Replies

If you feel insulted it can only be that you identified with some misguided group I have righteously chastised in my service to the Lord.

Actually I never said I felt insulted by that group. I said that the kid in with his sign were offensive.

The kid doesn't appear to have any association with that group, not does there really appear to be much of a group.

I couldn't find an actual organized sect. More of just a few people here in there trying to rationalize things.

Ephesians 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

The battle is a battle of the spirit, but it still takes place in this world. While the other people of this world aren't the main enemies with which we wrestle, that doesn't mean we are called to just agree with everyone and not make anyone feel bad about their actions.

Christians are called to do Gods will. We are called to follow Christ.

If you were paying attention to what I said you will notice I never said that smoking pot was completely incompatible with being a Christian. I said that the claims that it is a sacrament or that the bible call us to smoke pot are bogus.

Pot is a plant. It is not evil. If smoking it causes you to sin, then you should not smoke it. It's really that simple.

But why stop at verse 12 of Ephesians 6.

Ephesians 6: 13-19

13 Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.

14 Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness;

15 And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace;

16 Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.

17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:

18 Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints;

19 And for me, that utterance may be given unto me, that I may open my mouth boldly, to make known the mystery of the gospel,

When you quote more than that one verse it sure doesn't sound like we are supposed to sit quietly and try not to offend.

You repeatedly support the tyranny of the majority in your statements proving that you are not a Republican.

No sir, I'm a Republican, I'm just not an anarchist. I don't go around screaming about how law enforcement officers are terrorists because they enforce laws that don't allow me to use particular drugs recreationally. Laws that were not passed by edict, but by a representative government.

I agree that the federal government has stretched it's authority beyond what I think that the commerce clause was meant to do. However, banning the recreational use of drugs is not infringing on our inalienable rights.

I've said that I would support the legalization of marijuana as long as there is a reasonable way to determine if someone is impaired by it so that grossly irresponsible behavior that endangers others can be policed in an objective manner.

As for highly addictive drugs, I think they should remain illegal. Why? Because very, very few people can use them more than rarely without their actions ending up having a detrimental effects on others. Because of the highly addictive nature of the drugs, too many people slip over the edge from the occasional recreational use (which in itself can have adverse effects on others) to habitual abuse through which those people quickly become a burden on society.

The law of the land is the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

More accurately the define our government, and the law of the land must fall within the authority vested in the government by the people, through the constitution.

I don't think I'm contradicting you with that, but rather adding to what you said.

They limit the powers of the government to those which are enumerated and control over dietary law is not an enumerated power...

I would agree that the federal government's authority should be limited to importation and exportation across the US border, and regulating interstate commerce involving these drugs, but not commerce within the states, and definitely not production or possession.

However, that just leaves it up to the states themselves, most of which have their own "draconian" drug laws, though several states appear willing to decriminalize Marijuana to some extent.

...because it has always been the purview of the church, not the state.

That's a load of crap. They merely wanted to leave such issue to the states.

The people limited the power of the federal government because they feared it becoming to powerful and oppressive, and I would agree that it has become far more powerful and oppressive than they wanted it to become.

Their intent was to leave regulation if deemed necessary to the states so that people had more say in what effects them, and if they chose to do so, they could leave a state that did not match their beliefs and go to one more suited to them.

So what went wrong? Over time, the people decided to elect more and more federalists to government.

So now we have a legislature where state's rights are nearly forgotten, and a supreme court with justices that either support the reinterpretation of the constitution that has allowed the federal government to expand itself without amendment, or they feel bound by prior decisions and are unwilling shake our current government to it's core.

So what can we do about this?

Well spouting hyperbole about DEA terrorists and making yourself sound like a irresponsible anarchist is a good way to get people to believe that a strong government is necessary to protect them. It's a horrible way to support small government.

There is a lot of truth to accusations that much of the Republican party has pushed big government when it comes to "moral" issues. Some are learning that asking the government to regulate things is something that should be done with great care. Others still seem to thing that they can bring salvation to the world through government regulation, which if you think about it is absurd.

The reason to regulate or not regulate drugs, isn't religious. The question is does the harm that drug use does far outweigh any positive aspects. I do consider recreation a positive aspect, because recreation is something free people reward themselves with. However, when you are part of a society, you don't have an absolute right to just do whatever you please. I believe in a small federal government, but not no government. I don't expect that the government will make all the decisions I want them to make, but name calling isn't a very effective way to change laws I don't like.

Bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression." --Thomas Jefferson

Good words to live by. However, there is a difference between rights and privileges. Recreational use of drugs isn't a right.

The way that some in the government have at times prosecuted the war on drugs has included some violations of other rights in my opinion, and we do need to fight to retain our rights. The property seizure laws are one good example.

At the same time, most people don't have a whole lot of sympathy for people who are complaining simply because they chose to break the law, and then got caught.

If you want to be taken seriously, try explaining the issues rather than going on a rant and attacking anyone that doesn't instantly agree with you.