Posted on 12/29/2001 12:11:46 AM PST by truthandlife
a*ga*pe2 (ä-gäp, äg-p) n.
1. Christianity. Love as revealed in Jesus, seen as spiritual and selfless and a model for humanity.
2. Love that is spiritual, not sexual, in its nature.
3. Christianity. In the early Christian Church, the love feast accompanied by Eucharistic celebration.
Your confusion on the matter is revealing. What did you think it meant?
;) ttt
I once had a client with an office in the same building as Jesse Helm's Senate office, here in Raleigh.
One day, everyone started getting up and heading to the elevators. I asked what was going on and was informed that they had advance word of a 'huge' protest by the 'Oral Majority' against Jesse.
We all scurried down to the lobby to see lots of Secret Service and FBI guys (who also worked in the building).
Outside were reps and cameras from every media outlet in town. All the local TV guys, newspaper guys, etc. Easily 20+ media reps.
And the protestors? One lone soul with a battered sign, crying the blues about mean old Jesse. < /sarcasm >
The TV news ran the story with a closeup on the one protestor and the local newspaper did the same.
Bill
Sure, for public property, and as long it does not violate inalienable rights, which includes any activity that is not the initiation of force or fraud, of the threat thereof, its legal.
and I continue to assert that this provides for the greatest amount of freedom by preventing tyranny of the minority, while still giving those not in the majority the opportunity to affect change in their community.
Ok, here is where I disagree. There can be no "tyranny" if the "law" is not forcing an individual to do something, or forcing one to refrain from doing something under penalty of law. For instance, outlawing prostitution is tyranny. Why? Its legal status forces you to do nothing, or to refrain from doing anything. When this activity is outlawed, then you are forced to refrain. You have no right to force others to do, or not do an activity that is not a violation of other's rights(the initiation of force or fraud, or the threat thereof). Thats tyranny. Same goes with any gun law, any drug law, freeon laws, etc. This does not cover nuclear weapons. You have a right to use defensive force; these weapons are not defensive. This does not cover child pornography, because children can not consent to such activities.
Oh, btw, until I've paid off the full mortgage on my home, the bank owns my house, not me. Seeing that this is the case, it would not be prudent for me to exercise my "freedom" to burn my house down, as the bank, being the current owner of the deed, would not agree that my behavior is "sufficient display of my liberties." Does this illustrate the problem with "unlimited individual liberties" for you well enough?
I think if you re-read my post, you will see I said "the person paying tye mortgage or holding the deed". The bank owns the property as collateral for the loan. You own it as long as you pay. This gives you the same rights of ownership(as far as rights go) as if you owned it outright.
That reasoning makes my household homo.
What a shock, to be outted on the net, wait tell I tell my dog.
Again, what do "inalienable rights" consist of, and who defines them?
Ok, here is where I disagree. There can be no "tyranny" if the "law" is not forcing an individual to do something, or forcing one to refrain from doing something under penalty of law. For instance, outlawing prostitution is tyranny. Why? Its legal status forces you to do nothing, or to refrain from doing anything. When this activity is outlawed, then you are forced to refrain. You have no right to force others to do, or not do an activity that is not a violation of other's rights(the initiation of force or fraud, or the threat thereof). Thats tyranny. Same goes with any gun law, any drug law, freeon laws, etc. This does not cover nuclear weapons. You have a right to use defensive force; these weapons are not defensive. This does not cover child pornography, because children can not consent to such activities.
And I will disagree with you there. While I will refuse to demand that citizens of California, who elect their own local representatives and pay local taxes (of which I do neither in California), obey my definition of "illegal," I certainly believe that, via my local legislature, my fellow citizens and myself should have the right to define what is and is not illegal. Prostitution illegal in Virginia, legal in Nevada. Drugs legal in Fairfax County, Virginia, but illegal in Clark County. This, imho, is the intentional design of our government, which is a compromise between a decentralized Republic, and a centralized Democracy.
I think if you re-read my post, you will see I said "the person paying tye mortgage or holding the deed". The bank owns the property as collateral for the loan. You own it as long as you pay. This gives you the same rights of ownership(as far as rights go) as if you owned it outright.
Perhaps. Perhaps not. I may have been a little bit extreme in my examples, much to my own dismay.
Being a republican, I'm still going to say that the citizens of a locality have the ultimate right to decide what is and is not healthy for their community. This country was, for the most part, designed to be this way, and was this way well into the 1860's.. I, a Virginian, will not tell a Nevadan (for example) not to gamble, but I, a Virginian, will do my best to elect officials which will continue to prohibit explicitly things which I think are unhealthy. Those who disagree with me are doing their best to elect people who will enact their will. Neither group has any say, ultimately, over any other jurisdiction than Virginia. That is the republican nature of America, by design.
I sure hope that makes sense. I think I need more coffee or something...
:D ttt
What's the difference? I really don't care how many there are. If fact, if the only thing 'they' have in common is the desire to have sex with people of the same sex, it's is not much of a political movement. That is why the political forces behind them so wildly distort the degree of and even the very difinition of discrimination. They are looking to unify these people as victims and attract the knee jerk bleeding heart contigent to join in. Other than that, there is nothing besides 'kinky sex' that distinguishes them as a group. Not much to hang your hat on there.
I would hope that at least 80% of the people would oppose discrimination against anyone. The question is, what is discrimination? I'm sure that 80% don't feel that legal refusal to recognize so-called 'gay marrage' is discrimination.
Almost daily the spokesmen for the left remind be of those kids that I never liked in real life in far less serious circumstances.
Possession of objects, other than the two I stated, can never, ever be outlawed. Sure, maybe some public regulations, but there can not, in no way, be criminal or civil penalties for possessing objects. You, nor I, have no rights that allow us to dictate by law what others can possess(other than what I stated before). It doesn't matter what a majority wants, or thinks is right. There are no "community rights". Only individuals have rights. Home Owners Associations(HOA's) are prime examples where ALL persons in the "community" agree to certain conditions, and where certain restrictions violate no rights. These are great, when done properly.
Again, what do "inalienable rights" consist of, and who defines them?
As I stated, we our endowed by our CREATOR with the right to engage in any activity, do anything that is not an initiation of force or fraud, or the threat thereof. I have this right, so do you. Your rights end when you have initiated force or fraud, or threatened to. If you believe in Christ, then you would believe that there are things we shouldn't do. I agree. However, no Christian principle states that believers should force, or use the force of a government to make people not engage in behaviors that violate no rights, but may be deemed immoral or destructive.
It's a start :)
You describe a Democratized Republic. We are a Constitutional Republic that operates based on the rule of law, not the mob rule of men's votes. In a democratic republic two wolves and a sheep can vote on the lunch menu, in a Constitutionally limited Republic they can vote, but the sheep are protected from being entrees. Some behaviors, those that do not effect other people's rights, are protected under the heading of "freedom." Otherwise even religion could be voted on and enforced or outlawed, as the case may be.
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.