Posted on 02/12/2006 10:32:27 AM PST by PatrickHenry
Not unless she was behaving like one. It is a mild enough rebuke. I hope you aren't making a gender-based special pleading for me to go easy on you? Hint: to avoid ridicule avoid making claims about science and the history of science that serve only to illustrate your ignorance of both subjects.
Let me know when you've got enough time to back up the claims you've made in this thread about the transparency of gold, and contemporary ridicule of Columbus. I'm still waiting for the formula for germ theory too. You appear to have enough time to post in other threads.
As a former "Operation Rescue" radical, I may have misunderstood your position on Abortion; or perhaps once-upon-a-time we misunderstood eachother. As to the rest... I miss ole OWK also. Those were good times.
Abortion is Murder, and the Founders believed that Murder Law (and, indeed, all Common Law) should be Legislated by the Sovereign States. This is the legal position at which I have arrived.
In other words, IN ONE YEAR, (1998) the Secular-Evolutionist Publik Skools generated TEN TIMES as many cases of Sexual Misconduct as ALL sexual abuses by Roman Catholic clergy COMBINED, FOR THE LAST FIFTY YEARS.
As a rigorous Ultra-Protestant, I don't intend to let the Roman Clergy off the hook for their manifold sexual abuses and institutional cover-ups; Sin is Sin, and so I am unimpressed by your claim to be the "One True Church" in the midst of much sodomy and pedophilia. But by comparison to the Roman Catholic Church, the American Publik Skool system is PEDERASTY CENTRAL STATION. At a rate of 100,000 sexual abuses per year, one might well consider the question: should Publik Skooling be Against the Law?
You think Vouchers would be a better "delivery system" for Publik Skooling. Me, I don't want Publik Skooling at all. I suppose that I would support Vouchers also; but only as a preliminary step to the total abolition of the Sodomitic-Evolutionist Publik Skool Gulags.
continuing on...
Nice to see you in the Forum.
Best, OP
Not to be unduly anal, but technically, "murder" is a legal definition, not a moral one. (Of course, it is immoral.) The correct word is "homicide."
This is important because that is why abortion, why it may not be illegal and therefore is most certainly not "murder," is undeniably immoral.
Uh Huh.
You talk a good Libertarian game, until your own Sacred Cow (Tax-Supported Evolutionist Publik Skooling) gets threatened.
And at that point, you become just another welfare-suckling Tax Leech. The Courts of the United States have Ruled that ATHEISM IS A RELIGION; but despite the First Amendment you STILL want the Publik Skools to teach your own Un-Scientific "creation myth", the Unproven Lie of Chemical Abiogenesis -- using Other People's Money, and imposing your Creation Myth on Other People's Children.
And then -- You have the unmitigated GALL to accuse me of "establishing the premise that the Laws of the United States are to be brought into conformity with Biblical law".... NUTBAG!! Was I not charitable? Did I not give you the opportunity to acknowledge that you don't even know what you're talking about?
I should think that we can agree that Murder (aggression), Adultery (breach-of-contract), Stealing (theft), and False Witness (fraud) are all Anti-Libertarian and should be Against the Law; in addition, the Hebrew term for "Covet" pertains to Abuse and Despoilment of Property, which though distinct from simple Theft should also be Against the Law.
AND THAT'S IT. That's the extent of the Magistrate's Biblical Duties, according to Theonomic Libertarianism -- the Punishment of Aggression, Perfidy, Theft, Fraud, and Despoilment. How can you, as a Libertarian, disagree with this?
Oh, that's right... you're NOT a Libertarian. You're libertine enough when it comes to letting Sodomites and Prostitutes and Pornographers have their Rights; but if we Christian Libertarians are willing to break with the Christian Reconstructionists, and go along with such a standard of social laissez-faire ~~ well, then, you'll STILL stupidly accuse us of being witch-burning Puritans, just because we want our children and our tax-dollars returned to us.
News Flash, Perfessor -- there has never been a single proven example of Chemical Abiogenesis, and there are ZERO laboratory experiments currently in the works which promise anything of the sort, and y'all Evolutionists continue to Force your Religion of "Promissory Materialism" ("We Promise that we'll find a Materialistic Explanation for Life Real Soon, Any Day Now") down the throats of Taxpayers who would be much happier having their Tax-Dollars back, and Educating their children in the Academies of their Choice.
Best, OP
The fact of the impossibility of spontaneuos generation is firm. Abiogenesis is impossible.
So far as isolationism, I am not, and I probably never will be.
One must always have the scouts out in any military operation. A commander who doesn't use and listen to his scouts should be court-martialed when he's out-maneuvered by his enemy.
As in capitalism, so in international affairs. I ASSUME the total depravity of other nations and their leaders. I ASSUME they're maneuvering to hurt me. I am stunned that you, an orthodox presbyterian, do not have that same view of human nature.
And, since I have that view, I have my scouts out. And when my enemy maneuvers against me, I preemptively retaliate.
It is the only rational position.
Yes, you are correct, but (respectfully), I think that was exactly my point:
Homicide Law (accepting your technical correction) is, according to the Founders, the legal provice of the Several States.
Thus, Roe-v-Wade was Wrongly Decided from at least two angles, in that it usurped to the Federal Power an Authority over Common Law (including Homicide Law) which was never envisioned by the Federal Constitution; and, what is more, Roe denied to the States the Authority over Common Law (including Homicide Law) which the Federal Constitution specifically reserved to the States, in the Tenth Amendment.
Best, OP
Bull. Read the decision.
Adultery (breach-of-contract)
Bull. Marriage is not a contract.
Marriage is not a contract?
Really?
Didn't marriages get negotiated by parents once upon a time?
Not legally, no.
That reminds me of a lot of "She got the gold mine, I got the shaft" jokes.
Have you heard why Divorced Barbie costs 10 times what a regular Barbie Doll costs?
Because she comes with the house, the car, and all the rest of Ken's stuff too? You call it a punchline - for me, it's reality :-)
Incidentally, even if marriage were a contract, the remedy would be contract law, not criminal law. It wouldn't cause adultery to be criminal in any case.
"a collection of stories written well after the events they purport to describe by people who weren't there" -- Respectfully, do you believe that Julius Caesar's "The Gallic Wars" are a "historical text"? We have only Ten Copies in existence, and the Very Earliest Copy of the Manuscripts dates from at least 1,000 Years after the Events in Question.
I'm just curious what you would define as a "historical text"... I mean, we have 25,000 Copies of the New Testament, dating from within 25-50 years of the Events in Question -- and yet you would rule them out as "a collection of stories written well after the events they purport to describe by people who weren't there"?
Your perspective makes me Very Sad. Way back in High School, I was the 1991 State Champion for World History -- but if we can't acknowledge the New Testament as a historical text,
Best, OP
lol. Someone should have told Will Durant he was born waaay too late to put pen to paper.
In the uniform code of military justice (UCMJ), adultery is a chargeable offense which can be punished by jail. The UCMJ is established by the US Congress.
Man, youre pretty good at that ;)
OP, the libertarian, is the correct one on 2324 except for that damned libertarian isolationist tendency.
For the life of me, I can't figure why they cling to that.
Bull, I did. Read the decision your own self.
In the recently-decided case of KAUFMAN v. MCCAUGHTRY, Kaufman argued that Atheism is his Religion, and The Seventh District Court of Appeals AGREED AND DETERMINED that ATHEISM IS A RELIGION for First-Amendment Purposes. Since Atheism presumably deals with "ultimate questions," it is -- under the Constitution -- to be treated as a religion.
You can't bloody well say that Atheism is NOT A RELIGION after the Atheist disputant just won the Case proving that Atheism IS A RELIGION.
Adultery (breach-of-contract) ~~ Bull. Marriage is not a contract.
Yes, it is; it is just a Contract which has been greatly devalued due to State Intervention.
Ideally, Marriage should be Privately-Negotiated, and should be (at least) as Binding as any Business-Partnership Contract.
Best, OP
It goes back to Calvin's Geneva.
Viva Switzerland. ("Peace through Isolationism... and universal ownership of full-automatic military assault-rifles by all adult males").
;-) Now THAT's the way to do it.
Best, OP
Oh, adultery is a crime in some states. I'm not denying that. I'm saying that if it were a breach of contract, it wouldn't be a crime.
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.