Posted on 04/03/2005 6:42:45 PM PDT by Gondring
Which Just Ruler? Did I miss something here ? What do you say to the Budhists and Jews here? Even the Pope and Mother Theresa didn't have the arrogance some here have. The Pope brought different religions together, trying not to hate each other. Mother Theresa NEVER told anyone they were going to hell if they were not Catholic, or Christian. She said, "You pray to your God and I will sit and pray to my God with you."
Be careful with that one, as you may incur the wrath of those who believe in capital punishment, prohibitions against gay unions/marriage, and a host of other laws either created by the federal government to "protect" individual rights or of the judiciary essentially doing the same thing.
It's okay. It's not like he's singling anyone out. (/sarcasm)
Is it me, or do you notice many on this forum like to "group-insult" so they won't get busted for calling names?
Good post, Nick.
It is true that many people are unaware of the circumstances leading up to the death of Terri Schiavo. Never before have I seen people change their tunes so quickly once they realized the basic facts in this case.
This is an issue that will not go away and will make Christian haters very uncomfortable in the days ahead.
I am very sorry that an innocent young woman had to be starved to death in order to make a point that all life is precious.
That is because many people do not see protecting someone's US Constitutional rights as a state affair.
Do you have further details on this? And a link, maybe?
When this Schiavo thing is over, most of the folks here who want federal laws aimed at individual cases and the President to take over hospices will again revert to the more traditional conservative approach to an ever growing federal umbrella.
Ok, the intolerance has reached epidemic proportions here..guess I'll tune in next time we have an election campaign, that is....unless you only want Christians in the conservative group.
So you miss the days of permanent minority status in both houses of Congress?
Jettison the Religious Right, and you can return to those glorious days of yesteryear (before 1994).
There is but One Ruler over all. And, as He said of Himself - He is the way, the truth, and the life, no man comes to the Father but by Him. Sounds like your argument is with Him, not with me.
wow. Was that an intelligent response.ha.
Tell that to the Einsteins who are going to vote Dem because Rick Santorum ticked them off by not endorsing Toomey.
I think there was plenty more going on than activism, like the odd connections between the lawyuh, the judge, the hospice, and the money.
A backlash? One snide editorial by a liberal bigot is a hardly a backlas.
It's not like the Founders were blind to the possibility of local dictatorships popping up. After all, one of the values of a federal system is that combinations of the parts can serve to control the whole, or other parts that are out of whack. At the moment, because of this kind of structure we have one of the most stable, long-lasting governments in history.
Venice holds the record at the moment simply because they started sooner than the US. Their equivalent to our Supreme Court was the Doge (who also served as the National Executive). Their law for getting rid of a bad Doge was a majority vote of the Senate, and then they'd drown him in the Grand Canal.
They only needed to do that once.
I think Tom DeLay has something like that in mind.
Well, you should understand. It seems difficult for you not to insult people.
Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 2276-2279.
Actually, the rule of law has everything to do with judicially sanctioned murder.
Not in the slightest. If one conceives of the "rule of law" in the most primitive way one might say that the rule of law in North Korea is simply whatever the whims of Kim Jong-Il are and that adhering to his whims is simply adhering to the rule of law.
Upon reflection, an intelligent person might say that the rule of law is the application of justice, not the whims of an individual who has managed to accumulate power.
And this country would not even be an independent nation if our forefathers had adhered to a theocratical rule of law.
All law is ultimately theocratic - all law presumes an underlying philosophy whose values are intended to be served by the law.
That philosophy may take a God as its ultimate standard, or it may take the proletariat, or the Aryan race, or self-gratification or some other central organizing principle to which it ascribes a meaning transcending all other concerns.
The rule of law our forefathers established was based upon their philosophical worldview, which ran from strong Christianity to Aristotelian Deism.
In that context, it is immoral to murder helpless people.
Of course, there are other legal systems like Nazism, Communism, the polity of the ancient Ammonites, etc. which eschew any concern for the weak or helpless.
But those points of view are no less absolutist than Christian theocracy.
You are being very insulting to alot of people - that might be why you are being picked on. Give us your opinion, but leave your slurs out of it please.
Are you sure you're not really Terayza Heinz-Kerry?
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.