Posted on 09/04/2002 12:22:02 PM PDT by dead
It's good that you both share all this knowledge with us.
How many ways have you and I and other FReepers pointed out how quickly and viciously our culture has been attacked? Shore up one front and the advancing columns attack our flanks at precisely those points where our fifth columnists (ACLU, trial lawyers, RepublicRat leaders) have cracked open our gates.
Yes, hop, we've quite a task set out before us. I think our troubles begin and end with our having permitted government to totally dissassociate itself from God, thereby providing schemers the opportunity to act as gods to fill The Void they, thusly, deliberately created. Statism on steroids. Big Brother without the humor.
I've suggested it's a humpty dumpty fate; my cousin, LCS, thinks we're outright doomed because we've lost our way. But many things which seem impossible become possible when we remember God only turns His back to us after we've turned our backs to Him.
We don't need any "mechanism" beyond the Constitution, if we can keep it.
That is not exactly my position. I believe that our fate is totally out of our hands, that our recovery will occur only through the Grace of God. However, this does not relieve us of the obligation to act as if we could determine our survival, to do what is right, if only to serve as an example to future free societies, after we pass away, that freedom and decency are worth fighting for, even if the odds for success are extremely low.
That is part of the reason for my love for the story in The Lord of the Rings, in which the characters fight to destroy the evil Ring of Power, even though most of them are only involved in what is a distraction, and the key figures seem to be in a hopeless position, and indeed do fail the test, but are saved by a fate determined by God.
redrock
What's in the article that you find ridiculous?
To: AppyPappy
"...This war mimics the Cold War in many ways and Ashcoroft is rightfully interpreting the laws that bind us in a way that both protect us from further terrorist attacks and protect our constitutional liberties. He and this administration deserve phenomenal credit for balancing the need to defend our naiton and the need to defend our liberties.
# 150 by eleni121
Any man who"interpetes" the law 180 degrees from the way it was written is not our friend.
Such a man is a tyrant, who sees no limits on his actions, and who sees citizens as chattel rather than as free men.
Despots throughout history have used "I will protect you" as an excuse to exert personal power. This "war on terror" serves that same purpose.
It's not "protection," it's a power grab.
Men are men, no matter their race, and all men have rights, even if those rights are being infringed upon.You'll get no argument from me on that. This is as it should be and always should have been. But in the eyes of the law, at one point, this was not the case. It was morally wrong, and was subsequently corrected.
Government can't take your rights away, but they can make asserting your rights downright hazardous to your health.Your moral rights? Yes, I'll agree with you. But those are entirely different than your legal rights; your rights under the law. Those are established by the government under which you live. This is why an issue of rights comes up with the US v. other lands.
A corrupt (i.e., immoral) government certainly makes it hard to assert your God-given rights. But they have nothing to do with your legal rights. As an example, in the US, your legal right to liberty cannot be abridged. However, in some foreign lands, your legal right to liberty most definitely can and will be abridged. Your moral right to liberty cannot be abridged; only deferred by a corrupt society.
There is a difference. Your legal rights are granted by the state; your moral rights are granted and guaranteed by God.
The purpose of the Founding Fathers was to protect all free men from the power of government.The purpose of the Founding Fathers was to protect all free men from the abuse of power of the state.
Everyone realized, even then, that slaves were men. The problem was that slaves were not FREE men. Slaves were considered to be "in bondage," so just as a man in prison was not free, so a slave was not free.At that point in time, slaves were not necessarily considered men. They were chattel. They were pack animals. They were considered sub-human. While some Christian men and women considered slaves to be human, many in this land did not. This is how they justified their continued acts of slavery, as well as their trade of slaves.
All men, by virtue of being men, should be free.You're singing to the choir here. No one here will disagree with you, least of all me.
Even in the United States no man, regardless of race, is safe from the threat of slavery without a Constitutional protection against slavery.Go back and read your Constitution. The 13th Amendment dealt specifically with the prohibition of chattel slavery within the US and environs.What we need is a Constitutional Amendment outlawing the practice of slavery.
More particularly: "Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
At the moment, I want to see all pilots armed. So does Barbara Boxer, but Pres. Bush does NOT want that. Does this mean, since I'm in agreement with a leftist, that my stance is wrong?
No one is right 100% of the time. And no political party holds a monopoly on what's right either.
If we fail to recognize that the terror comes from ISLAMIC JIHADISTS that are fully supported by the PEOPLE and the GOVERNMENTS of these nations, then we are wasting our time and money messing with a sitting duck like Saddam! If you remember as the Egyptian Islamic terrorists attacked the WTC in 1993, and our embassies in Africa, we simply sent a few cruise missiles against Sudan, and Afghanistan. We should have had Mubarak by the throat and dictated to him to shut down ALL the anti-American propaganda from his Islamists. If he is unable to deliver, then what good is he, or the three billion dollars per year that we are spending on him? My friend History is repeating itself again! As the world super-power, and with the world sympathy on our side, we should be able to shut down the Islamic movement! Instead, we are dancing around the issue, and screaming so loud that Islam is a “peaceful religion”!
I agree. However, I would have worded that sentence this way:
"Your legal rights are granted and protected by the state; your moral rights are granted and guaranteed by God."
This, then, would be consistent with the Declaration, even though the Declaration doesn't carry with it the force of law.
So it's really two sides of the same coin.
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.