Posted on 11/15/2010 3:06:08 PM PST by TCH
I prefer calm. I’m old and tired. ;-)
That explains a lot, but it's nothing to brag about.
They have left the building. At their own request.
I guess learning to swear in 3rd grade preempted learning.
2010 - 15 is 1995, two years before JR's sign up date.
And your sign up date is was 4/11/2001, which then would make you a retread.
But since your account has apparently been nuked completely as I get a "The requested document does not exist on this server. ", a lightning image doesn't cut it. It's more like this....
Sure you can. Ever hear of laws that legislate murder, rape, theft, lying, vandalism, destruction of personal property, .....?
That's what laws do. The question is WHO'S morality is going to be legislated? The liberals with it's pro-death agenda, or the Judeo-Christian one that is pro-life.
Noob, you are on thin ice.
I guess I wasn’t clear. I am in no way saying get rid of all moral laws.
But the purpose of the laws you site is to define the punishment allowed. A law cannot be passed to end any activity. The law does not in the strictest sense ban say murder or prostitution it just lays out what the penalties are for breaking the law. If the penalties are not severe enough plus the chance of getting caught are too low you will not reduce the problem you are trying to solve.
Morality in my mind’s eye is doing the right thing when no one is watching. If a person is a real racist no law will change that. If a robber feels that he needs a gun he will get one no matter the law. That doesn’t mean not have laws it means we have more work to do.
To change morality you do it by teaching that these things are wrong. Having kids to get more government welfare is legal but wrong. Lying to get disability is both illegal and wrong but it doesn’t stop it. If in both those cases those people were shunned by society it would be more effective than tougher laws.
The liberals have been teaching for years these things are alright. Your just giving it to the “man”. No one is hurt. It becomes accepted by society that is what has to change.
I am getting too heavy even for me so I’ll end by saying no law will change thinking.
Good grief. What is it with these trolls that they need to make martyrs of themselves?
They could just log off and never post again. It’s not rocket science, although it might be more mental capability than someone with a third grade education could figure out.
You’re right about that.
Laws can influence behavior in SOME people, but the best they do is establish penalties for breaking them and give the government teeth for when it needs it.
Moral people will make a moral society, but the government doesn’t need to hasten the decline by allowing immoral behavior to go unaddressed or unpunished, or to legalize it, as in abortion.
With a potty mouth like that, I doubt they succeeded.
You sound just like the Whigs on slavery.
You can sing "Kumbaya" or shut your eyes or do whatever else it is that the libertarian utopianists have told you will work, but the FACT is that a baby is being murdered EVERY 24 SECONDS in the United States. I am no longer interested in any solution that is conditioned on the hope that people change minds.
;-)
“You can’t legislate morality. The liberals try to all the time and how does that work for them?”
Wrong. The liberals have never legislated “morality”... they have consistently legislated amorality at best and immorality at worst. That is why their system fails.
“Affirmative action quotas” are immoral because they hold one individual better than another under the pretense of helping that person they claim to be disadvantaged. The result is that both are wronged.
“Anti-gun laws” have less to do with morality per se, save in denying the individual the right to self-defense; but more to do with control and enslavement.
“School bussing” is another perfect example of an immoral act enforced by the federal power: a coercion that violates freedom of association under the pretense of equality, which is not equality at all but is radical egalitarianism, a Marxist principle.
“Anti- bullying legislation” You mean Hate Crimes legislation? That purposely vague dictum of political correctness, designed to protect and thus promote one particular behavior: sodomy. In a shining example of federal “morality” in action, the government misuses its powers, so to censor or punish a majority of citizens, and pursue by coercion the agenda of a rebellious reprobate minority. “Anti bullying laws” exemplify the federal government’s violation of freedom of religious expression, freedom of thought, and freedom of dissent. These PC “laws” violate free will by forcing the suppression of the individual’s moral beliefs and conscience. How peculiar this suppression always fixes its cross-hairs on the Judeo-Christian ethos. Thus the federal government IS establishing a religion: Anything but Christianity, or atheism
“Has racism stopped?”
For the most part Americans are not racist, but not on account of any promulgation by the federal government, but rather in spite of its constant medling. In fact, the federal government does more to promote racism than any state institution had ever sanctioned, and certainly more than any individual was ever guilty of.
“Are gun crimes down?”
Yes; for reason of the reversal of several odious gun-control laws. Gun crimes only increase where gun control laws are prevalent. Where Second Amendment freedom is unrestrained and practiced, very little gun crime occurs— an armed society is a polite society.
“Do black children learn better?”
Not as long as the federal government violates the moral right of parents to choose which school their children will attend.
“The only one that works is political correctness. Why? It is taught, the person who steps out of line gets punished for not being politically correct.”
Why am I not surprised you are a fan of PC?
“Do you think the Tea Party can do a better job than the liberals on the legislative front?”
That depends on whether they legislate, or vote for legislators, with moral principles. Christian morality works every time it is PUT INTO PRACTICE. Or have you forgotten that the Ten Commandments serve as the foundation for all our laws, at least those which are most affective in preserving a just society.
“We must pick our battles and teach morality, not try to pass laws.”
The US Supreme Court in 1973 legalized the murder of innocent unborn children, claiming they were not persons. The same federal institution stated black people were not persons (Dread Scott decision).
Teach morality? Where? In the home, while parents are threatened with losing their children if they practice any degree of discipline? Worse, the present Administration is pursuing ratification of the UN Treaty on the Rights of the Child, which fundamentally alters the parental relationship in favor of granting children broad autonomy. If that is not the direct enabling of immorality on a gross scale then I do not know what qualifies.
The federal government, as a matter of law via the Department of Education and the control it exercises over the States via federal funding and Teachers Unions, holds our children captive in their indoctrination centers (public “schools”) for most of their young and impressionable lives, where that same federal government has disallowed any semblance of prayer and any teaching of transcendent absolutes, while they simultaneously mandate the teaching of the Marxist-inspired theory of evolution and the Marxist-inspired moral relativism—particularly the sexual brand as established by SECUS. Research SECUS and Alfred Kinsey if you want a real education as to what the schools are required to teach your children:
http://www.cwfa.org/images/content/kinsey-women_11_03.pdf
http://www.drjudithreisman.com/archives/2005/08/sordid_science_4.html
“...don’t compromise our core beliefs,”
I have not, and will not; whereas you have shown the willingness to do just that.
“The founding fathers didn’t insist you believe in the Christian ethic but they wanted everyone to know that is how they will run this country.”
Hmmm, “how they will run this country” … but they did not have that mindset when they wrote the map for such plan — the Constitution. Too bad the present government never studied the map.
Imho, part of the problem is that it appears that there are posters who are confusing thought and action. Laws address actions, not thoughts or beliefs.
There also seems to be confusion over the purpose of laws. A law cannot prevent murder, for example, and the fact that it does not completely eradicate crime is not evidence that it is inappropriate or ineffective.
If you think that outlawing it will stop it then you are dreaming. It should be taught it is morally better to keep the baby alive and and have it adopted then aborted. Slavery, through constant repeating was though of as morally wrong in the North before the Civil War not after.Passing laws changed no ones mind. I am against abortion but if we can reduce the federal government and make it a states right it will make the fight one we can win. To win this fight we need more than 50% of the people behind us. Not everyone is as passionate about it as you are. Are you willing to give up over one issue? Because if you do then they have won. You will never see abortion outlawed and will see euthanasia.
I for one will fight to gain ground against what I see as a bigger problem than one issue. I see many issues that need to be changed and every step towards that goal is one more forward.
When a majority of pepole see that conservatisim is the right way we can tackle issues that the liberals have forced on us.
****************************
Why would those remedies be mutually exclusive? Why can't there be a law against abortion, while at the same time community/societal support for adoption?
And? Murder is "outlawed". Robbery is "outlawed". They still happen but there are consequences.
The reason abortion isn't illegal is because it's lucrative. Not because so many people support it.
The same with homosexual "marriage'. People are against it. One man, one woman laws have passed in every state where it's been on the ballot, 38 states.
If you believe otherwise you are buying the left's spin.
I think they would love us to push religious issues over Obamacare and the fiscal ones.
Like I said, I have no idea where the so called authority to make that letter in the name of the Tea Party came from. Everyone has free will. I do think we don't allow attacks on Christianity or allow Muslims their own courts either.
We want to place judges, get rid of Obamacare and get fiscal sanity going again? Then this is a multi-part deal We need more conservatives/Republicans elected in 2012 when another third of the Senate is up.
We need a super majority and a Republican President in 2012.
We need to put out the fires. Then we can go after this or that kind of issue which could send support all over the place.
Do you doubt what I said by the way regarding Democrats loving us to do things that would peel votes away to them?
Don't, we should push conservatism at this time. We are obviously not a theocracy that I know of (though I'd love to hear less liberal cr@p out of church leaders). :-)
I believe that I understand your concern, however, I wonder if you are aware of the recent election that we had here in Massachusetts?
Republicans Baker and Tisei challenged incumbent Governor Patrick and lost. Baker supported homosexual “rights”, as did Tisei, an openly homosexual candidate. Deval was reelected.
That may or may not strike you as relevant, but it says to me that conservatives will not vote for candidates that are not much different from their opponents. Imho, we make a grave error by believing that our candidates must be “moderate” to win.
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.