Posted on 03/28/2011 5:40:36 PM PDT by LonelyCon
Gov. Sean Parnell's appointee for the panel that nominates state judges testified Wednesday that he would like to see Alaskans prosecuted for having sex outside of marriage.
The candidate, Don Haase of Valdez, also admitted under questioning by members of the Senate Judiciary Committee that his official resume failed to disclose his leadership role in Eagle Forum Alaska, which advocates for social conservative issues. He most recently was president of the organization, but resigned when he learned of his nomination, he said.
[Snip]
Paskvan: "Do you believe [adultery] should be a crime?"
Haase: "Yeah, I think it's very harmful to have extramarital affairs. It's harmful to children, it's harmful to the spouse who entered a legally binding agreement to marry the person that's cheating on them."
Paskvan: "What about premarital affairs -- should that be a crime?"
Haase: "I think that would be up to the voters certainly. If it came before (the state) as a vote, I probably would vote for it ... I can see where it would be a matter for the state to be involved with because of the spread of disease and the likelihood that it would cause violence. I can see legitimate reasons to push that as a crime."
Haase then asked why those questions were relevant.
"You are injecting yourself into the judicial system and so I think it's fair inquiry," Paskvan replied. "If you have a motivation to limit who would be advanced to a judgeship ... then your beliefs and attitudes are important," Paskvan said.
(Excerpt) Read more at adn.com ...
The trapping words of a a con-man. Truth is that adultery laws have been laws form thousands of years and NEVER were the prisons full of men and women imprisoned because of adultery. Yet in those eras we did not see out-of-wedlock birth rates of 50% to 80%, as we do today.
Your culture -- the next generations -- are left without men because of trapping foolishness such as you uttered.
Where is your logic that denies thousands of years of precedence? Check your calculatron, Doctor of Logic, the batteries are low or the chips are flawed in it.
Who are YOU to say what is and what isn’t? Are you prepared to accept the consequences if your moral code isn’t up to snuff to the one who is in power? And if I feel your moral code isn’t pure enough, is it not within my rights to overthrow and kill you to implement a truer, purer moral code and punish the evildoers?
Live by the sword, die by the sword.
Of all the strange crimes that humanity has legislated out of nothing, blasphemy is the most amazing - with obscenity and indecent exposure fighting it out for second and third place. [Robert Heinlein, Notebooks of Lazarus Long]
Metaphor is beyond your limited ken, so we must take it? Answer!
Mariner posted two questions that had possible “yes” answers, you are assuming which question I was responding to. Look WAY back on the first page of the thread where he posted a question directly to me.
So which question was I responding “yes” to?
You know what they say about assumptions right?
Further, your rendition of the moral code is laughable considering the teachings of every major confession and creed and scripture itself. Learn about the distinction between the moral law (which forever binds all) and the ceremonial/dietary/judicial laws of the Old Testament.
There we go.
You get more of what you subsidize; so stop subsidizing bastardy.
Updegraph v Commonwealth, 11 Serg. & R. (Pa) 394 (1824).
So freedom of speech, not so important to the freedomwarrior then?
“Indecency, public and grossly scandalous, may well be considered as a species of common nuisance: it is certainly an offence, which may be indicted and punished at the common law. Profaneness and blasphemy are offences, punishable by fine and by imprisonment. Christianity is_ a part of the common law.” — James Wilson
How does that comport, in your mind, with the view of equality under the law and the establishment of religion?
In the Middle East it is blasphemy to not say that “there is no God but Allah and Mohamed is his prophet”. Not showing ‘reverence’ to their book is blasphemy.
Should such laws be enforced where Islam predominates? Is that compatible with your view of freedom?
Ask James Wilson, since he actually was involved with writing the Constitution, I would suggest that his views on the matter are far more relevant. His views on this subject are quite accessible.
You see, the terms “equality under the law” and “establishment of religion” don’t mean what you think they do. You’ve just swallowed what libertines, marxists, and revisionists have taught you. Instead of listening to these people and their versions of what these terms mean, wouldn’t it make far more since to look at the primary writings of individuals who actually wrote the Constitution?
James Wilson > Marxist Revisionism.
But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782
Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting “Jesus Christ,” so that it would read “A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;” the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.
-Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom
So.....
Would denying the revelations of Joseph Smith and declarations that he was a con-man be blasphemous in Utah? Should it be? Isn't the Christianity practiced by the Mormons part of the “common law” of Utah?
Great example about how some so called “Conservatives” are really just Liberals. There is no place for government to regulate this. If government is allowed to regulate this, they can regulate anything.
Consider the way some parts of Michigan are moving, it wouldn't be much of a stretch to see this blasphemy law applied to protect Islam. I wonder if some would have the same thought if suddenly the blasphemy laws prevented cartoons of Mohammad or saying "Allah Fubar"?
Or all over the Middle East, these things called "Madrasahs" teach the same thing.
Thomas Jefferson wasn’t a Framer, he had nothing to do with writing the Constitution. Wilson did.
So actually Wilson > Jefferson.
I sprayed my coffee..........
Jesus answered the Pharisees’ questions with questions. It seems to apply here.
But that’s the problem isn’t it? You seek to draw and enforce your moral line in the sand. What’s to stop the next person from coming along and calling YOU immoral and putting you to the sword? That’s the problem with those who want to appoint themselves arbiter and enforcer of a moral code. You think you are the gatekeeper, you just may find yourself being the useful idiot instead.
And by all means, please clarify your answer. It seemed pretty straightforward to a number of us here.
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.