Posted on 05/28/2004 5:25:59 AM PDT by Aquinasfan
nope
She took topless pictures too, that's still considered pornographic.
I don't think government would be compleletely unneccessary. Three thousand years ago, maybe, but I think the modern economy would still need governmental functions.
But today, you would still need roads. You would still need infrastructure. You would still need funding for sciences. You would still need some standard setting bodies, although those might be private. You would still need a fiat monetary system and management thereof.
Private and church contributions would be enough to deal with social problems, and there wouldn't be nearly as many social problems, just elderly and sickness. And you wouldn't need much in the way of criminal justice functions and you wouldn't need defense.
Fair enough, I did say "for all I know", meaning I don't know.
True enough, but we disagree on the nature of the consideration: Christ did NOT come as Caesar and for good reason. Helping the poor is an act of Charity, in other words Love. To look to government to do the job is to replace charity with force. God does not force us to Love; He cannot. The two things are anti-thetical. Remember 1Corinthians 13.
I agree with you that Government cannot force us to love and we should not look to government to replace our individual responsibility to provide charity to the poor. Nevertheless, I maintain that scripture indicates individuals, the church, and government all have an obligation towards the poor. None of the three should forsake their responsibility or delegate it to the other. But the responsibilities do overlap.
But I also think that as the economy has become more complex and changes occur ever faster, that government's role has necessarily expanded. In a farm economy like Israel 4000BC, where everyone was believers, leaving the corners of the field, leaving the fields fallow every 7 years and not harvesting everything, together with a third of the levitical tithe may have been sufficient for the poor. However that is not sufficient and certainly not efficient in the modern economy.
I'm not saying the government programs are administered well or that tax rates shouldn't be lower. I'm saying all three have responsibilities and certain of those are best handled by government. And the anti-tax advocates do not see the destabilization to the economy that would result if certain programs were not in place.
It's hard if not impossible to measure the economic benefit to the individual taxpayer because the government provided disaster relief to orange growers in 19xx. But I believe that the benefits far outweight the costs for many such programs. They make the country stronger and more competitive and more resilient. That encourages risk taking and innovation and builds wealth.
Got any examples where the founding fathers voted in favor of porn? Or the use of mind-altering substances?
The fact is in most of the colonies, the town drunk was eventually hung. I'm not aware of porn even existing in colonial America.
The war on the Bible is coming whether we stand our ground or not. Standing our ground is the only hope of delaying it that we have.
You are laying the seeds of your own destruction, not because you follow the Bible but because you think you know better than God what need to be done. "
Has God said to allow porn? Has God said to Homosexuality? Has God said to allow people to use drugs and to push them on others?
"I think that sometimes people should read their Bible as a whole and not listen to people who try to make it the worlds largest chose your own adventure book."
I agree 100% that people should read their Bible as a whole. How you possibly construe that into an argument that we should allow porn and drugs is beyond me though.
Only that he found it hard to believe that a religious conservative could support taxes when the Bible clearly tells believers to pay taxes and even Jesus paid taxes. I think taxes are too high, but unlike libertarians I think government must fulfill it's responsibilities and taxes are necessary for that.
I checked the Constitution itself, and I just can't seem to find where Congress is authorized to fund prohibitionary wars. Can you?
Yes, Congress enacted the Controlled Substances Act. Every constitutional challenge to it so far has been rejected by the courts. I don't have time to go into all of their findings, but suffice it to say, it's been pretty thoroughly challenged.
I think constitutional conservatives should leave religion out of politics. That's the American way, imo.
Impossible our very concepts of civil and criminal law rests on concepts that are religious in nature, such as the right to property and the sanctity of human life. You are asking for an artificial division that cannot exist.
The American way is that we respect the right of people to adopt their own religious beliefs and practice those as they see fit, provided that they don't interfere with other's rights.
As already demonstrated on this thread, Porn and drugs have a lot of victims. It is not protected by religious rights nor should it be.
No, what's your point?
What are you smoking to say that I said something about drugs? I mentioned drinking, which is a drug but then so is caffeine.
Drugs were mentioned 2-3 posts back by Tpaine. I responded, then you hit my response with "DannyTN knows better than God". I'm still wondering what it is, that I've espoused, that you think is contrary to what God desires.
I do not think that God wishs to have 60-80% of the population of the United States thrown in prison because they watch porn. You know, your WOP?
Doesn't it suck when people don't blindy accept your 'facts'?
I don't see anything there about giving it away, do you?
YOU misrepresented my position.
I can't argue with someone who lies, plays tricks, misrepresents statements and piles on.
I am done with you.
If you do not wish to debate someone how lies, stop looking in that piece of silvered glass.
How am I minrepresenting your position when I used your own words? ;->
I await your answers.
No, I don't object to being termed a "religious conservative" at all. I consider that a high compliment.
But you objected to Long Cuts comment. Why?
Only that he found it hard to believe that a religious conservative could support taxes when the Bible clearly tells believers to pay taxes and even Jesus paid taxes. I think taxes are too high, but unlike libertarians I think government must fulfill it's responsibilities and taxes are necessary for that.
Nonsense, as libertarians also see taxes as necessary, as you know.
I checked the Constitution itself, and I just can't seem to find where Congress is authorized to fund prohibitionary wars. Can you?
Yes, Congress enacted the Controlled Substances Act.
You defend their specious, socialist 'commerce clause' reasoning? Good grief.
Every constitutional challenge to it so far has been rejected by the courts. I don't have time to go into all of their findings, but suffice it to say, it's been pretty thoroughly challenged.
. Indeed it has. Judge Thomas himself has challenged this liberal interpretation of the 'clause', -- as a joke. A bad joke on liberty.
I think constitutional conservatives should leave religion out of politics. That's the American way, imo.
Impossible our very concepts of civil and criminal law rests on concepts that are religious in nature, such as the right to property and the sanctity of human life.
Amazing that you can claim to equate our basic rights to life & property to some religious concept. -- Please elaborate, as it has never been done before, to my knowledge.
You are asking for an artificial division that cannot exist. The American way is that we respect the right of people to adopt their own religious beliefs and practice those as they see fit, provided that they don't interfere with other's rights. As already demonstrated on this thread, Porn and drugs have a lot of victims. It is not protected by religious rights nor should it be. Drugs Destroy
Nope, that 'victim' allegation has never been convincingly "demonstrated". You are simply begging the question.
As the Klinton Krowd was prone to do, I've parsed your question and have interpreted it to mean: What percentage of the US population is pro-porn.
The answer is: most of the Libertarians along with a gaggle of low-life perverts.
That isn't what the market shows, if it was just a few people who liked/bought porn then their would not be so much of it for sale.
Watching sex performed mechanically by automatons can deaden the senses and in the case of married people, destroy intimacy and marriages. After all, the greatest aphrodisiac is TRUST.
But most people who support pornography wouldn't want to know how many women involved were raped as children.
I have a cousin who was raped at age 13 by three 13 year old boys when she was walking home from school. Then the newspaper in their town published her name in the article reporting the rape! From that moment on, it was a struggle for her parents fighting her addiction to drugs and her descent into promiscuity and running away. Thank God she hit bottom, got to a fork in the road, chose the right one, and became a Christian and delivered.
Pornography can never be a victimless crime even when consentual because the billions of dollars that the industry generates is used for child pornography, promoting homosexuality to our children, and for the abortion industry. (Oh and persecuting the conservatives and Christians who dare to oppose their agendas). In fact, the Playboy foundation was instrumental in getting Roe vs. Wade through the courts.
...and when I formed the Playboy foundation in 1950 in 1965 it became the activist arm of the Playboy philosophy. I started doing the philosophy in 1963, the end of 1962 actually and then formed the foundation. The foundation became as the magazine and the company prospered, a way of putting our money where our mouth was, and by the early nineteen seventies we had donated several million dollars to a variety of controversial causes. Many of them related to sex laws, sex research with Mathers and Johnson and the McKensey Institute and the civil rights movement. In the process also we helped to fight the series of cases that lead eventually to Rowe versus Wade and legalized abortion. Hugh Hefner
(From Interview with Hugh Hefner
See also: The Cultural Victory of Hugh Hefner)
Bundy was a master manipulator. He told Dobson what he wanted to hear as a last way to cause more trouble in a world he was about to leave.
BTW, news flash, most serial killers have been exposed to Christianity in their lives. Is the Bible, with its murder, rape and genocide responsible? I doubt it, as well as doubt the dubious porn connection.
I don't know which government you're talking about, maybe that of Luis XIV or a Muslim country. But this country was formed by the people in order to secure their liberties.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.