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 ...
I agree there are some things that should not be legislated. However I do think people should be responsible for the associated costs.
This is all pseudo-intellectual hand waving. The subject matter of this article is about a guy who wants to criminalize adultery and pre-marital sex. He seems to want to apply biblical law to American society. Vague smoke about ‘Judeo-Christian Natural Law’ glosses over the fact that the person in the article wants very specific application of his beliefs. We aren’t talking about theoretical abstracts here.
And my response is the same. If this guy wants to apply his law based on his supposed moral superiority, then I am entitled to do the same. However, my standard might be a bit harsher than his. Sucks for him if he ends up on the wrong side of the torture chamber. I think the guy is way more about power than morality. He’d just like to be running the show and create society in his image, which is typical of alot of people of his ilk.
No law is going to change the human heart. As Madison said, if the people are corrupt, whatever form of govt we come up with is worthless. Passing all these laws to regulate human behavior is historically has one of two ends, it either ends in rebellion, or even more draconian laws by purists who want power more than purity.
I worry when people want to apply these kinds of laws. Most of the time they want power and to create society in their own image. There’s limits to how you can regulate human behavior. It’s better to just let people live the consequences of it and not subsidize it with welfare and the like, and generally the behavior goes away.
That be a reckless and ignorant statement. It may be what your rainbow unicorn happy stars moon white clouds fantasy is but it is not backed by history.
Adultery is still a criminal and civil offense in several States. There are hundreds of alienation of affections lawsuits undertaken in States like North Carolina every year. Bigamy is a very serious offense in MOST States.
ALL law imposes some sort of morality, neutrality is impossible.
You talk a big game here on an anonymous message board with your veiled death threats and talk of “torture chambers”, I say, you are welcome to try to implement those statements... of course we both know that you won’t, because bluster on an internet message board is far different from reality.
For all your intellectual puffery, you’re muddled logic is complete lunacy. You are too dense to see how I’m illustrating absurdity with absurdity.
You can dance, sing, and shuffle around, but the bottom line is you want strict morality laws implemented across the country. I want to do no such thing. But I guarantee you if you try to implement them, then I and a whole lot of other people would have no problem taking you out. That you can count on. The agenda isn’t morality, it’s power, and
I despise petty little tyrants who want to impose their morality on the population.
You are correct that all laws reflect a certain morality. But it’s a logical fallacy to try and state that because all laws reflect morality, then we can just push any morality laws that we want and that’s OK. That’s pure leftist thinking of trying to remake society in your image. I’ll fight you no different than I fight them.
I think the brutality of the Islamic world speaks adequately as to what happens when morality laws are imposed.
You aren’t John Rambo. You aren’t nearly as tough as you think you are.
You can “guarantee” anything you want cowering behind a keyboard. Reality is different matter entirely.
BTW: The only fallacy present is the strawman that you keep building. That’s probably why you retreated to making veiled threats, you simply have nothing else.
You are the one acting like a thug behind your keyboard, implying that you’d love to impose your little set of laws on the rest of us. You sound real tough with your little morality police schtick on an anonymous forum. Nice try though with your little amateur attempt to project your wannabe dicator crap on me. As I said, go try and implement your little kingdom, see what happens.
Mariner posted a question:
“Ask yourself this question: Are YOU, PERSONALLY, willing to enforce such a law at the barrel of a gun? Are you willing to do so if there’s a gun pointed back at you?”
Your answer was ‘Yes’. When I confronted you on your answer, you danced around claiming that I didn’t know what you were responding to.
So I’m asking you now: Are YOU, PERSONALLY, willing to enforce such a law at the barrel of a gun? Are you willing to do so if there’s a gun pointed back at you?
Answer the damn question straight up.
Sure Johnny Rambo...
Keep building strawmen and tilting at windmills. I am sure it makes you feel important.
LOL!
You aren't in any position to demand ANYTHING from me. Makes you angry doesn't it? Mariner posted two questions. One to me, and one to someone else. I'll leave it up to you to figure out which I was responding to, Johnny Rambo.
That’s because you’re a gutless newby punk weasel who got called to the mat when you started mouthing about how you’d impose your little world order on the country given a chance.
Pretty much reflects on your integrity that you don’t have the balls to clarify your answer, and now your running around with your little passive-aggressive whining trying to make yourself the victim and me the bully like a leftist troll.
Gutless and without honor is someone who refuses to specify to which question they were answering, because you don’t have the character to say what you mean. If you can’t honestly stand up for your own words, then you deserve no respect. Pretty sad you turn tail and run even on an anonymous forum after throwing a bunch of crap around. At least I don’t have anything to worry about, because you’d never have the guts to try anything.
Lolumad bro? Still projecting and making assumptions? Now you have just degenerated into blatant ad hominem attacks and pathetic internet message board memes. BTW, if you are going to use such memes, at least get them right... it’s “Newbie” or “noob” not “Newby” which refers to places in England and people.
Keep building your strawmen, Johnny Rambo.
The foundation of our empire was not laid in the gloomy age of Ignorance and Superstition, but at an Epocha when the rights of mankind were better understood and more clearly defined, than at any former period; the researches of the human mind, after social happiness, have been carried to a great extent; the Treasures of knowledge, acquired through a long succession of years, by the labours of Philosophers, Sages and Legislatures, are laid open for our use, and their collected wisdom may be happily applied in the Establishment of our forms of Government; the free cultivation of Letters, the unbounded extension of Commerce, the progressive refinement of Manners, the growing liberality of sentiment, and above all, the pure and benign light of Revelation, have had a meliorating influence on mankind and increased the blessings of Society. At this auspicious period, the United States came into existence as a Nation, and if their Citizens should not be completely free and happy, the fault will be intirely their own.Although Washington spoke, in this context, of a licentiousness with regard to the abuse of powers of a public office, his fear of such a development in our society fairly generalizes to sexual licentiousness as well.... [T]here is a natural and necessary progression, from the extreme of anarchy to the extreme of Tyranny; and that arbitrary power is most easily established on the ruins of Liberty abused to licentiousness
That is there is a progression from anarchy to Tyranny when "Liberty" comes to mean the same as that excessive freedom known as sexual licentiousness. It takes a moral effort -- a constant striving -- to maintain and balance a public system of law that is neither anarchy or tyranny. That natural tendency is for it to do so -- for men who lust for the extreme of Liberty come to fall to tyranny.
Exactly. You have nothing. You walk in here full of your own authority and intellectual superiority and start shooting off your mouth, but when someone holds you accountable for what you say, you backpedal like a typical leftist and start shouting that no one may DEMAND of their royal highness that they explain themselves, as if you have some actual position here. Even Obama has more guts than that.
All you have to do is answer the question. You can’t answer the question because it shines the light on the cockroaches that you are the thug who thinks that they have the right to force their morality on the people by whatever means necessary.
But as is typical of your ilk, you answer to no one. You’re too much of a arrogant coward to even answer for yourself. Then you start deflecting and distracting with spelling games and pet names and other crap, when all you have to do is answer a simple question. What are you afraid of?
You want to impose your morality on people, yet you have no character or moral authority. Typical of the cultist leader wanabee mindset. Typical of those that want power to rule, but don’t have the integrity to handle the responsibility. Fortunately you are too gutless to actually follow thru on your schemes, just another keyboard commando.
I agree, but law can only follow attitudes, not change them. Unjust laws without the general consent of the people will not hold. Passing unpopular laws won’t do anything but make criminals, it will make the populace resentful, and it will just open the door for petty tyrant bureaucrats.
As long as people understand the limits of the law and realize that it takes education and discipline to have a moral society. Fixing our schools and drastically reducing welfare would go much farther in fixing this country than any vice and virtue law would.
Keep on projecting, ranting, building strawmen and tilting at windmills. It's hilarious.
You were the one who made the initial assumption. That isn't my fault. Nor is it my responsibility to answer to you or clear up your assumptions. I find it interesting that assume that you are in a position to demand ANYTHING of me. In essence, you are attempting to impose your standards on me.
I thought you were against that?
Epic Fail bro.
Please keep ranting though... It amuses me.
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.