yo mama Posted July 8, 2005 Share Posted July 8, 2005 (edited) Wait...you can't tax Josh Gordon...jest make a profit and allow our farmers to grow it. So Mr. Neutron. Have any other positions fer yer party? Since Skins gets the doggie position...perhaps I could be yer security advisor? 870702[/snapback] Many of our Nation's farmers already grow it. They just need to stop going to jail for it. (10 year federal mandatory minimums are total crap, by the way). That's one job we need to quit outsourcing to Mexico. Edited July 8, 2005 by yo mama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Neutron Posted July 8, 2005 Share Posted July 8, 2005 If a majority Republican Legislative and Executive government cannot make any headway in implementing a more conservative policy in this nation, then I will not vote for them again. There are other parties out there that more closely represent my views (that I know will never win)... but as long as the Republicans don't come close to actually DOING what they should be doing, then I figure, why continue to support them? We'll see... it's all going to revolve around the Supreme Court opening(s) IMO. 870598[/snapback] I think a lot of us are in the same position, Savage. It's been disappointing, but not surprising that the GOP has done squat with the power they have now. This doesn't make me look the the democrats for solutions, I still fundamentally oppose nearly every issue on their platform. It will be interesting to see how the Supereme Court changes in composition before Bush leaves office. Rehnquist is a given, but there may be more leaving with him and O'Connor. It'll likely be a bitter and comical fight during each confirmation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Neutron Posted July 8, 2005 Share Posted July 8, 2005 (edited) Wait...you can't tax Josh Gordon...jest make a profit and allow our farmers to grow it. So Mr. Neutron. Have any other positions fer yer party? Since Skins gets the doggie position...perhaps I could be yer security advisor? 870702[/snapback] Yeah, I'd tax Josh Gordon like alcohol or tabacco. Gotta get the illegals out, starting with border states. 'Course, we gotta do something about securing the borders to prevent them from running back across the next day. It's not an easy problem to solve, but nothing is being done right now and it's putting a real financial strain on us - especially California. I'm more worried about our debt than nuclear proliferation. We are enslaving ourselves to a country I don't think we fully understsand. I'd be concerned about this level of debt no matter who it was owed to, but China is particularly troubling. We're going to be one of two superpowers with China, it'd be nice to keep it that way instead of becoming China's superwh0re. Iraq. Soldiers lives and a significant pile of money. How do we get out - at least mostly out? What are the consequences if we do? Any aspiring NSAs out there with good ideas? We haven't discussed much about possible solutions here. That's less of an issue if we develop alternative forms of energy. Solar and wind are no-brainers and need to be used where efficient. They are not the answer to the bulk of our needs. Hydrogen is a possibility, but needs to be made safer and less expensive to produce. I'm interested in bio-fuels but don't think they're the long term answer. There are an ever-increasing number of mouths to feed in the world, and food will eventually take priority over bio-fuels. Nuclear is a large part of the answer, but people are afraid of it and need to be educated. I'm watching the history channel right now and they flashed a stat - China has increased oil imports over 225% from 1997 to 2004. Oil prices are not going to return to the good old days. On an unrelated note - there will be a special on the History Channel this Saturday called "The Dark Art of Interrogation." It's being promoted by a commercial that asks "how far should we go to prevent the next 9/11?" It's on @ 8 EDT, I think. It might stir some good discussion here. Edited July 8, 2005 by Jimmy Neutron Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Love Posted July 8, 2005 Share Posted July 8, 2005 If a majority Republican Legislative and Executive government cannot make any headway in implementing a more conservative policy in this nation, then I will not vote for them again. There are other parties out there that more closely represent my views (that I know will never win)... but as long as the Republicans don't come close to actually DOING what they should be doing, then I figure, why continue to support them? We'll see... it's all going to revolve around the Supreme Court opening(s) IMO. 870598[/snapback] If you're talking more socially conservative than the GOP, then I doubt I'd agree with many of your positions. However, I would whole-heartedly agree with your choice of voting for a third party. I hope that people who are more closely aligned with the Greens, Commies, Natural Law, and others would stop voting for people they don't agree with. It's a chicken and the egg scenario... third parties won't win if people don't vote for them, and people won't vote for third parties if they don't win. Personally, I feel like I'm throwing away my vote if I vote for the lesser of two evils. I'd rather vote for a candidate who didn't win than help one win that I don't agree with. I wish others would do the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted July 8, 2005 Share Posted July 8, 2005 Conservative, which the republican party isn't so much anymore. They've left their roots, and I'm not following. I'm for small government, especially the fed. I think abortion and gay marriage are wrong, but legislation should not be passed against either. Too many of my fellow Christians fail to acknowledge the importance of free agency in this life. It is our duty to share the Gospel, not mandate it's principles upon others. The two main parties in our political system both suck. They vary only in their wreckless tactics, holding in common the erosion of freedom for everyday Americans. I am a gun nut, both in hobby and politics. Neither party serves my purposes here. 870334[/snapback] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted July 8, 2005 Share Posted July 8, 2005 As a nation we can choose to limit our freedoms for the sake of safety. What we sacrifice though while a bit more intangible, is far more valuable. 870570[/snapback] Too bad that is what is happening. And there are those who think our freedoms are just mere conveniencies or luxuries that can/should be dissolved in the name of "security". Remember that the terrorists hate freedom and our passing laws eroding those freedoms are playing into their hands. Plus this has been happening in every administration in recent history and there is no move to restore lost freedoms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Neutron Posted July 9, 2005 Share Posted July 9, 2005 Too bad that is what is happening. And there are those who think our freedoms are just mere conveniencies or luxuries that can/should be dissolved in the name of "security". Remember that the terrorists hate freedom and our passing laws eroding those freedoms are playing into their hands. Plus this has been happening in every administration in recent history and there is no move to restore lost freedoms. 870759[/snapback] A reciprocated That's exaclty right. As much as we sling mud at the "other side" around here, the erosion of freedom under any name is wrong and unAmerican. Why are we in the handbasket and where are we going? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Love Posted July 9, 2005 Share Posted July 9, 2005 Yeah, I'd tax Josh Gordon like alcohol or tabacco. 870742[/snapback] Good call. I'm not sure where I'd draw the line, but some recreational drugs should be legalized. Gotta get the illegals out, starting with border states. 'Course, we gotta do something about securing the borders to prevent them from running back across the next day. It's not an easy problem to solve, but nothing is being done right now and it's putting a real financial strain on us - especially California. 870742[/snapback] I would like to see our immigration laws both loosened and more stringintly enforced. Make it easier for people to go through legal channels, but have little tolerance for illegal immigration, no matter how politically expedient it has become. Under my plan, there would likely be a transition period for those immigrants already here. I'm more worried about our debt than nuclear proliferation. We are enslaving ourselves to a country I don't think we fully understsand. I'd be concerned about this level of debt no matter who it was owed to, but China is particularly troubling. We're going to be one of two superpowers with China, it'd be nice to keep it that way instead of becoming China's superwh0re. 870742[/snapback] I think you're talking about the trade deficit, not the national debt. While I'm generally a free trade guy, China is not participating in fair trade. If their people want to work for less, fine. That's what capitalism is all about. But trying to compete against a nation that has a false valuation of its currency, no environmental laws, etc. is not a fair deal. There are international standards that this sort of thing can be measured against. Our position should be that if any company wants to sell their items into the US, they should have to meet these minimum standards. Iraq. Soldiers lives and a significant pile of money. How do we get out - at least mostly out? What are the consequences if we do? Any aspiring NSAs out there with good ideas? We haven't discussed much about possible solutions here. 870742[/snapback] This is a real quandry. Whether or not one supported the invasion of Iraq, the fact is that we're there now. I think the administration is doing a fair job of it right now, from what I can see of it. They've said from the beginning that this would not be a short-term commitment, and I don't see how it could be. I don't want our people there, but I'd like the US to clean up as much of its mess as possible before leaving. That's less of an issue if we develop alternative forms of energy. Solar and wind are no-brainers and need to be used where efficient. They are not the answer to the bulk of our needs. Hydrogen is a possibility, but needs to be made safer and less expensive to produce. I'm interested in bio-fuels but don't think they're the long term answer. There are an ever-increasing number of mouths to feed in the world, and food will eventually take priority over bio-fuels. Nuclear is a large part of the answer, but people are afraid of it and need to be educated. I'm watching the history channel right now and they flashed a stat - China has increased oil imports over 225% from 1997 to 2004. Oil prices are not going to return to the good old days. 870742[/snapback] A cheap, consistent energy supply is the only thing that will keep the US in the standard of living that we're used to. As much as I hate Federal programs, I think a large, Federal program to ensure our energy well-being for the next 50 years is an absolute necessity of the highest order. At this point, I think that nuclear energy should replace most of the coal and natural gas plants that we have. This would free up natural gas resources for home use and the chemical industry (which, until recently, has been one of the few exporting industries in the US) and would also reduce greenhouse gas emissions. A combination of biodiesel / thermal depolymerization technologies should be pushed to power our personal vehicles as a carbon-neutral energy source. Hydrogen has problems, mainly because the fuel is not energy dense enough for vehicles, at least the way Americans are used to using them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted July 9, 2005 Share Posted July 9, 2005 (edited) how i differ from the republican label.. - strongly oppose the death penalty - favor legalized abortions (though it should be legislated at the state level) even though it's morally difficult for me to do so, simply because i think the pregnant woman herself is in the best position to weigh her own moral dilemma. - get really disgusted with all the gay-bashing, can't see any reason why they shouldn't be allowed to marry - vehemently oppose the way so-called "religious conervatives" typically bring their "faith" to bear in their politics - still think white-on-minority racism is a major problem, one that dwarfs any "reverse" racism. but i do think that more institutionalized discriminition under the umbrella of affirmative action is absolutely the wrong way to address it, and that racial hucksters like jese jackson make the problem much worse. - not at all comfortable with "compassionate conservatism", which as far as i can tell is basically just warmed-over big-government liberalism with a more socially conservative face. - don't believe in some mythical "ideal" that we need to return to, the way conervatives (especally social cons) seem to - believe at least Josh Gordon should be legalized, as well as prostitution and some other stuff like that - believe environmental issues need to be taken seriously, even if the other side is even more guilty of politicizing it and using it to advance a socialist agenda. - not willing to jump on board with all the anti-immigrant bluster the way most republicans do (excluding the prez, though, to his credit IMO) - i'm sure there are plenty more, but that mostly covers it edit: - i hate wal-mart, american cars, country music, and TEXAS, OUR TEXAS, OH HAIL THE MIGHTY STATE, TEXAS OUR TEXAS, SO WONDERFUL AND GREAT... i differ from the libertarian label -- and i did vote for harry browne for prez, twice -- mostly because the majority of actual libertarian party adherents lack any semblance of pragmatic sense. they're rather fiercely dogmatic, really. libertarianism is great as a guiding philosophical principle -- it's the most prominent principle in my own thought, and the most distinctive trait of american political philosophy more generally -- but that's about all it is. another huge issue with big-L Libertarianism is that it basically has no real answers at all when it comes to foreign policy. it has (or at least suggests) answers to problems involving the relation of the individual to the state, but it has none for problems between states. Edited July 9, 2005 by Azazello1313 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seminoles Posted July 9, 2005 Share Posted July 9, 2005 (edited) . That's less of an issue if we develop alternative forms of energy. Solar and wind are no-brainers and need to be used where efficient. They are not the answer to the bulk of our needs. Hydrogen is a possibility, but needs to be made safer and less expensive to produce. I'm interested in bio-fuels but don't think they're the long term answer. There are an ever-increasing number of mouths to feed in the world, and food will eventually take priority over bio-fuels. Nuclear is a large part of the answer, but people are afraid of it and need to be educated. I'm watching the history channel right now and they flashed a stat - China has increased oil imports over 225% from 1997 to 2004. Oil prices are not going to return to the good old days. 870742[/snapback] i see you were watching the history channel with me today. the two crazy stats were one gallon of ocean water has more energy in it than a gallon of oil. another is that if we put wind mills from the dakotas to texas, we would have enough energy to supply the whole U.S. i am with you all the way jimmy Edited July 9, 2005 by seminoles Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Neutron Posted July 9, 2005 Share Posted July 9, 2005 I would like to see our immigration laws both loosened and more stringintly enforced. Make it easier for people to go through legal channels, but have little tolerance for illegal immigration, no matter how politically expedient it has become. Under my plan, there would likely be a transition period for those immigrants already here. 870767[/snapback] As with any solution, the problem is enforcement. How do you detect these people and manage transition and/or exportation? A real problem, at least locally, is illegals who commit violent crime. More than 1/2 the homocides in this area are committed by illegals. I think you're talking about the trade deficit, not the national debt. While I'm generally a free trade guy, China is not participating in fair trade. If their people want to work for less, fine. That's what capitalism is all about. But trying to compete against a nation that has a false valuation of its currency, no environmental laws, etc. is not a fair deal. There are international standards that this sort of thing can be measured against. Our position should be that if any company wants to sell their items into the US, they should have to meet these minimum standards. 870767[/snapback] This is a real quandry. Whether or not one supported the invasion of Iraq, the fact is that we're there now. I think the administration is doing a fair job of it right now, from what I can see of it. They've said from the beginning that this would not be a short-term commitment, and I don't see how it could be. I don't want our people there, but I'd like the US to clean up as much of its mess as possible before leaving. 870767[/snapback] Can anyone lead a discussion on our real options here. It's not pretty any way you slice it, but what are our most feasible ideas? A cheap, consistent energy supply is the only thing that will keep the US in the standard of living that we're used to. As much as I hate Federal programs, I think a large, Federal program to ensure our energy well-being for the next 50 years is an absolute necessity of the highest order. At this point, I think that nuclear energy should replace most of the coal and natural gas plants that we have. This would free up natural gas resources for home use and the chemical industry (which, until recently, has been one of the few exporting industries in the US) and would also reduce greenhouse gas emissions. A combination of biodiesel / thermal depolymerization technologies should be pushed to power our personal vehicles as a carbon-neutral energy source. Hydrogen has problems, mainly because the fuel is not energy dense enough for vehicles, at least the way Americans are used to using them. 870767[/snapback] I'm not sure a government program is the best answer, but something needs to be done. I wonder what level of private funding is currently researching alternative eneregy. There's huge money in it for the person/company that figures out a viable solution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted July 9, 2005 Share Posted July 9, 2005 I've been think recently about how the United States compares in a small way to God (bear with me). I hear often enough, people complaining that God allows evil in the world. The educated Christian knows that in order to create a being that could love in the same way that God loves, He had to give us freedom. With that freedom comes the risk of bad behavior/sin/evil, etc. God giving us freedom doesn't mean he endorses evil... on the contrary, evil is confronted with Justice. In the same vein, the United States tries to offer as much freedom as makes sense to it's citizens. With more freedom comes more opportunity to be bad little monkeys. But the upside is, freedom brings with it untold gifts, inspiration, creativity, accomplishments as well as philanthropy. By staying as free as possible, we aren't trying to invite evil, we are simply trying to promote the opportunities that only free people can enjoy. 870570[/snapback] i've never really thought of it that way. but one thing i'm pretty sure christianity advocates is humility about one's own moral judgments toward others. i'm also pretty sure it speaks of complete and necessary separation between the kingdom of god, and the kingdoms of men -- rendering unto caesar what is caesar's and all that -- that it cannot be any other way. personally, with this in mind, i think the only really valid principles for worldly governance come from worldly experiences and self-evident principles. not that we should abandon our most deeply held principles if they're religious in nature, just that we should be very careful about striving to codify our own moral judgments about others in the name of god. i think doing so makes our religion more worldly, rather than making our world more godly. anyway, the reason i replied to this is, i'm wondering how you'd apply this line of thought, as you've laid it out, to an issue like abortion. i know you've said you're pro-life, but i'm wondering if your reasoning here wouldn't lead to a more pro-choice position. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted July 9, 2005 Share Posted July 9, 2005 the two crazy stats were one gallon of ocean water has more energy in it than a gallon of oil. 870791[/snapback] yeah, but it's complicated 'cause you can't just burn it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seminoles Posted July 9, 2005 Share Posted July 9, 2005 more things for you jimmy, you need to end corruption in the police force and employ more police officers. we need to reduce crime in America since we have the most out of any other country (developed country i guess). also we need to do something about infants. America needs more moms (or dads) at home during the first two years of life. this may be one of the problems with some african american families. without bonding, love, and attention during the first two years, a baby will have more problems in life through personality and aggression/shyness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seminoles Posted July 9, 2005 Share Posted July 9, 2005 yeah, but it's complicated 'cause you can't just burn it 870797[/snapback] right, there is something in it (some chemical) that can be used very well for energy. you have to use nuclear fusion though. but the god part about this is that you get more energy out of the process than you put in. so mass nuclear fusion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coyote Posted July 9, 2005 Share Posted July 9, 2005 Disagree with Bush on spending and immigration. Oppose the death penalty, against abortion. Although I do see everything from a biblical perspective, I do agree with the concept of the seperation of church and state. The focus needs to be on the government not restricting the right of Christians to profess their faith instead of all the non believers trying to keep Christians quiet. I am for ending political correctness, let's get to the heart of important matters. I will vote for any smart and rational candidate with a plan and agenda regardless of their political affiliation. I find myself agreeing with Skins and libs more often than I like and could be brought to the dark side if I heard a viable option being put in front of the people. If they would just quit whining and produce some intellectual ideas to help solve the problems they could gain a lot of credibility. I do believe that Jesus would probably align himself more as a Democrat, although he would see most of the liberal elite as the Pharisees. I will never STOP drinking beer, playing fantasy football, loving my wife and children, worshipping God and thanking him everyday for being born in this great nation! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted July 9, 2005 Share Posted July 9, 2005 Too bad that is what is happening. And there are those who think our freedoms are just mere conveniencies or luxuries that can/should be dissolved in the name of "security". Remember that the terrorists hate freedom and our passing laws eroding those freedoms are playing into their hands. Plus this has been happening in every administration in recent history and there is no move to restore lost freedoms. 870759[/snapback] Just wait until Bush packs the SCOTUS with a couple more conservative judges. Sayonara freedom. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted July 9, 2005 Share Posted July 9, 2005 how i differ from the republican label..- strongly oppose the death penalty - favor legalized abortions (though it should be legislated at the state level) even though it's morally difficult for me to do so, simply because i think the pregnant woman herself is in the best position to weigh her own moral dilemma. - get really disgusted with all the gay-bashing, can't see any reason why they shouldn't be allowed to marry - vehemently oppose the way so-called "religious conervatives" typically bring their "faith" to bear in their politics - still think white-on-minority racism is a major problem, one that dwarfs any "reverse" racism. but i do think that more institutionalized discriminition under the umbrella of affirmative action is absolutely the wrong way to address it, and that racial hucksters like jese jackson make the problem much worse. - not at all comfortable with "compassionate conservatism", which as far as i can tell is basically just warmed-over big-government liberalism with a more socially conservative face. - don't believe in some mythical "ideal" that we need to return to, the way conervatives (especally social cons) seem to - believe at least Josh Gordon should be legalized, as well as prostitution and some other stuff like that - believe environmental issues need to be taken seriously, even if the other side is even more guilty of politicizing it and using it to advance a socialist agenda. - not willing to jump on board with all the anti-immigrant bluster the way most republicans do (excluding the prez, though, to his credit IMO) - i'm sure there are plenty more, but that mostly covers it edit: - i hate wal-mart, american cars, country music, and TEXAS, OUR TEXAS, OH HAIL THE MIGHTY STATE, TEXAS OUR TEXAS, SO WONDERFUL AND GREAT... i differ from the libertarian label -- and i did vote for harry browne for prez, twice -- mostly because the majority of actual libertarian party adherents lack any semblance of pragmatic sense. they're rather fiercely dogmatic, really. libertarianism is great as a guiding philosophical principle -- it's the most prominent principle in my own thought, and the most distinctive trait of american political philosophy more generally -- but that's about all it is. another huge issue with big-L Libertarianism is that it basically has no real answers at all when it comes to foreign policy. it has (or at least suggests) answers to problems involving the relation of the individual to the state, but it has none for problems between states. 870779[/snapback] Huh. I think I agree with everything you posted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skins Posted July 9, 2005 Share Posted July 9, 2005 Okay, so you never vote Republican, and you won't vote for "kooky" third party candidates. So this means you either never vote, or you always vote for a... Wow, you're right. I was completely wrong to characterize you as a Democrat. 870667[/snapback] I vote third party on the local and state level when the candidate is right. We have had some elected New Party politicians in my county and state, and I have voted for them and a green or two. I said I dont vote for kooky Libertarians because while I agree with a lot of the libertarian positions on a lot of issues, as a political party the Libertarian Party is sort of a faddish thing with no practical application. The world and the nation-state have evolved far beyond the limitations of a Libertarian government. See Asz's post above. I am happy, this thread is excellent. Good job guys. On the issues, I agree most with Jimmy N. and Asz in theory it appears, although Asz has that little problem of being the neo con jelly baby spawn of Paul Wolfowitz and Dick Cheney. I never knew they were left leaning libertarians too. And Coyote is my soul brother from another mother. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted July 9, 2005 Share Posted July 9, 2005 Huh. I think I agree with everything you posted. 870856[/snapback] yeah, well...now ask me why i differ from the democrat label...and hold on to yer friggin' flowbee cap Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skins Posted July 9, 2005 Share Posted July 9, 2005 yeah, well...now ask me why i differ from the democrat label...and hold on to yer friggin' flowbee cap 870875[/snapback] Let her rip. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted July 9, 2005 Share Posted July 9, 2005 (edited) Let her rip. 870876[/snapback] not tonight. i'd rather relax and drink beer. and maybe play some poker. Edited July 9, 2005 by Azazello1313 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Neutron Posted July 9, 2005 Share Posted July 9, 2005 more things for you jimmy, you need to end corruption in the police force and employ more police officers. we need to reduce crime in America since we have the most out of any other country (developed country i guess). 870798[/snapback] You'll never end corruption in the police force. LEOs and administration officers are valuable assets to organized crime. I don't agree with more officers, per se. Cops tend to show up after a crime is committed. It is true that they may track the perp down in some cases, but I don't think adding more police to the streets is the best answer. Creating better education opportunities and jobs is probably a better approach, but far from a cure all. also we need to do something about infants. America needs more moms (or dads) at home during the first two years of life. this may be one of the problems with some african american families. without bonding, love, and attention during the first two years, a baby will have more problems in life through personality and aggression/shyness. 870798[/snapback] We've got the Cos working on that in the black community. I think children and society as a whole would definately be better off if every kid had a stay at home parent. I'll go a step further and say it would be best if that person was a caring mom. Frankly, I think the regular political issues we discuss are more easily mended that the ever-torn fabric of American society. I believe we have more racial and socio-economic differences than any other country in the world. The problems are so big and deep-rooted that even sensible people end up talking about blacks not working or Mexicans mowing the lawn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
10g_DBA Posted July 9, 2005 Share Posted July 9, 2005 I think abortion and gay marriage are wrong, but legislation should not be passed against either. Too many of my fellow Christians fail to acknowledge the importance of free agency in this life. I've been think recently about how the United States compares in a small way to God (bear with me). I hear often enough, people complaining that God allows evil in the world. The educated Christian knows that in order to create a being that could love in the same way that God loves, He had to give us freedom. With that freedom comes the risk of bad behavior/sin/evil, etc. God giving us freedom doesn't mean he endorses evil... on the contrary, evil is confronted with Justice. In the same vein, the United States tries to offer as much freedom as makes sense to it's citizens. With more freedom comes more opportunity to be bad little monkeys. But the upside is, freedom brings with it untold gifts, inspiration, creativity, accomplishments as well as philanthropy. By staying as free as possible, we aren't trying to invite evil, we are simply trying to promote the opportunities that only free people can enjoy. i've never really thought of it that way. but one thing i'm pretty sure christianity advocates is humility about one's own moral judgments toward others. i'm also pretty sure it speaks of complete and necessary separation between the kingdom of god, and the kingdoms of men -- rendering unto caesar what is caesar's and all that -- that it cannot be any other way. personally, with this in mind, i think the only really valid principles for worldly governance come from worldly experiences and self-evident principles. not that we should abandon our most deeply held principles if they're religious in nature, just that we should be very careful about striving to codify our own moral judgments about others in the name of god. i think doing so makes our religion more worldly, rather than making our world more godly. anyway, the reason i replied to this is, i'm wondering how you'd apply this line of thought, as you've laid it out, to an issue like abortion. i know you've said you're pro-life, but i'm wondering if your reasoning here wouldn't lead to a more pro-choice position. 870796[/snapback] You guys have started to drill into a meaningful discussion. What is the purpose for civil law? Why is it needed? Can I ask you guys a few questions? Jimmy, ..err, I mean Mr. President elect Neutron, I'm interested in the relationship between right/wrong and legislation - assuming that there is one. If something is deemed wrong, when and how should this be reflected in a society's rules? Robbery is wrong, should we repeal the laws against it? If not, then what wrongs do we disallow and which rights do we protect? Savage, I like your point about a society's degree of freedom being a proportional to a society's responsibility. It seems to me that there are two ways to preserve order. 1. Bad behavior is restrained internally - Moral teachings. 2. Bad behavior is restrained externally - Policing and punishing. Do you think there is a relationship between the amount of religion in a society and how much freedom it "makes sense" to give citizens? Az, Are worldly experiences and self-evident principles the basis for law? If my experience differs from yours am I exempt? Which principles are self-evident? It seems to me, that if they were obvious, there would be no debate (or no tailgate). How is the self-evident distinguished from the preferential? Also, it seems that only recently have people been issuing warnings against codifying our own moral judgments about others in the name of God." Just about every legislature and court has an image or a display of the 10 Commandments. Why do you think these reminders were put in the halls of justice? Thanks guys. Look forward to an intelligent, or at least respectful, discussion. Here are a couple quotes. What does everybody think? "From a Judeo-Christian perspective, it should be noted that objective truth does not constitute law without grace. In fact, law in the absence of grace is meaningless -- little more than oppression. However, grace in the absence of law is, likewise, meaningless -- little more than licentiousness. Law and grace are, in fact, different sides of the same coin." --Mark Alexander "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." --John Adams Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skins Posted July 9, 2005 Share Posted July 9, 2005 "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." --John Adams 870885[/snapback] This is an interesting quote and I have seen it before. I disagree with it. It takes a pretty weak view of our Constitutional system and the rule of law. I dont think religion has anything to do with the Constitution--in fact, the only reference in it to religion is to separate it from government. Education is the key to our system as other Founding Fathers noted: the key to our constitutional republican form of government is an informed and participating citizenry. An educated citizenry is a moral one, in my opinion. Our system could work fine over a nation of atheists or over a nation of fundamentalist muslims, if they were an educated and informed citizenry who participated and respected the rule of law, our democratic ideals and individual freedoms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.