These United States

[Manningham]

Hey all, just want to start here with an apology for an abrupt absence on the forums. I wasn't gaming or posting for that first semester - social life and work kind of took over when I got back to Pittsburgh. So again, sorry and I promise to be more active (or be active, period) during the next semester and on.

Have you ever thought of why we, as the US, are united? I've spent a great deal of time reading the more recent threads in the pit, and they've fanned the flame of this question that's been growing in my mind since the 2000 election. Is it in the best interest of the population of the United States to have the interests of that diverse collective decided altogether?

This question is inherent in the name of our country because we are just that: United States. The difference between my homestate of New Jersey and say, Montana, is night and day. This is true socially, economically, and in prevailing political stances. Therefore, the nature of this relationship is that when one state has its needs fulfilled through national policy, the other is often disserviced.

Look at some of the issues we've been dealing with recently, such as gay marriage, intelligent design, and abortion. In New Jersey, I'm pretty sure a statewide vote would allow homosexuals to be married, through accepting religious sects (my church, for one, performed gay marriages until it was made illegal), but I wouldn't expect the same outcome in Montana.

I'm not trying to bash Montana, or any other state, but when we as Americans can't even agree to either accept the scientific theory of evolution or the religious theory of intelligent design, one wonders how different we really are. It seems as if there are two groups struggling against each other: a socially liberal and progressive group which embraces scientific achievement (most of the time), and another group which harkens back to religious conservatism and apparently isn't comfortable with new social or scientific developments.

Obviously, I'm in the liberal group and am biased as such, but I don't see anything wrong with the other group ... it just doesn't have a significant presence in my area (our republicans tend to be rich and try to justify the existence of lower classes by asserting their superiority through a variety of arguments, possibly to disallow guilt?). I just wonder if we will continue to develop and progress to the point where the differences between these two groups become unresolvable.

It bears stating that I am in no way suggesting that we split as a nation, at this point the benefit from having people with radically differnt viewpoints in different states is not in the best interest of anyone - the negative of revolution, or whatever would accomplish such an outcome, is sure to outweigh any possisble good.

Furthermore, I've always thought the variety of peoples in this country is undoubtedly its greatest attribute. When I walk down the street, I can expect to run into someone from any place in the world - that's the way I grew up and I think its prevented me from developing an aversion to different cultures since many new Americans strive to retain their way of life.

Its unavoidable that the United States we know will not exist into infinity, at some point it will experience significant change. I wonder when that will be, and if the difficulties we're currently experiencing aren't some distant, or not so distant, foreshadowing.

[Last Roman]

It is our greatest achievment and also our downfall. That we have managed to hold together is amazing (IMO). But like you said, one states goal is anothers nightmare. But It seems in the past, what did not kill us, only made us stronger. But there seems to be a increasingly divisive gap in the US. pro-choice vs pro-life. creationism vs evolution. republican vs democrat. liberal vs conservative. These differences almost seem to tearing American culture apart. Maybe that gap has always been there and it is just more noticible due to the modern media. I am intrested to see what the future holds for the US

[Clibby]

I believe you are right on the ball with the media blowing things up right now, but these decisions are huge and that is why the gap has grown. The pro-choice v.s pro-life decision is a question that is not going to have an easy answer that solves everything. The beauty of this though is that this seperation is what keeps our country together. Without bickering parties and people taking sides, we would have a system where we elect a dictator insted of a president of the people. These conflicts of intrests keep congress from making law after law. Insted they take months and months deliberating over every little decision and that is how it is supposed to work. I believe our country will be fine, we've held together for over 200 years and gone through the Civil War, the Great Depression, Vietnam and yet here we are. What strengthened my belief in this was 9/11 and somewhat Hurricane Katrina. The support and patriotism that was displayed after 9/11 was incredible and re-assured me that even though we may all have radically different ideas, we are all Americans and want to help other Americans. As much as we complain about it, we wouldn't want to live anywhere else.

[danzig]

Yeah Id blame the media alot because they tend to focus on the extreme ends of various views rather then the bulk of the population. Not to say there arent big differences between the North East US and Mid West because there are but its not THAT big a deal. I think you only run into problems if you try and force your view on others. MOST americans are pretty tolerate of each other, otherwise we'd be at our throats.

[Kino]

Deleted by user.

[Darth Wong]

This is what happens when people start thinking that the role of the federal government is to enforce social values instead of simply keeping society running smoothly. Once that happens, social values become a national debate, and of course, they will vary from place to place, so everyone starts wanting a different national-level government. That's where separatism tends to start.

The default preference for federal government in the case of the US should always be non-interference in local affairs, with only extraordinary circumstances warranting a change from that policy. I believe that certain fundamental human rights (such as freedom from slavery) do qualify as such extraordinary circumstances. But definitions of marriage do not; they should be left to the states. So if you're gay and you want to get married, you go to a state which has legal gay marriage. But of course, the advocates of a national constitutional amendment to prohibit gay marriage cannot accept that; they want an across-the-board ban on a federal level, so they end up creating this conflict. In essence, they are treating gay marriage as if it's as bad as slavery.

The motto "E Pluribus Unum" has been largely forgotten; America is a nation which was founded on the idea of bringing different people together into a unified whole: there is an important distinction between bringing different people together and making different people have the same values.

[Removed_user_012521]

This is what happens when people start thinking that the role of the federal government is to enforce social values instead of simply keeping society running smoothly. Once that happens, social values become a national debate, and of course, they will vary from place to place, so everyone starts wanting a different national-level government. That's where separatism tends to start.

I would think that social values would be important for maintaing a effecient and realetivly law abiding society.

[Last Roman]

I would think that social values would be important for maintaing a effecient and realetivly law abiding society.

well there are social values that go across the board (ie, no slavery) and those that dont (ie pro-choice vs pro-life). I think it really depends on what "value" we are talking about. I think the tricky part is deciding on who and how makes that value a national value or a regional value or even state value

[danzig]

This is what happens when people start thinking that the role of the federal government is to enforce social values instead of simply keeping society running smoothly. Once that happens, social values become a national debate, and of course, they will vary from place to place, so everyone starts wanting a different national-level government. That's where separatism tends to start.

The default preference for federal government in the case of the US should always be non-interference in local affairs, with only extraordinary circumstances warranting a change from that policy. I believe that certain fundamental human rights (such as freedom from slavery) do qualify as such extraordinary circumstances. But definitions of marriage do not; they should be left to the states. So if you're gay and you want to get married, you go to a state which has legal gay marriage. But of course, the advocates of a national constitutional amendment to prohibit gay marriage cannot accept that; they want an across-the-board ban on a federal level, so they end up creating this conflict. In essence, they are treating gay marriage as if it's as bad as slavery.

The motto "E Pluribus Unum" has been largely forgotten; America is a nation which was founded on the idea of bringing different people together into a unified whole: there is an important distinction between bringing different people together and making different people have the same values.

Couldnt agree with you more though like to add there are some gay marriage advocates who want it classified as a "human right" as well for very much the same reason, if it is then it cant be violated so states would have to okay the marriages. Ultimately cultural views like this and difference of opinion should be left to the local level to decide as long as it causes no harm to society on a whole like as you said slavary. Its the whole basis of this country and we seem to have forgotten that. Federal goverment isnt there to dictate values upon its citizen regardless of which end of the spectrum the value comes from. We got so many groups running around today on both sides trying to do that though.

[Yanis A.]

Interesting thoughts and contributions , was nice to read , thank you guys , good to see this kind of quality conversations here , makes a real contrast to what i've read these last two days in this forum .

I wish a Merry Christmas and the verybest for your families to all Americans here .

Regards,

[Rustynail]

I think we should have states rights over federal laws. I don't like the fact that the DEA can bust into a legal pot farm for medical use here in California. Just because it's not legal federally it is in the state. I think state should come first in things like this.

I disagree. Federal laws should always prevail over state's laws. You should have one greater power to insure that a state does not try to circumvent national laws or the rights of the people.
Example: poll taxes, written test before you can vote, or any laws that were passed to make it impossible for a black or any other minority to vote.
The Federal Government overturned these laws as unconstitutional. Otherwise in many southern states after the civil war would not have let blacks vote.

[Last Roman]

I disagree. Federal laws should always prevail over state's laws. You should have one greater power to insure that a state does not try to circumvent national laws or the rights of the people.
Example: poll taxes, written test before you can vote, or any laws that were passed to make it impossible for a black or any other minority to vote.
The Federal Government overturned these laws as unconstitutional. Otherwise in many southern states after the civil war would not have let blacks vote.

like Darth Wong said, state rights should go first unless there is a pressing matter. I think 90% of the American population would see those as wrong and thus the federal government would be allowed to intervene

[Kino]

Deleted by user.

[Francisco Montana]

If I could quickly disagree with the notion that New Jersey would legalize gay marriage in a public vote (even California keeps shooting it down when the choice is given to the people.) The only gay marriage unions I know of in the United States were offered by 1 person either sitting on a bench or in a mayor's mansion.

Correct me if I'm wrong. (BTW, for those who are new here, this doesn't mean I'm specifically against it. My views on the subject may be more complex and simply opening a can of worms, but they are also easy to find on this forum if you wish for a more comprehensive look at them. This thread isn't the place)

Other than that, though, I agree, for the most part, with the thread's original post. That's why I'm more inclined to prefer state's rights. What does Washington DC or New York know about Montana or what would work best there? In turn, what do people in Idaho know about what is needed or what it takes to make it in Florida.

State's Rights is not a code word for allowing civil liberties to be trammpled on (as many on the left like to latch onto). Lord knows, the federal government does a band up job of that by themselve's already.

[Manningham]

Darth Wong: I absolutely agree. Perhaps the point you just illustrated could be used effectively in the next presidential race. Issues so contraversial as gay marriage definitely need to be left to the states. A responsible federal government which respects the customs of different populations within the country will be far more effective in maintaining order and approval.

EDIT: Just popped into mind. Some issues, which are controversial on the national stage, can't simply be resolved from state to state. Gun control, for example, is such an issue. In Georgia, a man can buy a gun with basic ID and a lax background check, take a drive up I-95 and sell it for extreme profit to sketchy characters in New York City - this is one thing New York doesn't need any more of.

We could get into a whole debate over whether or not gun control is an issue serious enough to be handled on the federal level, whether such action would even be effective, and whether the still popular "gun culture" is important enough to allow weaponry to be owned by citizens outside an organized militia (hell, we could certainly argue the validity of militias!), but these questions are each deserving of their own thread.

[Removed_user_012521]

I think we should have states rights over federal laws. I don't like the fact that the DEA can bust into a legal pot farm for medical use here in California. Just because it's not legal federally it is in the state. I think state should come first in things like this.

Sounds a lot like what the south was saying before the Civil War. States rights over Federal Law.

[Darth Wong]

Sounds a lot like what the south was saying before the Civil War. States rights over Federal Law.

Except in the case of fundamental human rights. The South felt that freedom from slavery was not a fundamental human right; most reasonable people disagree.

[Removed_user_012521]

Except in the case of fundamental human rights. The South felt that freedom from slavery was not a fundamental human right; most reasonable people disagree.

Most reasonable people now would disagree, but from 1861-1865 hundreds of thousands of southerners died in the name of states rights over the battle for slavery, most didnt even own slaves. In the civil war something like the balance between states rights and federal law became so controversal that more than 580,000 people died as a result. Something like that can not be allowed to happen again.

[Darth Wong]

Most reasonable people now would disagree, but from 1861-1865 hundreds of thousands of southerners died in the name of states rights over the battle for slavery, most didnt even own slaves. In the civil war something like the balance between states rights and federal law became so controversal that more than 580,000 people died as a result. Something like that can not be allowed to happen again.

Nor can slavery. But unless some of these modern issues like gay marriage and censorship of Janet Jackson breast glimpses are as vital to human rights as slavery was, it is pointless and destructive to try and regulate them at a federal level.