How do any two peoples reconcile their differences when they are DIAMETRICALLY opposite from one another? I don't want to live in the country they're trying to make (and as a veteran, that grieves me to say). They don't want to live in the country I would like to make. Potentially, each side is willing to die for their beliefs...so, I ask again - how is that reconciled?
It’s not just that their views are diametrically in opposition.
Someone can prefer the color black and another white and each think that their preference is superior without causing strife.
The real problem is that one group insists on the enslavement of the other group and is willing to use force to implement their goals, and the other group insists that they not be enslaved.
This is a situation that requires a separation or a violent conflict to resolve.
“Not an attack here, but your view is short-sighted.”
The view was intended to quickly express the following fundamental principle: The stars and stripes went up the flagpole and that flag was secured by our Constitution.
“The problem is that a significant portion of the citizens of this country SUPPORT that viewpoint.” (Presumably, you mean ignoring and attacking the Constitution.)
That is their choice, but it shouldn’t matter. That significant portion does not have the option of peacefully implementing their viewpoint without amending the Constitution.
“How do any two peoples reconcile their differences when they are DIAMETRICALLY opposite from one another?”
The theory of relativism is not at play. Reconciliation is by reference to established ground rules or by agreement to add to, or alter those rules . When “they” are capable of amending the Constitution then we should adapt or leave.
“They don’t want to live in the country I would like to make.”
Fortunately, the hard work in that regard has been performed by other patriots throughout our nation’s history. If falls on you and me and others to protect that work.
“...so, I ask again - how is that reconciled?”
The simple answer is that we have the high ground, if they want to change the rules without amending the Constitution, then you and I and others will defend that document by meeting them in the field.
The slightly more complicated answer is that our nation will not survive in the face of a continuing socialist attack (even without regard to external threats) unless we defend the Constitution - by one means or another. To prevail in that regard without bloodshed, we must be represented in Congress by politicians that honor the oath to defend the Constitution.
Many Republican politicians in recent decades have failed to resist attacks on the Constitution simply because they wanted to be “bipartisan” – and perhaps feared the MSM. To citee just two recent disappointments, look at the Republican role in the Clinton impeachment process and their pathetic inaction during the Jan 2009 Joint Session.
We must find fearless politicians prepared to recognize and confront the socialist threat without regard to risking his or her political office. Perhaps we can get the beginning of a turnaround in 2010.