Posted on 06/23/2010 8:37:50 AM PDT by Zakeet
The Texas Republican Party gives a whole new meaning to the word conservative.
The GOP there has voted on a platform that would ban oral and anal sex. It also would give jail sentences to anyone who issues a marriage license to a same-sex couple (even though such licenses are already invalid in the state).
“We oppose the legalization of sodomy,” the platform says. “We demand that Congress exercise its authority granted by the U.S. Constitution to withhold jurisdiction from the federal courts from cases involving sodomy.”
[Snip]
In addition, the platform says that homosexuality “tears at the fabric of society, contributes to the breakdown of the family unit and leads to the spread of dangerous communicable diseases.”
It also states that homosexuality must not be presented as an acceptable “alternative” lifestyle in public schools and “family” should not be redefined to include homosexual couples.
(Excerpt) Read more at nydailynews.com ...
To better understand the basis of our laws, I would suggest that you read the following link: "Legislating in a Christian Nation".
"Christianity has clearly been the dominant religion of the populace for the past two centuries of our nationhood. The Founding Fathers intended that the government be influenced by the principles of Christianity. It is time to wrest control from the grasp of those who are dedicated to recreating American into a nation whose highest standards are the ideals of Secular Humanism. To maintain the influence of Christian principle on our law and culture, it is appropriate that Congress recognize the appropriate place of authority of Christianity in relationship to other religions as a philosophical force in the shaping of law.
Government usually generates legislation because of an experienced violation of person or property. The pain of violation is a reflection of the violation of a higher moral law. The legislature’s job is to engage in vigorous debate about the standards of proper behavior and enact law as a guide to excellent Godly personal and social behavior. It is the job of a righteous legislature to use Biblical moral standards as a guide to the creation of a secular code of conduct.
Link to Legislating in a Christian Nation
Do I think blasphemy laws should be (once again) legislated and enforced in our Christian founded nation?
Should a bunch of drag queens sodomizing an image of Jesus at a street fair be unlawful?
Should Larry David urinating on a Jesus painting in a 'Curb Your Enthusiasm' episode not be tolerated?
Link to Hollywood cesspool
Should the following "art" (i.e. FILTH) be tolerated in a nation that was founded upon the Word of God?
"The target of the protest is a series of paintings by Felipe Baeza. One of them depicts a man with his pants down and a crucifix in his rectum. A Latin caption says, "The day I became a Catholic." Another painting shows rosaries with male genitalia and a third, a man with a halo and erection."
Link to usatoday article
I would hope that you would know my answer by now.
No, I don't, because you refuse to answer this simple question directly with either a straightforward Affirmative, or a Negative. Just answer the question with a "YES", or a "NO" -- continue thereafter with any explanatory verbiage you like, but first say "Yes, or "No".
Jesus in Hell: Where His punishment is "boiling hot semen," Gittin 57a identified as Jesus in footnote to same, and in Jewish Encyclopedia under "Balaam."
Christians in Hell: In the above passage punished by "boiling hot excrement" which is the punishment for all who mock "at the words of the sages." (Talmud)
Jesus: "Committed bestiality," "corrupted the people," is "turned into hell." (Sanhedrin 105a)
Just answer the question: Is that Blasphemy, or is it not? YES, or NO??
The reason that you refuse to answer the question, is that you know that you're caught in a Catch-22. If you say "Yes", you'll have to advocate Outlawing Judaism; if you say "No", then you lose any moral authority to legislate against other Non-Violent sins of lesser gravity than Blasphemy, either.
You can't, and won't, answer the question with a straightforward "YES" or "NO" -- because either way you go, you'll lose the argument.
You know it, and I know it. So I'm just going to keep pounding you with it, because your refusal to answer the question simply demonstrates what we both already know: that you've already lost the argument.
The proposed Texas GOP platform makes no mention of exceptions for "malicious intent".
Indeed, Texas statute states that:
"Malicious Intent" is presumed to exist if more than six images are present in possession.
That's freaking RIDICULOUS. My wife has a couple of under-age female cousins, and her nutty Belgian aunt had taken more than three pictures of each at various European topless water-parks and nude beaches. And then just copied the entire CD for Mrs. C_C, without bothering to sort out which pics belonged to whom. So there were more than 6 "nudie" pictures, unfortunately.
For THAT my wife should have been charged with a Second-Degree Felony?
That said, I still think that the doctrine of "X number of images equals a presumption of malicious intent" flies in the face of Anglo-Saxon legal tradition: "Presumed Innocent until Proven Guilty".
People who are of this view generally assume that it's themselves who will be doing the controlling.
"The foundation of our national policy will be laid in the pure and immutable principles of private morality; ...the propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained..." George Washington, First Inaugural, April 30 1789
You think too much. Use some common sense (I have plenty if you need some).
The number is pulled out of a hat. 5 "nudie pics" are really no more moral, or immoral, than 7. Not in any significant degree... yet the difference is a matter of 2nd-Class Felony.
Indeed, Texas statute states that:
"A person who possesses visual material that contains six or more identical visual depictions of a child as described by Subsection (a)(1) is presumed to possess the material with the intent to promote the material."
Here's what you do CC: Take your wife's CD with the nude photos of her cousins down to Texas, go to the Dept.of Public Safety and turn yourself in. IF they arrest you, I'll not only pay your bail, but pay for a high priced shyster to defend you.
Wannabe intellectuals (i.e. libertarians) just lack good ole fashioned common sense.
YES! YES! YES! YES!
Libertarians like yourself have allowed our once great Christian nation to turn into a literal cesspool. It’s time we take it back.
Can't. I already told her to delete them, because 1.) we have no use for or interest in her aunt's topless-park and nudie-beach photos anyway; and 2.) mere possession of the things could place one in violation of the law -- if a sufficient (and arbitrarily chosen) number of the pics exist, even without any actual malicious intent whatsoever.
Here's the question: if my wife had no actual intent to distribute (as opposed to cockamamie "presumed intent"), then why would her mere possession of a bunch of her aunt's Photo CD files itself be a matter of concern of Law at all?
It seems to me that if we can trust a Jury to determine whether or not such pics are "provocative" or "pornographic", we can trust them to determine whether or not there was any malicious "intent to distribute". But the law makes such Presumption of Innocence dependent upon an arbitrary number, not the consideration of the Local Community (as represented by a Jury of peers) as to whether or not any malicious intent to distribute actually existed at all.
Anyway, the wife's home from her early Sunday shift (home health care), so we have to get ready for Church now. I'll look for your response later.
Ok, if I’m a libtard then, surely you’d try to get me banned. You won’t, cause you know I’m not a liberal.
I'm not going to bother looking up the Canon Law on the subject, I'm just going to assume that "husbandly works of mercy" are considered valid grounds for missing church.
I did appreciate that you finally answered my question in your #270, and in return I'll stipulate that certainly not all Jews (even excluding Christian Jews of Spanish-Conversos heritage like Mrs.C_C) ever propagate any such calumnies against the Lord Jesus; but, the blasphemous teachings cited are indeed propounded by the false religion of Talmudic Judaism, so I'm curious how you think they should be handled in Law (if Blasphemy is to be against the Law?).
But, I may not be immediately available for return comment...
Seriously CC, you need to get over your paranoia.
Here's the most likely scenario of a charge of possession of child pornography involving your situation:
The pictures some how get out of your possession (they were stolen out of your car, etc) and they end up in the hands of a known pedophile. Law enforcement then could use the possession part of the statute to charge said pervert with a crime.
Seriously CC, the law isn't evil, it's made to help protect the innocent, not put them away.
What kind of church do you go to? (I would suggest that you find a pastor that shares the word of God as it was meant to be heard, not some PC liberal denomination).
My thoughts and prayers are with you, your wife, and your unborn baby.
LOL I don't want you banned, I actually want you (and I really mean this sincerely) to keep spewing your leftist drivel and following your alinsky play book to the letter and showing the true sodomite friendly perverted colors of the liberturdian kook cult for all to see.
Ok.
You’re talking to someone who idolizes Curtis Lemay, btw.
I’m in favor of none of those things, FWIW. I think that abortion/gay rights are issues to be settled with referendums on the state/local level without activist judiciaries. Kiddie pornographers disgust me on a level that decorum prevents me from mentioning them in this forum.
I just happen to like drugs and strip clubs and I figure what happens in someone’s bedroom, as long as it’s victimless, should stay there.
That would depend on your definition of “sodomy”. Oral sex appears to be mentioned in Song of Solomon. The book references “taste” in the following two passages ...
- “Awake, O north wind, and come, wind of the south; make my garden breathe out fragrance, let its spices be wafted abroad. May my beloved come into his garden and eat its choice fruits!” (Song of Solomon 4:16)
- Like an apple tree among the trees of the forest, so is my beloved among the young men. In his shade I took great delight and sat down, and his fruit was sweet to my taste. (Song of Solomon 2:3)
I am not a biblical scholar, and biblical interpretation can be tricky ... but those sound like references to oral sex to me (both male-to-female, and female-to-male).
SnakeDoc
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.