Posted on 02/27/2013 9:28:02 AM PST by Kaslin
Says who? Can you cite chapter and verse for these claims?
Why should we compromise? Hell, we know that in the end Repugs will cave in and endorse queer marriages anyway.
But in the meantime, asking SoCons to hold their nose on an issue once again is ridiculous.
It’s best to keep your life personal private if you don’t want to hear honest commentary on it. Keep your sex problems out of the public square and public institutions.
LIEbertarians would never hear of that! Everyone has to take bow down and praise the LIEbertarian gay mafia. Political correctness, thy name is LIEbertarian. Nothing private nor diverse in thought, culture and opinion is acceptable. They are liberals (social Marxists) just putting a new lable on themselves.
How can we fool ‘em next....Oh, we will call ourselves libertarians.
“Seems more and more people are leaning in the direction of ‘get out of personal lives’.”
Except the 50% of Americans on Welfare. It seems myopic to talk about making marijuana legal while we are practically banning tobacco.
Libertarianism has been reduced to a mere conduit for drug legalization. All I hear from Libertarians is 1)legalize drugs 2)legalize prostitution and 3)cut off aid to Israel.
It’s best to keep your life personal private if you don’t want to hear honest commentary on it. Keep your sex problems out of the public square and public institutions.
LIEbertarians would never hear of that! Everyone has to take bow down and praise the LIEbertarian gay mafia. Political correctness, thy name is LIEbertarian. Nothing private nor diverse in thought, culture and opinion is acceptable. They are liberals (social Marxists) just putting a new lable on themselves.
How can we fool ‘em next....Oh, we will call ourselves progressives and libertarians. I’m sick of the lies.
I do not approve of the Gay lifestyle. Period. Were I to run my own business, I would make this stance clear and allow prospective employees/business that did not approve of my stance to go elsewhere.
Nor would I attend religious ceremonies where the Gay lifestyle was hypocritically given a pass or openly celebrated.
This has less to do with any perceived “homophobia” and more to do with my religious views and the fact that Leftist Socialism seems to be using the Gay Pride types to target our Republic and it’s Constitution. Go be Gay... Just don’t do it around me or use it as a bludgeon through government to get me to accept your choice.
None of the above require government interaction at all. In fact, trying to find ways around the above is how the Gay Lobby has gained as much power as it has.
If you want to reduce marriage to a simple civil union contract, you can do that already without having to redefine a majority of the worlds religions definition of the term “marriage”.
Weird... My libertarian Big 3 are 1) Restoration of Real RKBA to all 50 States including completely repeal of USC Title 18 922. 2) Elimination of the Welfare State 3)reducing the size and scope of the ENTIRE FedGov back into it’s Art 1 Sec 8 box.
Maybe you aren’t actually talking to libertarians... Check ‘em for OWS stickers on their cars. More than likely, you’ve been talking to Socialists...
Restricting the nonprivate places where it may be done is a far cry from banning it. If marijuana were only as "practically banned" as tobacco, that would be a huge improvement and a big bite out of criminal profits.
Of course there is a lot of common ground for constitution freindly libertarians and small government conservatives. We have seen the unity here on this site over the years in many areas.
One of the things that happens is that on both sides of this minor divide are (1) libertarians that are more doctrinaire or ideological as opposed to constitutional, and (2) conservatives that are apt to forget small government preferences due to political expediency. What happens then is that rather than take a push from their brothers on the other side of the creek, to pull their boat into line, they try to rationalize or excuse that drift by claiming the other fellow has his seamanship all wrong anyway.
When we fail in our real world endeavors (see Bush supporters or more recently Rand Paul supporters) we retreat to the philosophical differences and then get mired down in name calling and theory debates.
Both sides have their inconsistencies and we need to see that we can make a good navy if we just realize we all travel to the battle on slightly different vessels.
Galatians 5:19-21 (NASB)
Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery (see note below), enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
Note: The word translated "sorcery" is the NT Greek word φαρμακεία (pharmakeia) which has multiple meanings:
1) the use or the administering of drugs
2) poisoning
3) sorcery, magical arts, often found in connection with idolatry and fostered by it
So, in the NT times, there was a correlation between drug use and sorcery. This is often a text used to explain the Christian prohibition against drug use, especially those used with pagan rituals.
Also, there are general principles that Christian should consider when approaching drug use.
1) the use or the administering of drugs
Under that broad reading, medicinal drugs would be ruled out - as would the drug alcohol.
2) poisoning
Not the intent of any recreational drug use - and in the sense of chemical toxicity no more applicable to other drugs (and less applicable to marijuana) than to alcohol.
3) sorcery, magical arts, often found in connection with idolatry and fostered by it
Irrelevant to the question of recreational drug use.
Also, there are general principles that Christian should consider when approaching drug use.
"The Bible does not directly address any form of illicit drug use."
Bears repeating.
"Christians are under a universal mandate to respect and obey the laws of the land"
If drugs were legalized this wouldn't apply.
"For example, Christians are all required to be good stewards of what God has entrusted to us, regardless of our national identity (Matthew 25:13-30). This includes our earthly bodies. Unfortunately, illicit drug use is an extremely effective way to destroy your health, not just physically, but mentally and emotionally as well. [...] the apostolic exhortations to remain sober-minded and alert [...] Any time spent kneeling before the god of drugs is time spent with your back towards the God of the Bible."
All equally applicable to alcohol.
The Bible does not directly address any form of illicit drug use. ... This is not to say, however, that recreational drug use is permissible. On the contrary, there are several very clear biblical principles that place drug use well outside the realm of acceptable behavior.
...
In summary, the Bible teaches us that “denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in this present world” (Titus 2:12).
To your next point:
"For example, Christians are all required to be good stewards of what God has entrusted to us, regardless of our national identity (Matthew 25:13-30). This includes our earthly bodies. Unfortunately, illicit drug use is an extremely effective way to destroy your health, not just physically, but mentally and emotionally as well. [...] the apostolic exhortations to remain sober-minded and alert [...] Any time spent kneeling before the god of drugs is time spent with your back towards the God of the Bible."
All equally applicable to alcohol.
Not exactly the same. I can drink a beer or glass of wine without getting drunk. But I've never met someone who uses pot not to get stoned. However, if one drinks to get drunk, then yes, they are the same. And we have laws against public intoxication and DWI, as well as the prohibition of selling liquor to those visibly intoxicated.
No cherry-picking - I noted his every major point and identified each as equally applicable to alcohol.
I can drink a beer or glass of wine without getting drunk. But I've never met someone who uses pot not to get stoned. However, if one drinks to get drunk, then yes, they are the same.
By "drunk" and "stoned" do you mean substantial impairment? Not all pot use leads to that. Or by "drunk" and "stoned" do you mean ANY effect? If so, then having a drink to "relax" or "unwind" as many do is unChristian.
And we have laws against public intoxication and DWI, as well as the prohibition of selling liquor to those visibly intoxicated.
And I support such laws for legal, regulated marijuana.
That is exactly what I mean, and I have not met anyone smoking pot that wasn't impaired, unless they took one hit and quit (but as you know, that is the exception, not the rule).
Perhaps a habitual user can not seem impaired after a small amount, like a drunk after only a few beers, but then you've got that habit thing going.
Yeah, like myself, although I consider myself libertarian on many things, I do not support open borders, abortion on demand or a weakened military although we do too much at times to police the world at times. Like anything else, liberatianism is not a monolithic system.
Ambushing and killing night-time vandals would be regarded as First Degree Murder in some states, but could be considered laudable in Texas. Does that mean that Texas is delinquent in its protection of the vandals' right to live?
As a practical matter, I would posit that states have the authority to define "justifiable homicide" sufficiently loosely that an abortionist could almost always claim his actions qualified. Unless the Constitution is amended, I don't see any way of getting around that without also protecting the aforementioned vandals. Further, I think the remedy for abortion needs to be cultural rather than legal or political.
Annie ain’t my favorite person but she makes a good point here.
Stossel is kind of a dick.
I do not expect anyone to “bend over’ for me..
I do expect reasonable discussion without resorting to name calling...
Is the refusal to conduct a reasonable debate actually an attempt to force me to “bend over’ for him?
alinsky tactics do not work well on me
By "drunk" and "stoned" do you mean substantial impairment? Not all pot use leads to that.
That is exactly what I mean, and I have not met anyone smoking pot that wasn't impaired,
If you never knew anyone smoking pot that wasn't impaired to the point of equivalence with drunkenness, maybe you need to get out more. I've seen a number of times people smoke only enough to "relax" or "unwind" as is often done with a drink or two. (Or do you include "relaxing" or "unwinding" with a drink or two in your definition of "drunk"?)
unless they took one hit and quit (but as you know, that is the exception, not the rule).
It's common enough that there's a market in devices to accomodate the practice: https://www.google.com/search?q=one-hitter+pipe.
Still no qualitative difference between alcohol and pot.
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.