Posted on 09/30/2004 1:56:48 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
Hmmmm. You conveniently left out, "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Why did you do that? Were you ignorant of the wording of the First Amendment?
Seems to me that if the majority of the public wished to exercise their religion by placing a creche on property they paid for with their taxes, it would be unconstitutional for the government to prohibit that.
And what religion is being "supported" by the government when the Ten Commandments are displayed on public property?
What does "the free exercise thereof" mean to you? At home, in the basement, with the drapes closed, and in a soft voice? Some concept of freedom you have there.
You don't believe that society should be allowed to reasonably regulate the behavior protected by the Bill of Rights? That speech is all speech? That the press is free to print whatever they want? That "the right to keep and bear arms" includes nuclear weapons? And so on?
Well then, I submit you're no different from the average anarchist who wants no government interference in their lives.
"I'm sure these people would have a problem with the Dave Matthews Band dumping raw sewage into public waters. Yet they have no problem with polluting our culture with all sorts of filth.l"
What terminology do you use to describe the "health of a culture". I seem to recall having heard it referred to as "the greater good."
But you're comfortable with the government setting that arbitrary age which sets the mental competency breakpoint (ie., 17, incompetent. 18, competent)?
I'd really be interested in your alternative to this "government intrusion". Maybe you agree with the Libertarians -- that this should be up to the individual child? That "children always have the right to establish their maturity by assuming administration and protection of their own rights, ending dependency upon their parents or other guardians, and assuming all responsibilities of adulthood."? Is that what you want?
False.
From the LP platform:
Adults have the right to private choice in consensual sexual activity. (emphasis mine)
"You should try downloading my email sometimes. I didn't request the 15 "Check out Amber's huge rack" messsages I received. Five minutes from my house in suburban New Jersey is a place that advertises "LIVE NUDE GIRLS--SEX TOYS, VIDEOS, LAP DANCES" on a sign 20 feet high along a major highway."
You have just proven the point. You would like to regulate words so you are free from "the thoughts of" what you define as pornography. Much the same as the loony left wanting to restrict symbols of faith so they are not faced with "the thoughts of" religeon. What you promote can turn into a weapon to defeat your intended outcome!
No. It states (in part), "Congress shall make no law repecting an establishment of religion ...".
Big difference.
Seems to me a similar thing would happen if we turned the drug legalization decision over to the states and a state wished to continue the ban.
I suppose you'd just giggle and say, "Too bad", huh?
"You are living in a democratic republic where majority rule is the law."
WRONG!
We live in a Constitutional Republic -- and majority rule is NOT law! Exactly the opposite, in fact. "Majority rule" is quite simply tantamount to "mob rule"....and that's a fact!
We are founded on democratic prinicples, of course -- but in the sense that we elect representatives to speak for us.
You want theocracy, move to Iran (quickly, while the regime in still in power).
Bill Clinton called. He wants you to return his dictionary.
B*llsh*t.
I did not use gas prohibited on the battlefield on my fellow citizens before burning them out of house and home.
I do not steal a large chunk of everyone's paycheck and spend it like a drunken sailor.
I am not in the business of guaranteeing that criminals will enjoy safe working conditions, free of the risk that a potential victim might be armed.
Shall I continue?
What does this line mean to you? 176 Levy78
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"
'Rad' replies:
1. It does not say that a government shall support religions. However, it does not say that government may not support religion.
You're simply denying the clear words of the framers, 'rad'. Our government cannot respect/support the various 'establishments' [precepts/dogmas/teachings] of religions.
-------------------------------------
Now robertpaulsen writes, quoting me out of context:
"Congress shall make no 'law' regarding the establishments of such religions."
No. It states (in part), "Congress shall make no law repecting an establishment of religion ...". Big difference.
Again paulsen, -- you are making a pointless, nitpicking observation.
As I said in my last post, its obvious that your pitiful need for attention is driving you mad. Get a life.
If you feel it is your mission to bedevil everyone on FR, at least make some ATTEMPT to keep your comments in context & apropos to the discussion at hand.
As it is, most of your posts amount to little more than spam.
No, I'd say, -- that's the way we want it, in a free republic.
"You don't like the Goths?"
"No! Not with the persecution we have to put up with!"
"Persecution?" Padway raised his eyebrows.
"Religious persecution. We won't stand for it forever."
"I thought the Goths let everybody worship as they pleased."
"That's just it! We Orthodox are forced to stand around and watch Arians and Monophysites and Nestorians and Jews going about their business unmolested, as if they owned the country. If that isn't persecution, I'd like to know what is!"
--L. Spague deCamp (Lest Darkness Fall)
That's why it's illegal to make it. Tell me why it's illegal to view or possess it?
Because viewing and possessing it supports making it, which is clearly illegal.
So rather than bother to persuade anyone that he ought to obey the survival instinct, you'll just wait until generations later when everyone left just has a strong enough survival instinct that they don't need persuaded. It'll never happen. You would think, for example, that homosexuals would be bred out of the gene pool. Likewise, you would suppose that whatever genetic tendency makes a person likely to become a Catholic priest would have vanished by now. And Darwinistically speaking, the whole purpose of survival is so you can keep reproducing, so the reproductive instinct is more fundamental.
And even if it did happen, your society probably couldn't last long. Do you suppose genes can distinguish self-sacrifice for a "good" reason, as compared to a "bad" reason? And does that distinction even make sense without moral categories entirely alien to a view based on self-interest? The point is, if you ever bred out the genes of people with weaker survival instincts, you'd have a society of cowards. And cowards get turned into serfs.
But even aside from all that, I don't currently have a death wish. In fact, I want to propagate my genes. Suppose I make contacts in the international white slave trade, and buy girls from Russia or wherever, and chain them up in my remote compound in Wyoming, and impregnate them frequently. I'll learn midwifery, of course, so I can deliver the kids. I won't really be hurting our society, but Russia's. I'll even teach all my kids advanced science, so they'll be contributing to the good of all mankind (hence, this is all ultimately to the benefit of your or your children's self-interest). And, of course, above all, it's for my own genetic self interest. Would that be wrong?
This generation will associate the stench of Wahabi terrorism with theocratic politics in general, much as our grandparents' generation associated the stench of Naziism with the genteel anti-Semitism that had previously been accepted in polite society.
Bull$hit.
"Every society has a right to fix the fundamental principles of its association, and to say to all individuals, that if they contemplate pursuits beyond the limits of these principles and involving dangers which the society chooses to avoid, they must go somewhere else for their exercise; that we want no citizens, and still less ephemeral and pseudo-citizens, on such terms. We may exclude them from our territory, as we do persons infected with disease." -- Thomas Jefferson to William H. Crawford, 1816
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.