PDA

View Full Version : General Politics Fundamentalist Christianity is the village idiot.


jidar
09-17-2009, 11:10 AM
What is it going to take to rescue the GOP from itself?
Frank Schaeffer, lifelong Republican and Christian has something to say about the looney bastards.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/lPwGV1h4lW8&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/lPwGV1h4lW8&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

***SPRAYER
09-17-2009, 11:13 AM
Unfortunately, we have a two party system. Goldman Sachs likes it that way.

Pitt Gorilla
09-17-2009, 12:09 PM
Um, we already knew that.

TFG
09-17-2009, 12:11 PM
Unfortunately, we have a two party system. Goldman Sachs likes it that way.


WOW, getting a clue??

Finally?


Two parties, one motive = get re-elected by scoring cash and media coverage...

BigChiefFan
09-17-2009, 12:17 PM
Pretty good interview.

Taco John
09-17-2009, 12:37 PM
It is scripturally ignorant to believe that Obama is the anti-Christ.

***SPRAYER
09-17-2009, 12:42 PM
WOW, getting a clue??

Finally?


Two parties, one motive = get re-elected by scoring cash and media coverage...

You're not recruiting me, are you?

:(

ROYC75
09-17-2009, 12:46 PM
Anti-Christ ? No ! But this video is nothing but damage control for the LIbs and Dems.

Nothing to see but the same old stuff...... move along.

KILLER_CLOWN
09-17-2009, 12:46 PM
This guy is a low grade moron, more of the same leftist talking points that if you don't like the presidents policies you must be some nut that believes in Christian Values. Yes i realise he is a "Christian" and "Republican" in name only i might add.

Taco John
09-17-2009, 01:30 PM
I think the guy is right. I think that there is a split happening in Christianity right now. I think some of them are finding the Democrat party attractive because they are not being represented by the Republican party. Others, like myself, are looking more philisophically at the issue. I'm a Christian, and I absolutely cannot vote with the Republican party, despite the fact that their views are a better fit to mine than the other dominant party. I take criticism for that, but the fact is that the only time the Republican party's views are very close to mine is when the other party is in power. When the Republican party is in power, they serve as the rented mule who drags their feet on the path towards socialism, but can be prodded along with enough juicy carrots along the way.

The Republican party has a serious problem right now. They sure as hell aren't getting me to vote for any of their garbage - though I will be back in the Republican ranks lobbying for Ron Paul or whatever liberty (both economic and social) candidate looks like the best option. I'll keep doing that until a liberty candidate finally wins the nomination too. A liberty candidate isn't going to go along with a socialist plan, even if the carrots are juicy.

Friendo
09-17-2009, 01:36 PM
The guy was spot-f***ing on! :clap:

Pitt Gorilla
09-17-2009, 02:31 PM
I think the guy is right. I think that there is a split happening in Christianity right now. I think some of them are finding the Democrat party attractive because they are not being represented by the Republican party. Others, like myself, are looking more philisophically at the issue. I'm a Christian, and I absolutely cannot vote with the Republican party, despite the fact that their views are a better fit to mine than the other dominant party. I take criticism for that, but the fact is that the only time the Republican party's views are very close to mine is when the other party is in power. When the Republican party is in power, they serve as the rented mule who drags their feet on the path towards socialism, but can be prodded along with enough juicy carrots along the way.

The Republican party has a serious problem right now. They sure as hell aren't getting me to vote for any of their garbage - though I will be back in the Republican ranks lobbying for Ron Paul or whatever liberty (both economic and social) candidate looks like the best option. I'll keep doing that until a liberty candidate finally wins the nomination too. A liberty candidate isn't going to go along with a socialist plan, even if the carrots are juicy.Hey, Taco, Glenn Beck was saying that he was wrong to be so dismissive of Paul regarding his positions. I don't typically listen to Beck, but I heard that on the way to the dentist this morning. It's funny to see Republicans trying to climb on that bandwagon after they tried to burn it to the ground.

Taco John
09-17-2009, 02:36 PM
Hey, Taco, Glenn Beck was saying that he was wrong to be so dismissive of Paul regarding his positions. I don't typically listen to Beck, but I heard that on the way to the dentist this morning. It's funny to see Republicans trying to climb on that bandwagon after they tried to burn it to the ground.



That's interesting. Thanks for the heads up. I'll be entertained to search through my Ron Paul channels to see reactions to that.

KILLER_CLOWN
09-17-2009, 02:37 PM
Hey, Taco, Glenn Beck was saying that he was wrong to be so dismissive of Paul regarding his positions. I don't typically listen to Beck, but I heard that on the way to the dentist this morning. It's funny to see Republicans trying to climb on that bandwagon after they tried to burn it to the ground.

I hope Beck enjoys his 30 pieces of silver.

BucEyedPea
09-17-2009, 02:39 PM
It's funny to see Republicans trying to climb on that bandwagon after they tried to burn it to the ground.

In some respects. But behind the public view in the media, they have been hosting $500 a plate dinners to get Rand Paul out of the GOP primary for Senate in KY and they're attacking Schiff. In Conn they're funding a woman to run against Schiff. Look at some of the talking points Morning Joe brought up to Schiff on his announcement to run.

The leadership is corrupt and they're still trying to kick Pauliticians to the curb even in local GOP events where Paulies have tried to get into positions where they can influence the debate.

BucEyedPea
09-17-2009, 02:39 PM
I hope Beck enjoys his 30 pieces of silver.

Yup! He only likes the Paulies for his economics.

KILLER_CLOWN
09-17-2009, 02:50 PM
Yup! He only likes the Paulies for his economics.

Worse than that he is paid to take over the true Patriot movement.

Chiefshrink
09-18-2009, 12:41 AM
And had it not been for this so-called village idiot "Fundamentalist Christianity" pre-lead by the "Protestant Reformation" we would not have an America either:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

KILLER_CLOWN
09-18-2009, 01:20 AM
And had it not been for this so-called village idiot "Fundamentalist Christianity" pre-lead by the "Protestant Reformation" we would not have an America either:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Certainly a point that is true but mocked today and known as "The Cause of All of America's problems". No our problems stem from the fact that Morals are more akin to anything goes or if it feels good do it.

greg63
09-18-2009, 01:50 AM
This is nothing new to me, speaking as an "Evangelical Christian" myself. All my life I've been called all the things he spouted off. I've been made fun of, ridiculed and insulted; yet it has done nothing more than to strengthen my resolve and faith in God; but that's just me. I'm not here to try to convince anyone of anything, but I love how they take a sect of the population who do various stupid, dangerous and completely insane things in the name of Christianity or because "God" told them to and lump every one of us in with the likes of those who blow up abortion clinics.

So, perhaps I'm the village idiot, ok; as such I am a law abiding, tax paying family man who attends Church with his family on Sundays; yeah, I can see how I represent such a horrible threat to all the free thinking, progressive, Utopians out there who have the good sense not to buy into all of our dogmatic, moralistic mumbo-jumbo. :rolleyes:

Chiefshrink
09-18-2009, 09:55 AM
Certainly a point that is true but mocked today and known as "The Cause of All of America's problems". No our problems stem from the fact that Morals are more akin to anything goes or if it feels good do it.

As originally replied to penchiefs post

Quote:
Originally Posted by penchief
I have been saying that. If you read my posts, what I am saying is that it is a societal problem. It is irresponsible behavior but it is not irresponsibility based on race. You are the one trying to make it about race. I've already stated that I know more white children born out of wedlock than I do black. Young people today are not getting married just because they get pregnant. White or black. And many of those white mothers I know have multiple kids from different fathers.

Sully is correct to point out that it has more to do with class than it does race. While wealthy people certainly have plenty of sex out of wedlock they are more likely to be educated, use contraception, or abort the fetus. Even if they have the baby it is not considered the social epidemic that it is with poor households. The child born into an economically stable household is shielded from the negative environmental influences that afflict poor children. It is foolish to argue that those symptoms are not more apt to perpetuate themselves in a self-perpetuating environment. I wonder what the percentage is of wealthy people who end up in poverty?

My point all along has been the that the societal conditions resulting from a long history of social and economic oppression has left African-Americans more vulnerable to poverty and the symptoms of poverty, which include children born out of wedlock. And because a larger percentage of blacks live in poverty a larger percentage will have to negotiate the hazards of poverty. Yes, it is all about personal responsibility but the percentages have to do with social conditions and not race.

Black people as a race are not poorer because they are born out of wedlock. A larger percentage of black people live in poverty because a larger percentage are born into poverty.

sportsshrink's reply:

Has to do with the breakdown of the Judeo/Christian cultural values in our society which ultimately bleeds into more specifically the individual family "REGARDLESS" of race or socioeconomic class, "REGARDLESS" whether you believe in God(Jesus) or are agnostic or atheist. I see this everyday in my office. Nothing to do with color of skin or cash status. I'm on the front lines of this issue!! Trust me


Our country is GREAT because these Judeo/Christian values that we live by have produced our Constitution and our legal system and our societal ethics that allow for a free people to govern themselves. Thus, The Bible/Our Constitution (our legal system) and societal ethics allows the freedom of the individual (freewill) to speak and live however they wish as long as laws are not broken.

However, because of the assault by the radical left on these Judeo/Christian values at every turn you are seeing the rapid decline of our great country because "relativity" rules the day. Liberals hate "absolutes" because then that means "accountbility".

Friendo
09-18-2009, 10:11 AM
that's f***ing ridiculous! poor work ethic is poor work ethic regardless of religious orientation, or race. I have a Conservative friend who is an ex-Marine, who admitted he was stunned to discover that some of the most worthless employees he's had lately are recently discharged Military folks.

VAChief
09-18-2009, 06:11 PM
This is nothing new to me, speaking as an "Evangelical Christian" myself. All my life I've been called all the things he spouted off. I've been made fun of, ridiculed and insulted; yet it has done nothing more than to strengthen my resolve and faith in God; but that's just me. I'm not here to try to convince anyone of anything, but I love how they take a sect of the population who do various stupid, dangerous and completely insane things in the name of Christianity or because "God" told them to and lump every one of us in with the likes of those who blow up abortion clinics.

So, perhaps I'm the village idiot, ok; as such I am a law abiding, tax paying family man who attends Church with his family on Sundays; yeah, I can see how I represent such a horrible threat to all the free thinking, progressive, Utopians out there who have the good sense not to buy into all of our dogmatic, moralistic mumbo-jumbo. :rolleyes:

Stick to the teachings of Jesus and follow that lead and you won't ever go wrong. Follow the agenda of those that claim his name in pursuit of their own Philistine pursuits and you will be forever disapointed and disillusioned. Peace be with you.

Chiefshrink
09-19-2009, 01:25 AM
What is it going to take to rescue the GOP from itself?
Frank Schaeffer, lifelong Republican and Christian has something to say about the looney bastards.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/lPwGV1h4lW8&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/lPwGV1h4lW8&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

This guy's father was a brilliant theologian:thumb:

Pioli Zombie
09-19-2009, 08:11 AM
Stick to the teachings of Jesus and follow that lead and you won't ever go wrong. Follow the agenda of those that claim his name in pursuit of their own Philistine pursuits and you will be forever disapointed and disillusioned. Peace be with you.

Wow. Possibly the greatest and most succinct comment I've heard on the Christian walk.
Posted via Mobile Device

JohnnyV13
09-19-2009, 01:07 PM
In some respects. But behind the public view in the media, they have been hosting $500 a plate dinners to get Rand Paul out of the GOP primary for Senate in KY and they're attacking Schiff. In Conn they're funding a woman to run against Schiff. Look at some of the talking points Morning Joe brought up to Schiff on his announcement to run.

The leadership is corrupt and they're still trying to kick Pauliticians to the curb even in local GOP events where Paulies have tried to get into positions where they can influence the debate.

Sorry, BEP, Ron Paul permenently went into my "nutjob" category when he started calling WWII "interventionism".

BucEyedPea
09-19-2009, 01:49 PM
Sorry, BEP, Ron Paul permenently went into my "nutjob" category when he started calling WWII "interventionism".

Link?

Never heard him say that. Are you sure it's not some second had source evaluating his philosophy and extrapolating that on their own. People do that to me when I've never said we shouldn't intervene in that one.
The "nut jobs" are in power. Of course everyone's nut is someone else's hero. Oh, and the Keynesians.

KILLER_CLOWN
09-19-2009, 02:09 PM
Link?

Never heard him say that. Are you sure it's not some second had source evaluating his philosophy and extrapolating that on their own. People do that to me when I've never said we shouldn't intervene in that one.
The "nut jobs" are in power. Of course everyone's nut is someone else's hero. Oh, and the Keynesians.

Ya i don't recall that happening, sounds like some 2nd hand BS.

RJ
09-19-2009, 02:19 PM
Could be that this statement got a bit convoluted. It was all I came across that might be relevant. Yeah, I'm a little bored at the moment.


Shank: Has the policy of intervention in the name of nation-building – in Afghanistan, Iraq and possibly now Iran – ultimately served or undermined US interests?

Paul: It all undermines our interests. I don’t see how anything we’ve done in the last 50 years has served our interests. You can go back longer than that. I’d go back all the way to Wilson. The unnecessary involvement in World War I gave us Hitler and World War II and on. But if you want to start with more recent ones, I think Roosevelt’s promise to protect Saudi Arabia and prop up secular governments that offended and annoyed the more fundamentalist Arabs and Muslims has been a real thorn in our side. Then with the Cold War going on, there was a tremendous incentive for our government to use our CIA and our funding to literally set these schools up, the Wahhabi schools, to teach them to fight communism in the name of radical Islam.


http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/shank1.html

JohnnyV13
09-19-2009, 04:58 PM
Link?

Never heard him say that. Are you sure it's not some second had source evaluating his philosophy and extrapolating that on their own. People do that to me when I've never said we shouldn't intervene in that one.
The "nut jobs" are in power. Of course everyone's nut is someone else's hero. Oh, and the Keynesians.

Hmmmm...I might have conflated Paul's views with Pat Buchanan.

Baby Lee
09-19-2009, 05:42 PM
I think the guy is right. I think that there is a split happening in Christianity right now. I think some of them are finding the Democrat party attractive because they are not being represented by the Republican party. Others, like myself, are looking more philisophically at the issue. I'm a Christian, and I absolutely cannot vote with the Republican party, despite the fact that their views are a better fit to mine than the other dominant party. I take criticism for that, but the fact is that the only time the Republican party's views are very close to mine is when the other party is in power. When the Republican party is in power, they serve as the rented mule who drags their feet on the path towards socialism, but can be prodded along with enough juicy carrots along the way.

The Republican party has a serious problem right now. They sure as hell aren't getting me to vote for any of their garbage - though I will be back in the Republican ranks lobbying for Ron Paul or whatever liberty (both economic and social) candidate looks like the best option. I'll keep doing that until a liberty candidate finally wins the nomination too. A liberty candidate isn't going to go along with a socialist plan, even if the carrots are juicy.

Schaeffer doesn't give a flying fuck about fiscal policy. He's a rebellious teenager who waited until his midlife crisis to pout and vent. Infusing nearly every sentence with whacko, looney tunes, idiot, loser, etc. is not the stuff of reasoned debate, but it makes a lot more sense when you realize it's the ranting of someone raised one way and now rebelling and rejecting it zealously.

This isn't about policies, barely tangential to social policy and not a bit about fiscal, just more of the us-v-them great blather of 24/7 'news.'

JohnnyV13
09-20-2009, 12:31 AM
Schaeffer doesn't give a flying **** about fiscal policy. He's a rebellious teenager who waited until his midlife crisis to pout and vent. Infusing nearly every sentence with whacko, looney tunes, idiot, loser, etc. is not the stuff of reasoned debate, but it makes a lot more sense when you realize it's the ranting of someone raised one way and now rebelling and rejecting it zealously.

This isn't about policies, barely tangential to social policy and not a bit about fiscal, just more of the us-v-them great blather of 24/7 'news.'

Perhaps, BL. In fact, I agree with you about the "name calling" attacks. However, the kernal of truth in his rant is how fundamentalists often ignore evidence which contradicts their precepts to a ridiculous degree. And, they wish to use political force to compel others to conform to their religious views.

Pioli Zombie
09-20-2009, 05:18 AM
You do realize you are going to spend eternity burning in an agonizing hell fire. But go on.
Posted via Mobile Device

BucEyedPea
09-20-2009, 10:32 AM
Worse than that he is paid to take over the true Patriot movement.

Paid to do that? I think he just agrees with it in large part except where his logic and reasoning go into suspended animation when it comes to Muslims or the War on Terror. But he could effectively do that as he has a presence on tv whereas the non-NeoConnized patriots don't so much.

BucEyedPea
09-20-2009, 10:33 AM
Perhaps, BL. In fact, I agree with you about the "name calling" attacks. However, the kernal of truth in his rant is how fundamentalists often ignore evidence which contradicts their precepts to a ridiculous degree. And, they wish to use political force to compel others to conform to their religious views.

Link?

BucEyedPea
09-20-2009, 10:59 AM
Our public schools produce village idiots nowadays.

HolyHandgernade
09-20-2009, 11:07 AM
Link?

http://newsblaze.com/story/20090902052910blue.nb/topstory.html

HolyHandgernade
09-20-2009, 11:13 AM
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/7027/quotes.html

"When I said during my presidential bid that I would only bring Christians and Jews into the government, I hit a firestorm. `What do you mean?' the media challenged me. `You're not going to bring atheists into the government? How dare you maintain that those who believe in the Judeo Christian values are better qualified to govern America than Hindus and Muslims?' My simple answer is, `Yes, they are.'" --from Pat Robertson's "The New World Order," page 218.

"The mission of the Christian Coalition is simple," says Pat Robertson. It is "to mobilize Christians -- one precinct at a time, one community at a time -- until once again we are the head and not the tail, and at the top rather than the bottom of our political system." Robertson predicts that "the Christian Coalition will be the most powerful political force in America by the end of this decade." And, "We have enough votes to run this country...and when the people say, 'We've had enough,' we're going to take over!"--Pat Robertson

"It is interesting, that termites don't build things, and the great builders of our nation almost to a man have been Christians, because Christians have the desire to build something. He is motivated by love of man and God, so he builds. The people who have come into (our) institutions (today) are primarily termites. They are into destroying institutions that have been built by Christians, whether it is universities, governments, our own traditions, that we have.... The termites are in charge now, and that is not the way it ought to be, and the time has arrived for a godly fumigation."--Pat Robertson, New York Magazine, August 18, 1986

BucEyedPea
09-20-2009, 11:18 AM
http://newsblaze.com/story/20090902052910blue.nb/topstory.html

So it's a conspiracy now? That's not what I meant by a link. I meant show me some laws where you are forced by them to believe as them.

And don't forget Marx hated the family. He wanted to destroy it. What's right about destroying America's smallest governing unit and replacing it with the state?
There's no inbetween with you guys.

HolyHandgernade
09-20-2009, 12:12 PM
So it's a conspiracy now? That's not what I meant by a link. I meant show me some laws where you are forced by them to believe as them.

And don't forget Marx hated the family. He wanted to destroy it. What's right about destroying America's smallest governing unit and replacing it with the state?
There's no inbetween with you guys.

Th quote you highlighted said "they wish to use political force to compel others to conform to their religious views."

All you said was "Link?"

Don't blame me for your flippant response you decide to qualify later.

-HH

BucEyedPea
09-20-2009, 03:00 PM
WTF did you think I meant?

So you don't have any proof of any laws that have been passed or they want to pass that restrict you in your own freedom to believe as you please including disbelief and a God/god.

I got it now. Unjustified paranoia or it's hate or some of both. I always had you pegged as a religion hater. You're a bigot!

HolyHandgernade
09-20-2009, 04:52 PM
WTF did you think I meant?

So you don't have any proof of any laws that have been passed or they want to pass that restrict you in your own freedom to believe as you please including disbelief and a God/god.

I got it now. Unjustified paranoia or it's hate or some of both. I always had you pegged as a religion hater. You're a bigot!

I don't know WTF you meant! How should I know WTF you mean when your response is "Link?" Am I a telepath? You see, most of reasonable people proceed with logic. They see your one word interrogative and then they follow back to the quote you pulled down. In that quote you bolded a sentence that would seem to indicate what you were responding to. In that quote he stated what he believed the religious right "wished" to do. I provided links that help support the idea that indeed, this is what the religious right "wished" to do.

Unbeknownst to us, you had formulated a completely different point and argument in your head. Laws don't have to be made and proposed to demonstrate what a group "wishes" for, and most of certainly hope that such wishes would be met with stiff legal rebuttals if proposed, but this was not what was alleged nor provided supporting links for. This is your own argument, which you have decided to create and thrust onto us, which we had no interest in, and they call us paranoid for it? Its hardly our fault that you can't formulate a response beyond "Link?", and then get upset with us because we followed the only logical progression fromwhat you yourself referenced, and they ask me WTF I was supposed to guess what was rattling around your mind that you didn't bother to share with us. My guess, is that you had an argument you wanted to have, didn't read what the poster had actually written, and then tried to cover your flippant and easily answered "Link?" challenge from which you try to play the argument you wanted to have by ignoring the logical progression that we were left to follow. If you had just said, "My bad, I read what he wrote incorrectly", it would have gone no further. Now, since you are falsely attributing an argument to me that I neither initiated nor care to defend, you have left me with little choice but to highlight how flawed your logic and reading skills are.

-HH

BucEyedPea
09-20-2009, 06:34 PM
It's hate that drives you HH.

JohnnyV13
09-20-2009, 09:07 PM
Link?

Is it really necessary?

In Kansas, fundamentalists tried to use state force to compel schools to teach intelligent design as science, which has absolutely no scientific basis. The Kansas legislature, in fact, passed a statute requiring its instruction, but its passage caused a backlash and the statute never went into effect.

Intelligent design has no experiments, no published science journal articles (except for one instance when a fundametalist christian editor bypassed all kinds of internal peer review procedures to get one in print. The entire society rebelled when it happend...with good cause. I read the article in question, it was a pure theory piece with no experimental evidence and only had attacks against evolutionary theory. It used "arguments by analogy" to postulate "intelligent design".)

In California, fundamentalists pushed prop 8, desiged to establish marriage as between "one man and one woman", because the California supreme court had ruled that gays had the right to marry under liberty interest, freedom of religion, and the non-discrimination and equal protection clauses in the California constitution (as modified by the legislature to protect gays) Now, I will readily concede that the framers never intended liberty interest rights and freedom of religion to allow gay marriage, but the framers weren't without their own biases (otherwise they never would have considered slavery and no women's sufferage as constitutionally acceptable laws). Consequently, religious tyranny was the driving force behind prop 8, not constitutional purity.

Both those instances are readily found on google.

Heck, I'm on a catholic message board, where people typically want to use law to enforce catholic doctrine. I once even used a hypothetical law requiring all americans to go to catholic mass as a hyperbolic example of a catholic moral rule that would be tyrannical if established as law. I was attacked by a couple of priests on the site who couldn't believe that "obeying God's truth" could in any way be "tyrannical". These people, I admit, are radical conservative catholics, but they do exist. Do you really want a link to that message board?

JohnnyV13
09-20-2009, 09:22 PM
WTF did you think I meant?

So you don't have any proof of any laws that have been passed or they want to pass that restrict you in your own freedom to believe as you please including disbelief and a God/god.

I got it now. Unjustified paranoia or it's hate or some of both. I always had you pegged as a religion hater. You're a bigot!

BEP, that's not what I meant. Fundamentalists want to use law to compel BEHAVIOR that conforms to their religious views. What makes it religious tyranny is when the rules can't be justified by harm to others, or social benefits, or constitutional rights.

Some examples might be prior legal bans on contraception, laws designed to compel intruction of intelligent design as a science, when they have no expermiental evidence, bans on gay marriage based on the idea that "god doesn't like it".

Obviously, religious values can inspire just laws, but you can't use "god's will" as their basis. A religous inspired statute should use social benefit or constitutional rights if it wants to be enacted as secular law. Usually, the fundamentalists will proffer such justifications, but their rationale is very very strained to the point where its pretty much de Tocqueville's tyranny of the majority.

BucEyedPea
09-20-2009, 10:00 PM
V...all law is based on someone's morality.

HolyHandgernade
09-21-2009, 12:12 AM
It's hate that drives you HH.

Your constant companions are pride and ignorance.

-HH

BucEyedPea
09-21-2009, 12:17 AM
Your constant companions are pride and ignorance.

-HH

Sounds kinda like you. Hater.

HolyHandgernade
09-21-2009, 12:21 AM
Sounds kinda like you. Hater.

Go ahead, pull up my hate quote about religious people. I dare you. You get exposed for failed logic and you lash out. You're the one calling me "hater", "bigoted", and "an ass", yet I'm the one filled with hate? You're the one who averages five to ten posts a day on this board arguing about anything and everything that doesn't conform to your ideologically wraped idealism, and I'm the one filled with hate? I used to think you were just slightly looney, but now I'm leaning towards bat-shit crazy. I don't usually like to go that far, but I think you've earned it.

-HH

BucEyedPea
09-21-2009, 02:15 AM
Yes, you just had to be here when you saw "Christianity" and "Village Idiot" as a thread title.

HolyHandgernade
09-21-2009, 02:20 AM
Yes, you just had to be here when you saw "Christianity" and "Village Idiot" as a thread title.

Well, I didn't title the thread, I didn't concur with the title, and the post I responded to had very little to do with what I provided. You asked for links to what he wrote. I provided them. You made up an alternate argument and complained I didn't answer that and then called me a hater. For what? Because I answered your request for a link? How many pretend conversations do you have going on in that melon of yours?

-HH

BucEyedPea
09-21-2009, 02:33 AM
Wow you must be on standby.

HolyHandgernade
09-21-2009, 03:48 AM
Midnight shift.

-HH

JohnnyV13
09-21-2009, 08:31 AM
V...all law is based on someone's morality.

I've heard that argument many times. It generally ignores that most law is actually administrative or regulatory in its nature. Look at the section in the law library that contains the USC (united states code) or the CFR (code of federal regulation) some time. There's a massive amount of law that isn't really "morality" dependant. (I mean what kind of "moral basis" do you really have when trying to puzzle through the maze of laws and precedent that establishes what comprises "invention" under the patent code? Or the technical requirements behind documenting proof for tax exclusions? Those sort of dull, nuts and bolts administrative and regulatory requirements make up most of our laws).

The areas of law that most rely on "moral" anaylsis are criminal and constitutional. These are the areas of law that laymen notice the most (probably because its the most accessable for public debate and opinion pieces).

Even in these areas which are dependant on "public ethics" for their anaylsis, there is a distinction between secular ethics and religion. The acid test is whether the rule can be justified by harm (or potential harm) to an individual or society. If you break down the rule and it comes down to "its God's will", what you have is "rubbing blue mud in your belly" tribal custom.

A perfect example are catholic rules about the immorality of artificial contraception. In what way can using a condom be construed as individual or public harm? Catholics make some pretense to social harm when they postulate that using artificial birth control creates "contempt for life" and that people who use birth control would be more likley to 1) have abortions 2) use euthenasia and 3) support the death penalty. Their support is based mostly on religious "inspiriation" rather than sociological evidence. ANd, within catholic doctrine, the morality of birth control is considered "infallible doctrine" that cannot be questioned by a faithful catholic.

Yet, many catholics would be quite happy to enforce birth control bans using secular law. In fact, at one time, birth control WAS banned by local ordinances or state law in many areas.

BucEyedPea
09-21-2009, 10:31 AM
Yet, many catholics would be quite happy to enforce birth control bans using secular law. In fact, at one time, birth control WAS banned by local ordinances or state law in many areas.

And it was overturned by the SC. And it would have died out at the state level as society changed too.

And many liberals and progressives are quite happy to impose their brand of social justice and egalitarianism on the same people banning people from using their property as they wish, jailing people for violating tax laws because the govt is their church for doing good unto others. But that's okay

JohnnyV13
09-21-2009, 11:35 AM
And it was overturned by the SC. And it would have died out at the state level as society changed too.

And many liberals and progressives are quite happy to impose their brand of social justice and egalitarianism on the same people banning people from using their property as they wish, jailing people for violating tax laws because the govt is their church for doing good unto others. But that's okay

I agree, I despise "social engineering" whether it be liberal or conservative. I would actually like to throw out the entire, complex, indivualized tax code that uses government force to entice people into acting as the government chooses (e.g. jumping through hoops to receive a tax deduction).

Not only could you argue that the tax code, as it currently exists, is an unconstitutional power grab (an argument that, while perhaps accurate, is a sure loser were you foolish enough to waste a client's money bringing the case), we waste a huge amount of economic effort (lawyers, accountants and managers considering tax implications of business structures), administrating it.

The problem is, the tax code is so entrenched that deep sixing that leviathan would trigger a massive recession.

P.S. the fact that SC overturned those laws, and local ordinances "would have changed" do not change the fact that fundamentalists WANT to use legal force to compel conformity to religious views.

BucEyedPea
09-21-2009, 11:45 AM
If you think scrapping the tax code would lead to a recession then I've a bridge to see ya'.

That's statism right there. That our economy cannot operate without massive quantities of govt spending. Stems from Keynesthink. And you know what I think of that.

JohnnyV13
09-21-2009, 11:49 AM
If you think scrapping the tax code would lead to a recession then I've a bridge to see ya'.

That's statism right there. That our economy cannot operate without massive quantities of govt spending. Stems from Keynesthink. And you know what I think of that.

No, the reason I say it would trigger a massive recession is b/c, in the short term, a lot of people would be out of jobs. And, a number of business structures depend on exploiting tax advantages. Remove those things, and you have massive economic disruption.

Long term, however, you'd see what I believe would be large benefits: huge amounts of highly trained, highly skilled people pursuing economic endeavors that actually PRODUCE something rather than administrative bs. You'd see a large, long term bump in GDP.

The reason I see the recession as a huge stumbing block, is that very few politicians would sacrifice their careers or their current office to bring about the long term benefit.