[Houmatt]

Yes, this is a letter to the Editor.

I just love this sentence:

This means the individual has the right to choose for himself what is morally and ethically right.

This is logically asinine. You leave people to decide for themselves what is moral and ethical, where you can possibly draw the line? Where are the limits? This philosophy has a nasty little word for it: Anarchy.

Is there any wonder the L in Termini's name quite possibly stands for Looney????

[handy old one]

If it weren't for the responsible people that keep this blog honest it would become just like the antithesis. Dummy site.

[MamaTexan]

This is logically asinine. You leave people to decide for themselves what is moral and ethical, where you can possibly draw the line? Where are the limits? This philosophy has a nasty little word for it: Anarchy.

That's why were a nation of laws, not of men.

Men are, at the best, fallible...and at the worst, downright evil.

So many people now believe the phrase is freedom FROM religion instead of freedom OF religion, they cannot see that denying Christianity's basic tenements is what has set government free from the straight-jacket in which it was confined.

[rockprof]

This means the individual has the right to choose for himself what is morally and ethically right.

Members of NAMBLA think there are no moral or ethical problems with having sex with children.

Some people think it's morally and ethically right to kill others because they have a different skin color, religion, or point of view.

I always wonder how these "ethical humanists" would feel if someone raped and killed one of their children. Think that would make them acknowledge the existence of evil?

Reminds me of a constant refrain from the book of Judges - "every man did that which was right in his own eyes."

[rockprof]

This means the individual has the right to choose for himself what is morally and ethically right.

Members of NAMBLA think there are no moral or ethical problems with having sex with children.

Some people think it's morally and ethically right to kill others because they have a different skin color, religion, or point of view.

I always wonder how these "ethical humanists" would feel if someone raped and killed one of their children. Think that would make them acknowledge the existence of evil?

Reminds me of a constant refrain from the book of Judges - "every man did that which was right in his own eyes."

[Gerfang]

This is logically asinine. You leave people to decide for themselves what is moral and ethical, where you can possibly draw the line? Where are the limits? This philosophy has a nasty little word for it: Anarchy.

It’s worked pretty well here in the United States where we have a congress instead of a King.

[durh]

He's right that it is each parent's responsibility to control what their children do and don't have access to. It isn't the government's job to decide what our children are and aren't allowed to have any more than it is the government's job to decide what TV I can and can't watch. However, you certainly can't let everyone pick his or her own morals without bounds. That's why we have laws. I'm not convinced that you have to be Christian to be a good person. I'm not convinced that all Christians are good people.