Posted on 09/30/2004 1:56:48 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
Considering this is probably the least intelligent question I have ever seen posted on FR (and I've been here more than six years), I'll assume you aren't being serious.
We're headed for "Living Document" land now.
You and Antonio...whatever must add up to a double negative for all the thought you put into this.
Involving "Kiddie-porn" in this argument has long been a conveniant straw-man used by so-called conservatives like yourself (and Falwell/Robertson/FCC) to prop up an argument that you know is destructive to personal liberties in America.
The main difference is, of course, coersion. You conveniantly fail to mention that a child who is forced to perform in porno is not at an age where they are mentally competant to know or truly UNDERSTAND what it is that they are doing. Therefore, they cannot agree to do porno, and anybody who exploits a child in such manners is FORCING that child to do something that they cannot possibly understand or agree to. The actual illegal act is the COERSION intrinsic to the very nature of child porn. There is absolutely NO REASONABLE connection between this conduct and anything practiced by two consenting adult human beings.
None at all, although I'm sure you'll huff and puff and try to tell us that our "being bad" (or demanding our personal freedoms be left alone by the federal jackboots) is contributing to the downfall of Western society, etc., yada, blah... Elvis is evil, Rock is the devil's music, they should bring back segregation, change your diaper...
Okay, first off - the Founders prohibited an Establishment of Religion (a state church in the parlance of the day) as the Founders were all Christians, but of different denominations and they feared a state church.
Their recognition of God in their various documents, letters, and speeches was not ever meant to empower clergy over the People. As well it should be. But they would go to war against the people who would create a secular state out of America because they also feared unbridled secularism more than a state church - especially after the horrors or the French Revolution and the atheist state that followed.
"I do not agree with the display of the Ten Commandments in any government facility. It is a step in a dangerous direction, history proves it so."
The Ten Commandments has been posted in the US Supreme Court from Day One. It was in your parent's school house. It was posted freely about this country for many years until just recently and there was never a theocracy installed in the US due to this. History, my friend, proves you wrong.
Let me ask: name one (1) instance in the last one hundred years where a posting of the Commandments has created imminent danger for anyone?
Thanks, tpaine.
It never ceases to amaze me how many so-called conservatives will post a thread about the injustice and horror of the left-wing, P.C. censorship at a local college campus or newspaper, and then come on one of these threads and advocate their own form of Political Correctness.
Porn laws and federal censorship of the arts are just that, an extreme right-wing variant on the the leftist/Marxist doctrine of compulsive Political Correctness. I have no use for either of these poisonous ideas.
I'd rather fight the war against extremist Islam, lower taxes for all working Americans, preserve the soverignity of our borders, protect human life, and take our courts back from the Marxists than waste my time and energy trying to force others to accept my sexual morals.
What does this line mean to you? 176 Levy78
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"
'Rad' replies:
1. It does not say that a government shall support religions.
However, it does not say that government may not support religion.
You're simply denying the clear words of the framers, 'rad'. Our government cannot respect/support the various 'establishments' [precepts/dogmas/teachings] of religions.
2. I think it means exactly what it says. Congress shall make no established Church of America, a la the Church of England.
Backwards. Congress shall make no 'law' regarding the establishments of such religions. Period.
Are you aware that most of the states had established churches?
Are you aware that under a republican form of government, a State supported church would be unconstitutional? Thus, the 1st 'grandfathered in' the existing State churches, but allowed no more, as Utah was soon to find out.
And during the Congressional debate of the First Amendment, it was understood that those institutions would not be impacted? Again, I think the folks who drafted it had a pretty good idea what they meant.
Indeed they did. They compromised, and won..
The old Colonial 'institutions' died out very quickly. No more were allowed.
I remember having this conversation with you before. Your repeating of arguments that are simply historically and Constitutionally inaccurate does not make them correct.
['SO' rad baby, do you really think constantly hyping the question at hand is a valid debate tactic?]
Many of the original States at ratification had unconstitutional laws on their books, rad.
This was addressed in Article VI, which clearly said that regardless of State laws "to the Contrary notwithstanding", our Constitution was the "Law of the Land".
WE are not talking about something that is a radically new experience for America. Rather, the community not being able to defend itself from filth is the radical departure from our history.
More hype.. States & communities are VERY capable of 'defending themselves from filth'. Ever seen any porn shops in Utah?
You can't refute my arguments, so you just keep making inane remarks that they "are simply historically and Constitutionally inaccurate".
Weird ploy. -- Empty rhetoric.
Indeed. My opinion has generally been, if you can't stand the heat, STFU. Or something like that ;)
1. Your stating that laws against pornography and prostitution are unconstitutional does not make it so.
Your claim that I've said all laws "against pornography and prostitution are unconstitutional" is ludicrous. States & localities can reasonably regulate the public aspects of such activities, while the criminal aspects of such behaviors have long been covered by our common law.
2. Never been to Utah. But I know that they cannot ban adult bookstores if they so desired.
Wanna bet? The moral majority rules in Utah.
The State is ringed by porn shops just across every adjoining state line. There are none in the State.
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.