Absolute nonsense, and one that strikes to the heart of libertine ideology. Moral Standards are absolute, morality does not change because libertines degrade society to the point where they no longer recognize morality.
After all, some things that were once considered immoral are now though of as moral. And interestingly enough, some things that were thought of as moral at one time, are now seen as immoral. Slavery, for instance.
If I had a dollar for everytime a libertine brought up slavery...
NewsFlash: Even the people in the South thought Slavery to be a Moral and Political evil:
Robert E. Lee letter dated December 27, 1856:
I was much pleased the with President's message. His views of the systematic and progressive efforts of certain people at the North to interfere with and change the domestic institutions of the South are truthfully and faithfully expressed. The consequences of their plans and purposes are also clearly set forth. These people must be aware that their object is both unlawful and foreign to them and to their duty, and that this institution, for which they are irresponsible and non-accountable, can only be changed by them through the agency of a civil and servile war. There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil. It is idle to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it is a greater evil to the white than to the colored race. While my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more deeply engaged for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, physically, and socially. The painful discipline they are undergoing is necessary for their further instruction as a race, and will prepare them, I hope, for better things. How long their servitude may be necessary is known and ordered by a merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild and melting influences of Christianity than from the storm and tempest of fiery controversy. This influence, though slow, is sure. The doctrines and miracles of our Savior have required nearly two thousand years to convert but a small portion of the human race, and even among Christian nations what gross errors still exist! While we see the course of the final abolition of human slavery is still onward, and give it the aid of our prayers, let us leave the progress as well as the results in the hands of Him who, chooses to work by slow influences, and with whom a thousand years are but as a single day. Although the abolitionist must know this, must know that he has neither the right not the power of operating, except by moral means; that to benefit the slave he must not excite angry feelings in the master; that, although he may not approve the mode by which Providence accomplishes its purpose, the results will be the same; and that the reason he gives for interference in matters he has no concern with, holds good for every kind of interference with our neighbor, -still, I fear he will persevere in his evil course. . . . Is it not strange that the descendants of those Pilgrim Fathers who crossed the Atlantic to preserve their own freedom have always proved the most intolerant of the spiritual liberty of others?
Using the above example, there's a serious difference between lying and fruad or purjury. In once case (lying), there may or may not be harm done to another. For instance, were I to say that your baby was cute, no matter how ugly the baby is, no harm is done. That's not indictable. On the other hand, were I to lie to you in a business transaction, or purjur myself in a court, then I am causing direct harm to another, and those would be cause for action by the government against me.
FYI: It's perjury. And you badly missed Justice Yeats' point.
Also, exactly when was the ruling you quote made. Was it while PA still had an official State religion?
1815. And again FYI: Pennsylvania never had an official State religion.
"Section. 2. That all men have a natural and unalienable right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their Own consciences and understanding: And that no man ought or of right can be compelled to attend any religious worship, or erect or support any place of worship, or maintain any ministry, contrary to, or against, his own free will and consent: nor can any man, who acknowledges the being of a God, be justly deprived or abridged of any civil right as a citizen, on account or his religious sentiments or peculiar mode of religious worship: And that no authority can or ought to be vested in, or assumed by any power whatever, that shall in any case interfere with, or In any manner controul, the right of conscience in the free exercise of religious worship.
Today, that's known as a Theocracy, something that's decried by most thinking people in our society: But some people, who seem to denounce the muslim propensity towards theocracy the loudest often seem to look longingly towards a Christian based theocracy. So it's not the theocracy they hate: Just who's running it.
Oh, so now you run to "Theocracy" "Taliban" nonsense? Sorry, that won't work. Jasper Yeats wasn't advocating any type of Theocracy, instead he recognized that morality was vital to the function of government.
I am not happy with the Republican Spending, however, the Democrats would be far worse, and libertarians would be far, far worse on other issues.
I don't understand it. Maybe they thought that if they outspent the dems, the dems would like them.