Posted on 01/09/2006 8:26:54 AM PST by PatrickHenry
Well if that isn't proof we didn't come from apes I don't know what is.
That's right...what it did was constitutionalize and provide authority for the 1866 Civil Rights act...which enumerated the civil rights it protected...specifically the right "to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, and penalties, and to none other, any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, to the contrary notwithstanding.
1866 Civil Rights Act
But those are positive rights...not natural rights or fundamental rights and they're not the Bill of Rights
In any case, I consider the establishment clause a fundamental liberty; it recognizes my right not to be subjected to a state religion.
Evidently, to some people interpretation is only activism if they personally disagree with it.
Everybody's favorite Dr. Mengele did such experiments with Jews. After all, they weren't supposed to be human anyway. IIRC the experiments were a failure, but that didn't keep him from trying. I doubt Nazi "ethics" had a problem with it.
It seems like a pretty well-reasoned article to me. Quite "Scaliaesque"!
That's right...what it did was constitutionalize and provide authority for the 1866 Civil Rights act...which enumerated the civil rights it protected...specifically the right "to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, and penalties, and to none other, any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, to the contrary notwithstanding.
1866 Civil Rights Act
But those are positive rights...not natural rights or fundamental rights and they're not the Bill of Rights
Then why didn't they specifically write the 14th amendment to say that? Isn't that the arguement you used about it not mentioning the Bill of Rights directly?
I am not the one who claimed that a human is an ape. If humans are apes, why would an evolutionist have any qualms about the prospect of breeding with an ape?
If man is simply another animal, why would such a thought be repulsive to you? The only other alternative is that man was, in some way, created differently from the animal world.
How is it, if evolution is true, that man has a moral conscience and a sense of right and wrong? Where did that come from?
####Evidently, to some people interpretation is only activism if they personally disagree with it.####
Why didn't the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause give women the vote?
You are confusing evolution for abiogenesis. Only creationists consider them to be the same.
I also think He was having a little fun with Jay Feely in the Seattle game.
That's about it. Slaughterhouse is maybe the single most egregious piece of judicial activism in the USSC's history. The USSC decided that they didn't like how the 14th amendment had altered the Constitution, so they simply decided to ignore part of it. But a lot of theocratic conservatives love Slaughterhouse, because it allows them to pretend the first amendment binds only Congress and not the states.
Science isn't about what I "believe" or what "feels good" to fundamentalists.
Its about what the preponderance of evidence says.
Do you ever post to any threads other than those relating to evolution? Or is that your only reason for being on FR?
If the thought doesn't repulse you then by all means try it and let us know your results.
How is it, if evolution is true, that man has a moral conscience and a sense of right and wrong? Where did that come from?
From mama and papa.
Yes, of course I do. And if I didn't, what business would it be of yours?
Lower batting average than a stopped clock.
####Then why didn't they specifically write the 14th amendment to say that?####
They did. The provisions of the 1866 Civil Rights Act are what were understood at the time to be "privileges & immunities" issues and due process issues. Never in their wildest dreams did the ratifiers of the 14th Amendment think they were making the 1st Amendment applicable against the states.
Assuming this to be true, then maybe you can tell us just what 'ape' is the ancestor of man? Maybe you can also explain why there are no transitional forms between this particular ape and man? Why are none of them still living?
I'm not an evolutionist, so such a thought is obviously repulsive to me. What's your excuse?
It is my personal opinion that it should have.
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.