Posted on 07/23/2008 1:54:04 AM PDT by goldstategop
Yeah, right.
I guess it all depends on the facts of the case. If the guy was alone and peeing when the cop arrested him, then he was doing as he said. That was what I got from the article.
Mark
I’m of the firm belief that
if you remove all the social “safety nets” that cushion the consequences for immoral behavior,
you’ll get a lot less of it (within a couple of generations, max)
without empowering the gov’t more than it needs to be.
Ah, yes - I have a lib brother in law that uses that line whenever someone mentions that communities have the right to enforce moral standards of behavior.
Wow... genius. We can’t enforce any standards of behavior lest we become the Taliban.
I defy you to name a law that doesn’t “impose morality”.
OTOH, I am brimming full of tolerance. And not only am I tolerant, I go to extremes to protect you and your right to practice your faith. But that doesn't give you the right to impose, culturally or psuedo-legally, your beliefs on me.
And there-in lies your problem. You don't know who your allies are, and always paint yourself into a corner.
Last time I hated anyone was the 6th grade, I think. Mike Banks beat me up and I hated him for it.
Oh wait, when I was 18, I hated this guy who my girlfriend dated after we broke up. But, I didn't even know the guy, so I don't know if that counts as true “hate.”
Nope. I hate no one. Unless you use the liberal definition of hate as disagreeing on something.
Where do you get the idea that I want to “ impose, culturally or psuedo-legally,” my beliefs on you? How does one impose beliefs culturally, anyway? Sounds pretty paranoid.
I know who my allies are. And they are not those who equate me with the Taliban, who were no better than Nazis, if you ask me.
I'm not trying to get semantical with you but there is a difference between morals and mores.
And there is a difference between imposing descriptively and prescriptively.
And there is a difference between signs and symbols.
If you act like the taliban, you will be treated like the taliban. So says society.
You mean a been devorced twice “carnal” so called Christian?
by presidential edict, contraception is being redefined as abortion, and no one got to vote on it.
Ben, you are mis-representing that.
So the “Christian taliban” label will be valid when churches start executing women in football stadiums.
Until then, it is a pejorative spewed by the ignorant.
Did you ever hear of the Scarlet Letter?
“Show me yours” sure dounds like entrapment to me. Her being topless isn’t the issue - it’s the bait. Her verbal enticement to reveal was entrapment, IMO.
Yeah. It’s a novel. I read it in high school. Bored me to tears. Don’t recall any executions, though. Might have spiced it up a bit and made it not so dull.
“....a fairly good Christian....”
LOL! Is that anything like a fairly good auto mechanic, bridgebulider or brainsurgeon?
Generally, when I start thinking I am a “fairly good” Christian I see room for improvement.
A very significant number want to outlaw contraception.
Likewise, among those that have an interest in what is going on in the homos' bedroom, there is a significant number who also have a interest in what is going on in the heteros' bedroom.
Years ago, I thought I was a very good Christian; that I had “arrived” and the tough part was behind me.
Then, I got married...........
I’m sure you know how it with those sluts.
Scarlet Letter - set in 1692 AD. (that’s Anno Dominae, the year of Our Lord)
And somehow this relates to equating modern day Christians with modern day Taliban?
Come now, you’re appearing ridiculous (worthy of ridicule).
"Puritanism: the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy." -- H.L.Menken
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.