Replies

Yes, I read the whole context and I also read the entirety of an article which appeared a short time ago which was virtually identical.

My point is that there is a very grave danger in subjectively applying our Bill of Rights depending on our moral outrage. Not the least of the problems with that approach is that we conservatives are out of sync with the moral consensus of the nation: we are mostly Christian they are mostly secular; we hold to absolute truths, they wallow in subjectivism; we believe in individual rights coupled with individual responsibilities, they believe in "compassion; "we believe in the sanctity of marriage, they do not and many of them seek to destroy the family unit; we believe in imperishability of moral values and want to maintain respect for the sacrifices resented by the Confederate battle flag, they abhor those values.

I could go on with examples but to do so would be very depressing because we are losing the culture war on front after front and the ultimate loss will be loss of our Bill of Rights. If we make those rights dependent on a moral consensus they are doomed.

Context? There is no "Noble Cause" clause in the Constitution and what Nathan wrote was spot-on. When we let our sensibilities get in the way of Constitutional Freedoms and protections, we end up with the mess we have today. Cops aren't legally bound to help/protect us - why should a regular citizen (even a vile one) be held to higher standards?

We are in our current dilemma because folks let their emotions override their senses due to some for of outrage and we end up with the attitude that was funny once, but is now a sign of what went wrong when we exclaim, "There oughta be a law"

If you want to force a creep to act as you would, then you also must ordain that some asshole can legislate that you act like him.