Posted on 05/23/2002 7:12:13 AM PDT by Pokey78
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:40:19 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
I understand.
And no I don't do drugs. :-)
thank you for your benefit of the doubt. I am being sincere, just thinking out loud kind of. Suppose it was dependent upon action or contact (except in the case of porn) - and you would have to prove beyond reasonable doubt? e.g. that the person couldn't do what they were doing in private as in the case of the woman who practiced her strip tease with the flagpole on her front lawn... Say someone decided to do that for fun under this law (since that particular occupation would be illegal under said law). She could have done that in private. Her behavior is much like that of a flasher (which is also intentionally provocative and illegal). My point ... I think... ;-) is that we do have a bunch of reasonable laws out there that limit this kind of behavior. Why not include stripping under them?
Of course I don't... but the very laws that are in existence are for some supposed morality. If we have other laws that are being passed that are unenforceable (e.g. gun control, etc...) why not this kind? Because to me this kind makes a whole lot more sense than gun control.
Only in a very weak sense of the term. Some laws are extremely immoral, right? So there is no causal link between what is law and what is moral.
If you accept that there are DIFFERENT moral views on many issues amongst the many diverse religions (or lack) then passing "moral" legislation is going to infringe a whole lot of people's moral views if they are different than yours.
Now I know, you no doubt claim like everyone else that yours is the one true religion -- but since everyone claims that, we end up with a lot of religious warfare as each side constantly tries to get the power of the governmnet turned against the others -- so they too may implement their "moral agenda" as law.
A better view of the law is to allow religions to peacefully coexist. Law is a constraint on aggression -- a universal good. No one wants to be aggressed against. If you want to call such a law "a moral imposition", fine. However, it is UNIVERSAL, which makes it different from most other calls for moral legislation. They are usually very narrowly held beliefs -- but even in the majority (aka slavery in the past) have no lock on morality.
Law should be minimal and ONLY prevent acts of aggression and deliberate fraud. Those are universal desires of all people. No one wants to be murdered, assaulted, raped, or swindled. You don't have to justify that from the 10 Commandements or the Bible or any other religion book. It is just natural and UNIVERSAL not to want to be such a victim.
It is not true that it is universal that no one wants to look at strippers and no one wants to be a stipper. If you can get the two together you have a mutually voluntary relationship. There is no assault, no violent aggression. Therefore there should be no law against it.
Ok then we need to define moral and immoral. Yes some laws are immoral to me but for whoever passed them they were representing some kind of morality. We need to decide which person's morality is more valid in that case and which is flawed. How do we do that?
A new addition to the Penile Code should do the trick.
Your anti-Christian prejudice has you swimming in ignorance. First, Christ WAS a Jew. There are many Jewish Christians. Second, which of the other faiths you mentioned allows one of its believers to be Christian? You really should learn at least basic facts before you express your opinions about a subject publicly. That is, unless you enjoy strangers laughing at you.
Granted but I have no desire for anyone to make a confession that does not come from their heart.
but since everyone claims that, we end up with a lot of religious warfare as each side constantly tries to get the power of the governmnet turned against the others -- so they too may implement their "moral agenda" as law.
A better view of the law is to allow religions to peacefully coexist.
Is that even possible? *If* Islam is teaching that they must conquer the world, it is not possible. If socialism is being forced upon us, it is not possible. If Communism is being forced upon people, it is not possible. Free Christianity and socialism or Communism do not coexist well. One will destroy the other or one will be compromised and so be destroyed.
Law should be minimal and ONLY prevent acts of aggression and deliberate fraud. Those are universal desires of all people.
? Which are the universal desires? Agression and fraud? Or the prevention of those I guess is what you mean.
It is not true that it is universal that no one wants to look at strippers and no one wants to be a stipper.
granted but just because people want it does it make it ok? In Germany we had a lot of people wanting to eradicate the Jews. Human beings "wants" are mercurial at best, and certainly nothing by which to make judgements about which laws are good and which are not.
I find this a perfect example of secular culture today. Whine and cry when when you get caught breaking the rules; plead "unfair"; deny absolutes unless it serves your purpose to embrace them.
The only thing worse than making rules is enforcing them, right?
I agree it's not neat and clean... but I don't see how that makes it different from many other laws that are passed.
I assume you already believe your morality is the more valid. Why else would you hold it?
The problem is, everyone feels the same way -- Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, pagan, atheist.
Within their groups, they determine what they think is the good and proper life. When they interact with other groups is when problems develop, when the law becomes a sword with which to slay the infidels.
So I guess it depends upon which vision of the earth you prefer -- one where diverse religions live a peaceful coexistence in a minimalist legal code which prevents aggression against each other but otherwise leaves them free to pursue their own lifestyles -- or a world where one religion fights constantly with all the rest to surpress all the others -- constant war, constant upheavel.
Do you really think you will get to heaven faster if you kill other religions, or if you just let them live their lives in peace?
Is that even possible? *If* Islam is teaching that they must conquer the world, it is not possible. If socialism is being forced upon us, it is not possible. If Communism is being forced upon people, it is not possible. Free Christianity and socialism or Communism do not coexist well. One will destroy the other or one will be compromised and so be destroyed.
Oh sure, aggression in any name can be defended against -- it doesn't matter if it is the local street thug, the Islamic fanatics, or Democrat socialists. Here again, the COMMON element is the initiation of AGGRESSION -- a violation of a universal good -- that no one wants to be a victim of aggression.
Of course the law is corrupt and being corrupted! I'm not saying whatever the law is is just. I'm saying our GOAL should be a minimalist legal code in which AGGRESSION is prohibited but all other mutually voluntary acts between individuals are uninfringed.
just because people want it does it make it ok? In Germany we had a lot of people wanting to eradicate the Jews. Human beings "wants" are mercurial at best, and certainly nothing by which to make judgements about which laws are good and which are not.
Again, the evil in Germany was that the law itself was used to initiate acts of AGGRESSION. See how AGGRESSION keeps popping up as the true universal evil? Even in your analogies you reach for examples of AGGRESSION to underscore your points. Yet EVERYONE universally wants to be free of aggression. You don't need a religious morality to tell you you don't want to be gassed, or beaten, or shot, or raped, or robbed. You just naturally don't want it, and no one else wants it to happen to them either.
So a "law" against such aggression, while perhaps definable as a "morality", is none-the-less a universal good desired by all people.
Now, take your law against strippers -- if they aren't initiation physical violence, and you want to prevent them from stripping -- the only way to enforce it is to threaten AGGRESSION!
So you are meeting non-aggressive behavior with the universal evil -- aggression!
As usual, the media is portraying Christians as mean-spirited and prudish. I'm still trying to figure out why the media feels it is their job to force their beliefs on someone else. Why is this any of their business? Can you imagine them pulling this stuff with say, a Muslim school?
I think Christians are pretty good about doing that for themselves.
in the meantime a couple of thoughts - what about consentual sex with minors? (shudder) How does it apply to that circumstance?
Or abortion?
Not sure whereh you picked that up in what I said?
Well, aggression, as you say, goes to intent. We know the difference, in the adult-adult case, between rape and consent. So can a child "consent" -- obviously not at very young ages. It gets a little blurrier at late teen years. I can't think of anything better than an arbitrary age of consent -- 18 or whatever.
I don't think all 18 year olds are wise, and I think some 17 year olds are wise beyond their years. But what do you do, give a wisdom test? So an arbitrary BUT REASONABLE age of consent seems like the only practical answer.
Without "consent" it is aggression. When can a child give informed consent? I don't know exactly -- I wouldn't change the current legal thinking -- it seems close enough.
Or abortion?
If you think a fetus is fully human, then you'd have to oppose abortion on aggression grounds. Those who don't see the fetus as fully human until late in the pregnancy would not see early abortion as aggression against another human.
Again, in that case I do believe reasonable people can disagree. But at least it is not aggression per se we are disagreeing about -- it is when a human exists or not
Just taking things to their ultimate conclusion. :-)
But since you invented the facts to suit your answer, feel free to do so some more.
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.