, you define "American" so rigidly that a lot of people would fail. For example, individualism in my opinion is *not* a defining factor. It is probably one of the traits of what one might call the American Character, but it is not essential to being an American.
> but I wouldn't call it a religion as much as a collection of beliefs that legally qualify as religious
If it walks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck... It's a difference without distinction.
> Can you have 2 religions at once? I don't think so, but I don't know.
"You shall have no other gods before me", not "you shalt not practice more than one religion". So if the other religion does not insist in believing in a different god it might be fine.
Putting it slightly differently, a religion defines a set of non-falsifiable beliefs. That set cannot encompass all possible beliefs. So if you have another set that does not contradict the first one you can have two religions at once.
> I don't think anti-Americans should be explicitly excluded from political office, or discriminated against in ways that violate RFRA
I am not intimately familiar with RFRA, but my understanding is that it deals with traditional religious beliefs, which are largely not anti-American (with the possible exception of Islam).
However, believers in anti-American ideas must be discriminated against and excluded from certain political offices. To the *minimal possible extent*, but there is no choice. You cannot have a person who believes in tyranny wield too much power. And since money is power ergo you can't let such people control too much resources. I think this is simple practical logic - compare to the Paradox of Tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
>but I do think it is acceptable to discriminate against them in any way that is legal.
I am not talking about what is legal now, I am talking about what should be legal or illegal in a "perfectly American" society.
>Barring these folks from government is what they're trying to do with Americans now. I refuse to become the thing I hate.
This is irrational. The fact that your enemies use certain means does not mean that you must eschew those means. It's the ends that matter most. (To be clear: I am not saying that ends always justify the means.)
Also, what you really hate is that they are doing it in the underhanded and deceptive manner. You would be doing it in the transparent and explicit manner.
The establishment of a state religion would definitely be anti-American. The country was founded on individual liberty and freedom of expression. The state endorsing one particular religion isn't consistent with this.
->individualism is *not* a defining factor [of Americanism]
I disagree. Again, individual liberty is central to the Americanism. Not collective liberty, or collective well-being. I feel that characterizing collectivism as anti-American is fair.
-> It's a difference without distinction.
Looking at the common definitions of "religion" vs. "religious belief" there are substantive differences in common usage. Since there aren't firmly agreed upon definitions of either I think it might be fair to say your religion is the comprehensive amalgam of your religious beliefs, but there is a functional difference between the two that would be important to consider both for matters of law and philosophical ratiocination.
-> "believers in anti-American ideas must be discriminated against and excluded from certain political offices" Technically they already are if they are required to swear an oath to the constitution. It really comes down to who decides if you want there to be more active prohibitions. Just like I don't trust anyone within the state to make such a determination about what constitutes acceptable speech, I don't trust anyone to "officially" arbitrate who is anti-American. I think we have to rely on what is believed demotically to be reflected by the electoral process.
I see what you're saying, but I believe the ends never justify the means. I don't believe in heaven and hell, I believe what we experience is what we have, and to abandon our principles in our actions is to admit that we don't really hold those principles. If Americans play it straight and stick to their principles I don't think we can lose. Either this isn't effective to prevent anti-Americans from achieving complete totalitarian control over society, which will cause it to collapse and pave the way for agorism, or it exposes anti-Americans as the hypocrites they are facilitating a populist reformation. I see my idealism as pragmatism as my actions and goals are aligned with principles that I am no more able to abandon than you would be able to denounce Christ.
We'll have to disagree on most of those points, then.
One point which I agree with is that Individualism as you define it is American. There is a caveat. On one foot for now: it's liberty and individualism for the quasi-aristocracy/elites; common people mostly have no use for it and do renounce it in practice. However, as long as no one is legally barred from joining the elites ("No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States...", "No State shall ... grant any Title of Nobility") we can say it applies to everybody.
> I don't trust anyone to "officially" arbitrate who is anti-American
Then it will be done unofficially. The way Progressives and Wokesters are doing it now. There are many other examples throughout history both on the "left" and the "right". Depending who controlled the officially unofficial State Church.
>I believe the ends never justify the means
No, you don't really believe that. E.g. achieving order, peace, and tranquility requires punishing offenders against that order.
>and to abandon our principles in our actions is to admit that we don't really hold those principles
I am not asking you to be a opportunist, I am asking you to reconsider the validity of your principles.
We already have the State Religion. And it's anti-American. Let's substitute it with the American one.
> I think we have to rely on what is believed demotically to be reflected by the electoral process
The electoral process is another thing I really do not believe in. For sure not when everybody has the franchise. Too easy to manipulate the populace with propaganda and handouts.
> If Americans play it straight and stick to their principles I don't think we can lose
This is a purely irrational belief. The Zealots also thought they could not lose if they stick to their principles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zealots . How did it work out for them?
I think we already have lost. The last few years have amply demonstrated it, in my not so humble opinion. There is no way back. In a somewhat related development: https://paulfahrenheidt.substack.com/p/the-second-american-civil-war
> I am no more able to abandon than you would be able to denounce Christ
I am not a Christian (Christians are not the only trads out there), but I do get your point. I am trying to say is that in my opinion some of your principles (first and foremost the non-establishment principle) are not essential.
Here are the essential principles: "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity". *Everything else is subsidiary*. If we find that a subsidiary principle gets seriously in the way of essential ones it has to be abandoned.
We might agree more than you think. I think if I make one clarification it will address most of these points. The principle I'm most committed to is the non-aggression principle (NAP). I'm fine with unofficial violation of the non-establishment principle as only officially violating it would subvert the constitution. The reason I'm so supportive of the constitution is because it closely aligns with the NAP, especially if we consider only fedgov. If government is going to violate the NAP, I would prefer it to be at the lowest level possible, which is promoted by federalism. When I say if we adhere to our principles we can't lose, that is a logically based philosophical position. I believe that I can't lose if I stick to my principles because I've defined success in life as adhering to my principles. Call it a tautology if you want, but it isn't irrational. I would rather live on my feet than die on my knees. I think this is a very American sentiment, perhaps derived from stoicism. I agree that there is a distinction between essential and non-essential principles. For me, I adhere to the NAP, that is essential for me. In promoting the constitution (which does allow for violation of the NAP at some level) I recognize that expecting everyone else to adhere to the NAP gets in the way of moving towards a system that is more closely aligned with the NAP than what we have today. Also, it is the law that everyone ostensibly is bound by. I'm essentially trying to show that my ideological enemies are hypocrites, so I'm doing everything I can not to become one myself.
We need to return to American Colonial Common Law in all respects, social and judicial. God made man, man made government, therefore government is subserviently to man, and man is subserviently to God. This must be restored.
In that tradition, there are two fundamental rights that are not discussed enough. One is the right to KEEP ONE'S OWN CONSCIENCE. No man has the right to compel another to do what he believes is wrong.. The other is THE RIGHT TO BE LET ALONE. The latter should be obvious.
-=-
Covid 19 vaccine damage repair protocols:
https://davenarby.substack.com/p/covid-19-vaccine-damage-repair-protocol