Rooster7

Call me silly, but I interpret Ed's statement to mean the following:

Penn & Teller's discontentment with the BSA provides the same shock value as stating that bin Laden has issues with the BSA. As to why that is, Ed does not say. However, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to discern Penn & Teller as ultra-liberals who like to assail conservative organizations (and like it or not, the BSA is pretty much considered to be such an organization). Osama bin Laden clearly hates all things American, including the BSA. While bin Ladens motives may be different than Penn & Tellers, both dislike the BSAand that dislike for the BSA was and is highly predictable. I believe that was Eds point. So...put your overly sensitive, hyper critical minds to rest - I'm sure he was not accusing Penn & Teller as being covert terrorists.

(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

Can we learn something from the show?

A question not worth answering, if there ever was one.

Since we are discussing Atlanta, perhaps kudzu would be a better analogy than fungus ;-)

No. The real absurdity is this guy's continual posting to this site. No. Actually, the biggest absurdity are those on this forum that continually defend his postings...as if by doing so they are reaching new heights in patriotism. Free speech is free speech. When its exercised, its value is in the substance of the thoughts expressed by those words. If those words ring hollow, then its just a clanging gongnotable, but very annoying.

Beavah,

Did I say that? I didn't mean to.

Perhaps not. Sometimes I oversimplify for my own benefit and understanding.

But it is a Christian act to spare their God-given life, because so long as they have breath in them they may yet be Saved.

Thats debatable even amongst Christian circles. However, since no man can see and/or understand fully another mans heart, its pointless to debate. I understand and agree with your contention. Still, there are other factors which one should consider such as, Gods warning that one should submit to governmental authorities and be prepared to pay the price if one does not.

Romans 13:1-3 reads:

Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you.

Sometimes, though, particularly in small communities and unstable countries, there may be no way for a society to prevent future bad acts without execution. That would be just.

Im not convinced that the above only applies to small communities and unstable countries. Are not the lives of prison guards and other prisoners worth protecting? And, despite contrary claims elsewhere, I see the death penalty as a strong deterrent especially if it was applied consistently for heinous crimes committed by knowing individuals.

Beavah,

Upon reading Longhaul's comments, I was tempted to join this fray. But I see you defend yourself very well. I do part ways with you on one point. I'm not convinced that the life of a child-molester/killer deserves the same sense of sanctity as the unborn or some other innocent life.

SR540Beaver,

My opinions are my own. You made the accusation, so please provide the proof of abuse. Less hype, more facts please

From the USA Today, House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner discussing the civil liberties violations resulting from the USA PATRIOT Act:

Zero. That's the number of substantiated USA PATRIOT Act civil liberties violations. Extensive congressional oversight found no violations. Six reports by the Justice Department's independent Inspector General, who is required to solicit and investigate any allegations of abuse, found no violations. Intense public scrutiny has yet to find a single civil liberty abuse. Despite many challenges, no federal court has declared unconstitutional any of the PATRIOT Act provisions Congress is renewing.

All I see is baseless ranting. While I agree that we need to guard our freedoms, I have yet to see one real life example (as requested) that comes close to the hysteria being presented here.

Long Haul whether you intended it to be interpreted this way or not, your quote is meant for people of prejudice and/or insensitivity, who turn a blind eye to injustices and atrocities which do not affect them directly. Ill give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you meant something else. If you meant for it to be interpreted properly likening me to the citizenry of NAZI Germany who supposedly were aware of atrocities but chose to ignore them - then I have a few choice words for you which I cannot post here. Use your imagination.

I disagree with those who purport that our freedoms have been seriously hindered by the current administration. Its that simple. I see a lot of pudding, but no proof.

So the government wants to monitor Google searches for red flags. What freedoms have Americans lost, and exactly how will our lives be affected? And, can anyone give me a specific real life example as to how they personally, have been affected by new laws (i.e. the Patriot Act) which supposedly restricts our freedom? Please refrain from, I had to stand in line for two hours at the airport or Im losing sleep at night because Im afraid the government will discover my taste for ladies shoes. How, in real terms, has our freedom and happiness been hindered by Big Brother. To me, this is all overblown. Until I hear a case where someone has truly been harmed, this is just a bunch of hype.

You must have been confident that they would be persuasive to others or you wouldn't have told us about them. So why not confidently use them in exactly that manner to provide that broad persuasive power? Convince individuals BEFORE they decide. You have the opportunity to do this without further legislation, why not do it?

Because the world is filled with people who would rather serve themselves unashamedly and without regard to others, than do the right thing. This is why we have laws. If I could show a bunch of rapists, pictures of folks whose lives theyve destroyed, I doubt seriously if they would stop raping. And even if some stopped, Id still want laws in place to deter and punish those who selfishly pursued their own interests at the expense of others. In short, my concern is for the victim not the perpetrator.

Have you seen a video of an abortion? If not, how can you defend its practice? Look at the evidence and then you will know of what you speak.

...if we are so confident that those images will compel anyone's decision, then there is no further need of legislation is there? We are agreed. Provide our images and let individuals make their own private decisions.

We do not agree. Using that logic...we should show videos and pictures of abused children to parents so they can decide whether or not its appropriate to beat their kids with a bat? It's insane. Just as it's proper for the government to prohibit child abuse, it is also proper for the government to ban abortions.

Merlyn,

You realize that both of the Lovings would've spent a year in jail for violating this law if it hadn't been overturned. Plus, even if the supreme court hadn't declared marriage to be a civil right, one justice pointed out that it couldn't possibly be constitutional for an act to be a crime solely due to the races of the actors. That's what the Virginia law did.

Okay greatIm glad there was a good Constitutional argument to denounce and overturn the ban. But I stand by my point, there will always be good and bad laws. I prefer those laws good, bad, or indifferent to be created by legislative representatives. And I never denied the fact that the Constitution provides for individual protections. Where I disagree with some on this board - is the extent of those protections.

Okay packsaddle, I apologize for mischaracterizing your position. Allow me to answer your question.

To me the question is less about viability than when do you want to make the decision for another individual, take that responsibility away from them, and dictate their life for them?

When the said individual decides killing her child is an option that she wishes to pursue. It should not be available as a legal option. Now, ask yourself the same question, but make the child the object of concern as opposed to the mother. Could you tell me when you step in to protect the child? Is partial birth abortion acceptable? Would you look the other way if a mother decided to kill her five year-old child because its her private reproductive decision? Oh a little late in the game for that? I agree.

If the pro-life reasoning is strong enough then its persuasive power should cause those individuals with whom the responsibility to make the decision rests to make a decision that is agreeable to you. If that reasoning is not sufficient then perhaps you should improve it.

If you want compelling evidence that a fetus is a child...a life worth protecting, then watch a video of the procedure. Watch as a living child is torn apart inside his mother's womb by probing instruments. Perhaps when youre confronted with the persuasive power of those images, you will recant your position. And if youve already seen such videos, then may God have mercy on you for defending a "mother's right" to this choice.

To me the question is less about viability than when do you want to make the decision for another individual, take that responsibility away from them, and dictate their life for them?

Interestinglyand ironically, you seem oblivious to the life of the child when you pose this question. In other words, your bias is apparent. You dont believe the unborn represents a human life worth defending, only the mother.

While I am all for "women's rights", I don't support their right to kill an unborn child, even one that they might be carrying. The right of the child to live should take priority. And if were going to err on the side of prudence, we should be seeking to prevent the taking of an innocent life, not the right of the woman to terminate a pregnancy at will.

Merlyn,

And, as before, a quite large majority wanted such a law. I'm pretty sure even a majority of black citizens were in favor of such a law at the time. I can't see how your position could allow for a popular law like that to be ruled unconstitutional.

If so, then reference the second portion of my last post, which said:

Regardless, my point is not that every law created or endorsed by the majority is a good law. But the courts should not force their idea of morality (rightly or wrongly) on the public when the will of the majority has been expressed into law.

Im not saying that I liked that particular law. I am saying - when the majority of voters become educated and/or enlightened, and reflect the same by voting for the appropriate representatives and/or referendums, that is when the law should be changed.

You will win a lot of support from folks who see the injustices and the ignorance mirrored by these kinds of laws. I understand that. And I am happy that many such laws no longer exist. However, if we allow courts to rewrite laws to their own liking, eventually we wind up with just as many stupid laws. Except these laws with be determined by a handful of suedo-intellectuals who claim to speak for all of us. I prefer majority rule, with a strict interpretation of the Constitution for minority and/or individual rights.

GB,

The answer to your last question is above.

In regard to - You want to change the rules - I could well say the same thing. I believe jurists who support your view of the Constitution have changed the rules. They have interpreted the Constitution so to reflect their personal agendas rather than the hearts and minds of the original framers of the document. The framers wanted to empower voters and the legislative branch to make such determinations.

JD,

History shows the majority isn't trustworthy enough to be the final arbiter of law.

I disagree at least to this point. Majority rule is as trustworthy as any other means if not more so. Did Hitler and Stalin do better? Consolidating power to a few does not assure tranquility. It only hastens corruption, providing a vehicle for a few to serve their own interests as opposed to the interests of the majority.

Christian Nation? I don't think there's a very large number of Americans who would like to see the USA be a Democratic Theocracy.

If labeling our country a Christian nation, means we must become a theocracy, then I agree. I think most Christians would agree only God is qualified to run our nation as a theocracy. I look at that label in the same way Id look at India being labeled a Hindu nation. As someone mentioned earlier its a generalization. It doesnt mean we need to establish Christianity as a state religion.

Society can make things miserable for women who want the choice.

Thats one way of viewing it. Society should do everything possible to protect innocent babies. Thats another way to view it.

But the choice will be there nevertheless.

True - the choice between right and wrong is always available, but thats not limited to abortion.

GB,

Saying that laws against murder, rape and incest are examples of Christian values is akin to saying that eating healthy is a Christian value.

You missed my point. In fact, if you view these examples as something other than Christian values, youre proving my point. Just like one cannot say laws against incest is exclusively a Christian value, one cannot say laws against homosexual marriage and abortion are exclusively Christian values. So if the majority votes for such laws, the courts should not overturn the law by claiming the impetus for such legislation is religious.

Merlyn,

I would argue that the law you referenced violated the constitutional protection afforded African-Americans and others, which assures us all men are created equal. That is, discrimination based on racial makeup is wrong and unlawful.

Regardless, my point is not that every law created or endorsed by the majority is a good law. But the courts should not force their idea of morality (rightly or wrongly) on the public when the will of the majority has been expressed into law. Of course, the law must pass the constitutionality test but jurists need to restrict their interpretations to the text of the Constitution and stop expanding the meaning beyond what is reasonable. The Constitution was not written for lawyers but for the people of the United States. While I understand that sometimes the majority makes bad choices, Id rather live in a country where their voice is heard and adhered to than a country which allows the minority to have dominion - or worse, where judges dictate their agenda.

I wasnt born yesterday. I appreciate the civil rights movement. But it was a movement - and eventually the majority of Americans climbed on board.

For example: Let's say that the majority of voters in Massachusetts get a law passed that bans same-sex marriages. The MA Supreme Court overturns that law as unconstitutional. How does that violate the rights of those majority voters?

It violates their rights because its the will of the people. The US government should never circumvent the will of the people so long as individual Constitutional protections are not being violated. Per your example, I do not believe a ban on homosexual marriages violates any protected right provided by the Constitution.

Is their ability to practice their religion compromised by overturning this law? Are their rights to marry being compromised by overturning this law?

Neither of these are relevant again, the right to govern ourselves is being violated.

The only "right" they are being denied is the ability to impose their morality on others.

Again, every law has a moral base. Therefore, every time a law is created, the morality of the majority is being forced on the minority. This is how it should be. The minority should not be able set the moral tone for the majority.

I missed these questions in your previous post, Rooster: "First, who gets to determine whether or not a value is of Christian origin? And second, who gets to determine the mindset of each voter as they cast their vote seeking to have such a law created?"

Well, I think any reason for wanting a law that starts with "The Bible says...." should send up a red flag. I don't think that a law that is based on a religious value should automatically be discounted, because there are plenty of religious-based values that are shared by EVERY religion. However, when a value NOT shared by the minority religions is being considered as a law, extra care should be taken to think about whether that law will really be of benefit to society or is only being enacted to appease the morality of the majority.

The above creates an implausible set of circumstances and forces the government to make presumptions that they should not make. Furthermore, I think its the wrong interpretation of the Constitution. The government has no idea why the majority embraces certain values. In other words, unless someone writes a law with a preamble as you suggested, the Bible says - how does the government know that a law is being supported for religious reasons? Going back to abortion, the government should not presume that every person who is against abortion is motivated by religious reasons. Theres no way to determine that, and frankly its not the business of the government to know. Even if the majority is motivated by religious faith, this is not a violation of the establishment clause. Only when a law forces citizens to embrace a particular faith does this clause come into play. Lastly, given the number and variety of religious faiths in this country not to mention atheists and others, I contend that we do NOT share a single common value. There will always be a minority of some size that can assert that a law violates their religious beliefs. Given that criteria, every law would have to be abolish. With the possible exception of murder and rape, and I dare say a quick Internet search will probably prove otherwise - we do not have one value that is unanimously shared.

In other words, sometimes the rights of the minority do need to be considered above the will of the majority. This is the point I've been making all along, and which you have stated, Rooster, that you disagree with. So we seem to be at an impasse, and will have to agree to disagree.

I think what we disagree upon is - What exactly are the individual protections that the Constitution protects. I think we were given the basics Free speech (with limited restrictions), freedom to seek our own faith (or not), and several others that we commonly know and accept. And even here, I believe there are limitations. If one embraces a religion which seeks to do harm to others, I see nothing in the Constitution which insures individuals the right to practice such a faith.

We may be at an impasse. I truly believe that the framers of our Constitution never meant for it to be interpreted as it has been. Many jurists in recent history have expanded our individual rights in such a scope and manner that it violates our right to be self governed. I am fiercely opposed to such an expansion of individual rights.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

I do believe that codifying Christian morality into law violates my first amendment rights if that law is in conflict with my own religious beliefs.

Murder and rape are examples of morality being codified as law. Now, as to the Christian part of the argument - I have to ask two questions. First, who gets to determine whether or not a value is of Christian origin? And second, who gets to determine the mindset of each voter as they cast their vote seeking to have such a law created? I think the answer to both questions is nobody. Again, the government is violating everyones right when they strike down laws supported by the majority. Every law has a moral origin, and it is not the governments job to limit the morality of the people to secular values (if anything can be rightly labeled as such). We the people determine the morality by which we want the nation to govern us.

And just for giggles heres something else to ponder: What if non-religious persons agreed with certain religious values, and decided to adopt them as their own. For example, say millions of atheists decided it was a good idea to limit marriage to a man and a woman. What business does the government havewhat justification could they use to label this value as religious and thus nullify it for consideration as law.

I agree with whoever said that the best way to solve the abortion controversy is to define when life starts, but I'm not sure that can be accomplished without then starting another controversy.

I agree with you.

For those who believe that life begins at conception, what is the basis of that belief?

Biblical arguments aside, given our limited ability to make such a determination, it is the safest assumption to make. For those who believe that life does NOT begin at conceptionor NOT until the day of birth, what is the basis of that belief? Is viability the only criteria? If a fetus reacts to pain, isnt this enough of an indicator to hearten and heighten your sense of consciousness and concern that we are in fact dealing with a human child.

I have seen many Christians cite the Bible to support the belief that abortion is a sin because it is murder, but have not seen any citation that explicitly says that conception is the start of a human life.

There are no explicit verses that say killing an unborn child is murderNor are there any explicit verses to indicate pedophilia or pornography is wrong, but I have no doubt that the God of Bible would condemn the practice of all three abortion, pedophilia, and pornography.

Beavah, you may believe that Christian principles eventualy ended slavery, but it was also Christian principles (completel with supporting Bible verses) that defended slavery for a century after a bunch of non-Christian deists tried to get it abolished in the Declaration of Independence.

Not exactly Folks who wanted to justify slavery, twisted Bible interpretation in order to quell descent in the Christian community. So, yes a bunch of Christians were deceived. Thats much different than Christian principles defending the practice of slavery. A fair examination of the Bible says otherwise.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

But ok, then lets leave off the part about "sanctified by God". If the majority decided that infertile people shouldn't be married because of the biblical command to "be fruitful and multiply", would that be ok?

I will answer that revised question, but Id like to point out that I already gave you several paragraphs in response to your first question which pretty much answers this revision. Regardless, I will try again.

First, I have enough confidence in the majority of American voters that such a law would never come to pass.

Second, when we vote for our representatives or even for specific laws by referendum, the government cannot demand to know why certain persons voted the way they did. What Im trying to say is - theres no way to determine if voters voted because of a biblical command or because they simply flipped a coin. Its presumptuous to say a certain law passed because the majority was motivated for religious reasons.

Third, if the majority of Americans were crazy enough to seek a law that says everyone must wear yellow on Mondays and blue on Fridays, then I believe it should be passed. Why? Not because I believe its a good law, but because that is the way our form of government is supposed to work. The will of the majority should rule. It shouldnt be the will of the majority should rule so long as Rooster7 or DanKroh agrees or worse, some judge with a political axe to grind.

Fourth, just to be clear and I hope/assume you know better - the Bible does not say, Dont marry unless youre fertile. I will give you credit and reason that this interpretation was purely for illustration purposes.

I hope I answered your question.

DanKroh,

I dont believe that your example is valid. Our Constitution provides for some individual protections, most notably for this example - the establishment clause. While I doubt that you and I interpret this clause in the same way - I think we can agree the federal government cannot force individuals to join a religion. Your hypothetical would force non-religious individuals to join a faith so to be married.

So what about abortion? You might ask. I presupposed you would because Ive seen this logic applied elsewhere. In the case of anti-abortion laws, there is no leverage or impetus for anyone to be religious or to join a particular faith. The thrust of the law would be to recognize the unborn baby as a protected life. It does not mandate one to be religious in order to do so. So if the will of the majority believes such a life ought to be protected then it should be, and no individual right is violated. Even if one buys the womans privacy argument (which I think is a huge crock of something that I cant mention here), then the right to life argument for the unborn baby should take precedent.

In some cases we the majority may be telling the minority to get in line or to suck it up as you said. Going back to your example I dont believe it is unconstitutional to define marriage between a man and a woman. This is not a new definition. It has been defined as such for many, many generations and universally recognized to be so. Your example crosses the line when it forces couples to be married by a minister or some other religious leader. At that point, the establishment clause becomes relevant.

However, without laws, there is anarchy. And in a democracy or a representative republic, the will of the majority should determine those laws hopefully based on a common code of ethics. This common code of ethics takes shape and becomes a reality through the laws which we create and enforce. For many, that code may well have a religious orientation. Regardless, the majority should rein supreme so long as the minority is not forced to join or practice a particular faith. Here again, detractors will argue that the principles themselves (i.e. homosexuality is wrong, abortion is wrong, prostitution is wrong, etc.) is a form of forced religion. This notion is hogwash. If principles (no matter how one comes to embrace them) are determined to be fundamental to faith only, and therefore laws endorsing a principle must be interpreted as forced religion, then all laws should be abolished. Every law has an underlying principle. And nearly every principle (perhaps all) can be traced back to a religious faith. In short, if we dismiss abortion laws as being religiously rooted, then no law passes the litmus test and all should be overturned.

I agree that the laws of this nation should NOT be decided by Christians exclusively, in an attempt to force their morality on others. However, I do believe our country should have laws that reflect the will of the majority.

More accurately, the majority should be able to elect their representatives. Those representatives should create and pass laws that represent the will of the majority. Now, if the majority desires laws that so happen to reflect Christian morality, then it should be so. The will of the majority should not be denied just because their desires reflect the same values or ideas that Christians embrace. Furthermore, the motivations of the individuals which comprise that majority should not be called into question. Why someone votes for someone else, should be protected (as a matter of privacy), every bit as much as who received that vote.

If we say that we are a nation based on Christian principles, who gets to decide which of those Christian principles gets incorporated into our laws?

Thats simple. Our representatives who should be seeking to satisfy the will of the majority of voters the people who elected them to office.

If a voter doesnt like the way his representative legislates or sets policy, then that person should rally his friends and neighbors to vote for someone else next time. Pretty much the way it works now!

(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

Acco40,

Ah abortion, let's gravitate to something less inflammatory than talking about religion!

I think that was OGEs point. One should NOT view the abortion issue as a religious debate.

OGE, one thing abortion is definitely not (in most cases) is murder. Murder is a legal term.

Really? Hmmm. So when Cain killed Abel, it was not murder because man had not written a law yet stating it to be so?

To commit murder is a crime. Obtaining or providing an abortion is legal in many states so by definition it is not murder.

By that logic - Back in the day, when it was okay to prevent blacks from sitting up front on the bus, or drinking out a certain fountain, or eating in the same restaurant as whites that wasnt a violation of their rights, because it was legal in certain states? If Lybia passed a law giving their citizens permission to kill Jews, would you defend the people of that country and declare that they are not murderers?

Is it killing a human?

Yes.

Is it immoral?

Yes.

Is it wrong?

Yes.

All good questions.

Not especially - unless youre deaf, dumb, and blind. Pictures of aborted babies offend for a reason. They offend because we are forced to recognize and see the brutal dismemberment of a child.

But is it murder

I thought we covered that.

- no (Black Hills area excluded).

Is there something unique about South Dakota that prompts that conclusion?

Ed and OGE hit the nail on the head. Just because something is given the distinction of being a medical procedure, that does not make it moral and acceptable. Some 50 years ago, lobotomies were common place Were those medical procedures worthy of government protection or should they have been condemned as inhumane?

Whether or not the participants fully understand it to be so Abortion is murder.

Merlyn - It comes down to this: I am not going to make definitive, declarative statements about what I would do if God presented me with a dilemma, merely to demonstrate my convictions to a skeptic. If/When I am presented with such a scenario, I am certain that God will give me enough insight, moral fortitude, and wisdom to do whatever he asks of me. And if I fail, I am confident that I am forgiven through the blood of Christ. However, to speculate about what He might ask us to do, much less to ponder His motivation in a hypothetical, is to dishonor God. We are infinitely less in substance, in every way, than He. I will not pretend for one second, even to satisfy your curiosity, to be otherwise.

DanKroh - I objected to your portrayal of history and indicated why. Everything else after that is not of my making - but yours.

Lisabob No, we are all free to criticize and formulate opinions about one another at will. I just find some sources of criticism to be more ironic than others. And whether or not Ollie North deserves the title of weasel, I do not know. No matter, I still like many of the things he says. So if the point of this thread was to express "disgust at the idea of Oliver North as a defender of the values supported by the BSA", then you're right - I must have gotten distracted, because I don't agree with that view.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

Excellent point Ed. Just like lobotomies were once commonly practiced - calling something a "medical procedure" does not make it noble or even humane. And in the case of abortion I believe it is murder (whether or not the participants realize it or not)..