Canada has WMDs

[Occhidiangela]

The US was founded on the idea that all people, regardless of ethnic origin, and including an enormous variety of origins, could live together under a common code of laws dictated by reason. Justice would be served not by racism or majoritarianism, but would be considered on its own terms. Is it your opinion that this has changed?

Really? I think not. As I recall, the principle was 'that all men are created equal, and are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights.' I suggest to you that the men referred to were European. And that women were excluded from that definition, either negligently or purposefully, due to social context of the late eighteenth century.

Regardless of ethnic origin? That has evolved, and it stands up pretty well on the initial principles.

could live together under a common code of laws dictated by reason.

Do you refer to laws that allow illegal aliens a preferential status in some college entrance modes over citizens born in this country(regardless of ethnic origin)? Governed by reason?

In general, yes, reason is the ideal, but my entire stream of posts deals with

F**king Reality.

Politics, the realm of laws that actually get put into place, is exercised in Reality, Jester, where I don't care whether or not my pizza delivery man, or his boss, is homosexual, Tennessean, oriental, or even literate. (Nod to Leshy, that.)

However, I find it interesting that you postulate such founding principles, though the Enlightenment ideals that lead to them are coherent, particluarly as much of their thrust was in breaking the autocracy of the elite and wealthy of Europe, since slavery was an agreed institution at our nation's birth, though held illegal in some states, and the source of economic advantage for a number of our founding fathers.

The principles of equality have evolved to include ensuring equal protection under the law regardless of origin, gender, or race.

That is called progress by most of us. It took effort to make that true. For the homosexuals of either gender to find legal sanction in their unions, it will also take work since that is a break with some fundamental common cultural assumptions. (See again my prediction: the Courts will be the ones who decide.)

As to majoritism, that is an assumption of democracy, and IMO one reason that a pure 'democracy' may run into snags in 'justice.' But you see, justice is in the eye of the beholder, or don't you get that yet?

As to the dope illustration, did you just wake up? You are usually so fast on the uptake. Just because you want to do something, I may or may not feel a desire to do the same thing.

As to demographics: Your misunderstanding of my point is complete, as shown by your reply. What creates political change in any representative country includes how people feel and believe. That includes their religious and spiritual beliefs, or lack of them.

It is a fantasy that the embedded elements of faith/belief/et al will be excised from the cultural fabric any time soon. That fabric has immense influence on law, and on the process of change. Oh, sorry, you should know this, Quebec is a walking and talking example of irrational nationalism, right inside your very own borders.

In case you were unaware, it took the Abolitionists and Anti slavery faction in this country some 80 plus years to effect change. It took the Women's suffrage movement decades to effect change. It took the civil rights movement, which I'd trace back to the progressives on the early 1900's, three decades to get the Civil Rights act passed, and that, IMO, is still a work very much in progress as to implementation.

So, friend Jester, what ethereal sense of justice, one that is universal, are you assuming pervades my country? I'd say it varies by locale and demographic background.

While I am at it, you have lived in the US for how long?