Posted on 09/30/2004 1:56:48 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
OK A.J. Maybe I was working too hard to avoid using a religious faith argument to make my point.
Those of us who believe in God and the Bible recognize that morality is passed down from God but I often find that atheists, agnostics and libertarians refuse to recognize that fact, so I point out that even if you don't accept religious justification for morality, it still exists in a humanist form.
I have to confess, I am confused now as to what your problem is with my original post. Was it the willingness to use a humanist argument? If so, that was because I detected (perhaps incorrectly) a lack of acceptance that morality comes from a higher authority.
Legalization of drugs is an absolute must if the U.S. is to stand by it's mostly hollow rhetoric about supporting the free market and capitalism. This will not happen as long as the politicians want an easy issue in which to cloud the minds of otherwise rational, freedom-loving family people with senseless, emotion-based rhetoric every campaign season.
As for "euthanasia", I am completely against the federal or state government using it's legal-system to force a mentally competant, adult individual from deciding when they wish to end their own lives. If there is a doubt as to the competancy of the individual, then this right shall be deferred until the mental state of the individual is determined.
Legalization of drugs is an absolute must if the U.S. is to stand by it's mostly hollow rhetoric about supporting the free market and capitalism. This will not happen as long as the politicians want an easy issue in which to cloud the minds of otherwise rational, freedom-loving family people with senseless, emotion-based rhetoric every campaign season.
As for "euthanasia", I am completely against the federal or state government using it's legal-system to force a mentally competant, adult individual from deciding when they wish to end their own lives. If there is a doubt as to the competancy of the individual, then this right shall be deferred until the mental state of the individual is determined.
Abortion, on the other hand, is completely unacceptable (as would be the suicide of a pregnant woman) because it infringes on another, seperate human entity, as this being is created and formed by God at conception (with the mother being the recepticle of nourishment and warmth during the months prior to birth, and not the same person as the child).
"WE will simply have to agree to disagree. Though one must consider how society has fared since the day that we stopped "legislat[ing] their morality at the expense of other consenting adults."
Fine, then disagree we shall. I never said that you cannot mourn your negative perception of society's moral fabric today, only that you have no right to put this opinion into a binding legal form.
Sorry about the double post. I accidentally sent the first one off before I finished my thought (and yes, I do realize the irony of posting a third time to apologise for a double post).
The problem is that you can't legislate belief. At the absolute best, you can make them assume the outward trappings of the belief system you want to mandate, but not the belief itself. As someone who's not a christian, in a mostly christian (ha!) society, I'm accutely aware of just how little power anyone has to change the heart or mind of another.
You indicated in the posts above that you were not sure what I meant by the words "pornography" or "exhibitionism", so I quoted the definitions in order to clear up the uncertainties.
I want to know what offends you, what you want to ban.
I guess the MAIN thing that offends me is the proven connection between violent crimes and pornography. And it is troubling to me that there are laws against pornography and other sexually-oriented businesses that are not being enforced.
As for what I want to ban, well, it isn't so much a desire to ban anything that isn't already illegal as it is to see the existing laws enforced. An exception might be internet material that is erotic in nature and that is unasked-for by the consumer (child or adult). For instance, when a picture pops up out of nowhere that is intended to sexually arouse a person so that they will follow a link to a pornographic website--- that is troubling to me. I can't give you any specifics on how I would want that banned or whatever; I can only tell you that it is something that I might like to see changed in some way. Sorry I can't be more specific at this time.
You expressed your opinion that I am anti-sex. The paragraph that I posted twice is my reply as I didn't think you got it the first time. Sex is a great gift from God. When it's engaged in by two committed adults, it's awesome. I'm not at all uptight about it or against sex in general... just against unhealthy or inappropriate sex. Don't make unfounded & personal accusations and I won't post the reply again.
I don't know how to answer that generally... I think both are harmful. I do think that pop-up pornography or spam pornography on the internet is pretty much the same as indecent exposure, in that both are unasked-for.
Sorry, but you've once again let the ENTIRE point of my positions slide by you.
I don't have much more time here (if you'd like, I'll pick this up tomarrow), but I'll leave you with a brief key with which to understand my previous notes.
1.) GOD is a personal Savior. He cannot, and should not, be legislated/regulated by a federal or state government, either for or against. My personal belief in God, and trust in him, cannot call me to legally impose my worldview, my morality, upon you, as long as such questionable acts are undertaken by consenting adults and do not harm anyone who does not wish to be affected by this act. "Society" is hardly your responsibility. As a Christian, I witness the love and power of Christ over our souls, not our pocketbooks or legal documents.
2.) It is within your rights to hate porn, drugs, or just about anything you damn well please, but it is NOT within your right to take the case of your opinions or prejudices before the government, the ruling of which will infringe on the rights of those with different opinions on this matter (example: Porn is in the eye of the beholder, NOT the law. You might consider a tasteful sexy mag like Playboy as porn, while I most certainly do not. You might believe that sex before marriage is a sin. That is your personal belief, which you are entitled to. But you cannot legally compel me to conform with that belief (and I don't). Sexuality is between the individual(s) involved and their God.
3.) You cannot "allow" someone to kill themselves as it is not YOUR choice to begin with. This is a HUGE blunder on your part (sorry). It is the choice of the individual alone, using the ***free will*** over his mind and body that God alone has given him. Personally, I don't even believe in suicide. I believe that real men and women suck it up and accept that life is hard and that there are people who will miss them when they're gone. It's better not to rush the inevitable fact that all humans die.
However, if one were so inclined to feel different about this, there are friends and family who are within their rights to dissuade them.
But doesn't a Christian have the same responsibility as any other citizen to voice their opinions and wishes in our representative form of government?
You could see the point, which makes you smarter than most folks out there.
Those of us who believe in God and the Bible recognize that morality is passed down from God but I often find that atheists, agnostics and libertarians refuse to recognize that fact, so I point out that even if you don't accept religious justification for morality, it still exists in a humanist form.
1) "Libertarian" is not a synonym for unbeliever.
2) In a sense, morality still exists whether a person chooses to accept it or not, since God still exists. But all the stuff I said still stands: you can't justify an "ought" within an atheist worldview. They rarely accept this in theory, and never in practice, because otherwise life is unlivable. For an atheist, a human as distinct from animal life is dependent on illusion. Only some of them really understand this.
I have to confess, I am confused now as to what your problem is with my original post. Was it the willingness to use a humanist argument? If so, that was because I detected (perhaps incorrectly) a lack of acceptance that morality comes from a higher authority.
Partly that.
You also seem to suppose that proving pornography is immoral means it should be prohibited. But this presupposes a great deal, that should be argued for rather than assumed, about the proper function of the government.
nailed it.
they want to control YOUR private property.
your body.
your family.
your sex life.
your food.
your, well,
every thing they can get away with.
they are the liberty and property theives...
they believe America is evil and decadent and that our judgement, and punishment would be just. In fact, they wouldn't mind carrying it out themselves betimes.
religious extremists looking for governmental powers to subvert... not unlike the mulllahs of iran.
thank God,
because of our constitution, they will live their lives frustrated by the liberties of others.
Are they similar enough that the govenrment's authority to ban one would also cover the other?
I have said before, and will say again, that any free nation has to have a common moral belief system running through it, which is what gives the people of that nation the freedoms it enjoys ---
We have that 'system', it's called our Constitutional rule of law, under due process.
--- Legalising drugs and euthanasia will further the inroads that the culture of death has already made into Western societies.
You have it backwards.
The criminalizing of mind altering substances by the prohibitionist movement has partially lead to the scofflaw society we see about us. Ignoring our Constitutional freedoms for communitarian/socialist values is the real problem we have faced over the last hundred years.
The free market is a great thing, but without the family a society is nothing. It turns from a free society into Godless, Social Darwinian nation.
That was part of the battle cry of the victorian Prohibitionists. They were closet socialists. We reap what they planted.
Porn is a threat to families because of the perversions it creates and worsens, and it's portrayal of sex as an action with no meaning or consequences. It is thus a direct threat to society, and so must be banned (same goes for euthanasia and drugs).
Our governments, fed/state/local are not delegated the power to 'ban' our rights to life, liberty, or property, without due process of law:
"The full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause `cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution.
This `liberty´ is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property;
the freedom of speech, press, and religion;
the right to keep and bear arms;
the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on.
It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints,". . .
Justice Harlan
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.