Law
-
Let's just skip to the end, where I say "the right to restrict rights isn't a right," and you disagree while making a disparaging comment about leftists eating live kittens.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
the right to restrict rights isn't a right
Then you misunderstand our government and should take civics 101.
-
Many of the countries that you despise have the rule of law. It is a primitive and oppressive law, determined and enforced by a religious theocracy, but the law nonetheless, much like the Christian version of Sharia that you would have this country adopt. If you are talking about countries that have had their governments destroyed by conflict, however, then you are correct, they do not currently have the rule of law.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Many of the countries that you despise have the rule of law. It is a primitive and oppressive law, determined and enforced by a religious theocracy, but the law nonetheless, much like the Christian version of Sharia that you would have this country adopt.
And by endorsing an "international law", you're either endorsing that they have influence on American laws. Since demographically speaking, Arabs will soon rule Europe, I'd give you silly ideas a second thought.
-
Does anybody actually believe that there is or ever was "law"? It's something frequently touted by Governments, but does anybody actually believe it exists? Has any one ever seen one of these laws? Farmer Giles was fat and enjoyed a slow, comfortable life. Then one day a giant blundered on to his land. Farmer Giles managed to scare him away and instantly became a hero. So it was natural that when the dragon Chrysophylax visited the area, it was Farmer Giles who was to do battle with it.
I'm all for a law against really long user names. Your question makes me wonder if you're doing drugs. I used to work in a University library, as such I saw plenty of laws, if you mean to see them written down. That is self evident, but I can't imagine what else you're talking about. Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ Metal Musings - Rex and my new metal blog
-
Let's just skip to the end, where I say "the right to restrict rights isn't a right," and you disagree while making a disparaging comment about leftists eating live kittens.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Let's just skip to the end, where I say "the right to restrict rights isn't a right," and you disagree while making a disparaging comment about leftists eating live kittens.
OK. Thats my favorite part anyway. (Except that I would brilliantly point out the obvious that in addtion to the kittens, secularists have been restricting rights they don't like for a long time now.) :-D "You have no concept of the depth and complexity of my beliefs." Jim A. Johnson
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
...or the secular version, which we are currently living under
So which one would you prefer, Stan?
The bible was written when people were even more stupid than they are today. Can you imagine that? - David Cross
The christian version. It has a better track record. "You have no concept of the depth and complexity of my beliefs." Jim A. Johnson
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
the right to restrict rights isn't a right
Then you misunderstand our government and should take civics 101.
And because government is based on a limited right to restrict rights, you're fine with having rights whittled away? Oh, right, only so long as they're ones that you don't care about. When you are cavalier in granting the right to restrict rights, you end up with tyranny. In fact, what the Christian right is trying to do right now is force the whole of society to live by their specific set of religious rules, just like Islam. Their God says they must observe the Sabbath, therefore all people, everywhere, without exception, and regardless of their personal beliefs, must observe the Sabbath as well. This is lunacy, and is in diametric opposition to the beliefs of the founders, and shows that you seem to lack a fundamental understanding of what it means to be free. Normally, I'd make a snarky remedial education comment in return, but your posts on this topic, and in this forum in general, appear to indicate that you lack both empathy and social skills, and have an unchecked, rampaging, colossal ego matched in size only by the breadth of your ignorance, an ignorance that must truly be fractal in nature in order for its nearly limitless scope to fit in the small and very closed space that is your head. I don't think any amount of education, from PolSci to Dale Carnegie, could clean up the mess in there. Mushrooms, maybe, or ECT.
-
And because government is based on a limited right to restrict rights, you're fine with having rights whittled away? Oh, right, only so long as they're ones that you don't care about. When you are cavalier in granting the right to restrict rights, you end up with tyranny. In fact, what the Christian right is trying to do right now is force the whole of society to live by their specific set of religious rules, just like Islam. Their God says they must observe the Sabbath, therefore all people, everywhere, without exception, and regardless of their personal beliefs, must observe the Sabbath as well. This is lunacy, and is in diametric opposition to the beliefs of the founders, and shows that you seem to lack a fundamental understanding of what it means to be free. Normally, I'd make a snarky remedial education comment in return, but your posts on this topic, and in this forum in general, appear to indicate that you lack both empathy and social skills, and have an unchecked, rampaging, colossal ego matched in size only by the breadth of your ignorance, an ignorance that must truly be fractal in nature in order for its nearly limitless scope to fit in the small and very closed space that is your head. I don't think any amount of education, from PolSci to Dale Carnegie, could clean up the mess in there. Mushrooms, maybe, or ECT.
Balance is a general theme in our government. We make it very difficult to restrict fundamental rights (such as speech, the press and the right to bear arms). However the people also have a fundamental right (also granted in the constitution) to elect a governments that actually govern. That translates to restrictions on activities that the general populace agrees with (such as prostitution, pedophilia, polygamy and public drunkeness). While you are on one extreme (demanding anarchy) and militant Islam is on the other (lacking protections of fundamental rights), America (excluding Venezuela) finds itself in the middle. We have protections from both extremes in place. The result?...The greatest country on earth!
-
Balance is a general theme in our government. We make it very difficult to restrict fundamental rights (such as speech, the press and the right to bear arms). However the people also have a fundamental right (also granted in the constitution) to elect a governments that actually govern. That translates to restrictions on activities that the general populace agrees with (such as prostitution, pedophilia, polygamy and public drunkeness). While you are on one extreme (demanding anarchy) and militant Islam is on the other (lacking protections of fundamental rights), America (excluding Venezuela) finds itself in the middle. We have protections from both extremes in place. The result?...The greatest country on earth!
espeir wrote:
prostitution, pedophilia, polygamy and public drunkeness
What about a local ordinance compelling church attendance on Sunday? Restrictions necessary to maintain social order -- to keep people from impeding the rights of others -- may very well be necessary; other than that, they shouldn't even be possible, short of constitutional amendment. Consider restrictions on the acts of driving while intoxicated, and drinking on the Christian Sabbath. If you think there is no difference, and believe that they both merit restriction, then you're espeir.
-
espeir wrote:
prostitution, pedophilia, polygamy and public drunkeness
What about a local ordinance compelling church attendance on Sunday? Restrictions necessary to maintain social order -- to keep people from impeding the rights of others -- may very well be necessary; other than that, they shouldn't even be possible, short of constitutional amendment. Consider restrictions on the acts of driving while intoxicated, and drinking on the Christian Sabbath. If you think there is no difference, and believe that they both merit restriction, then you're espeir.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
What about a local ordinance compelling church attendance on Sunday? Restrictions necessary to maintain social order -- to keep people from impeding the rights of others -- may very well be necessary; other than that, they shouldn't even be possible, short of constitutional amendment.
Uhhh...Something like that isn't possible since the first amendment clearly states that the federal government can't establish a religion (in addition to not being able to restrict it)*. I challenge you to find one local ordinance in the United States that requires church attendance that has held up in court.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Consider restrictions on the acts of driving while intoxicated, and drinking on the Christian Sabbath.
The differenec is in substance only. A ban on drinking one day a week does not establish a religion (especially since this was commonplace in 1787). If you think so, then this is just another example of how the constitution protects America from people who hold extremist views like yourself and militant Islam. *If you understand the constitution, then you can understand that this restriction is only at the federal level. Each state constitution, however, is modelled after the federal, so local statues like this are not allowed in any state in the union.
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
What about a local ordinance compelling church attendance on Sunday? Restrictions necessary to maintain social order -- to keep people from impeding the rights of others -- may very well be necessary; other than that, they shouldn't even be possible, short of constitutional amendment.
Uhhh...Something like that isn't possible since the first amendment clearly states that the federal government can't establish a religion (in addition to not being able to restrict it)*. I challenge you to find one local ordinance in the United States that requires church attendance that has held up in court.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Consider restrictions on the acts of driving while intoxicated, and drinking on the Christian Sabbath.
The differenec is in substance only. A ban on drinking one day a week does not establish a religion (especially since this was commonplace in 1787). If you think so, then this is just another example of how the constitution protects America from people who hold extremist views like yourself and militant Islam. *If you understand the constitution, then you can understand that this restriction is only at the federal level. Each state constitution, however, is modelled after the federal, so local statues like this are not allowed in any state in the union.
espeir wrote:
Uhhh...Something like that isn't possible since the first amendment clearly states that the federal government can't establish a religion
Uhhh...we're talking about local ordinance. The reason community laws such as that haven't held up is because of the ideal of a secular government of religious men. Read Jefferson.
espeir wrote:
The differenec is in substance only. A ban on drinking one day a week does not establish a religion (especially since this was commonplace in 1787). If you think so, then this is just another example of how the constitution protects America from people who hold extremist views like yourself and militant Islam.
A ban on drinking on the Sabbath has nothing to do with social order, and everything to do with legislating the beliefs of a specific religion -- a subset of the religion, actually. Your assertion to the contrary is just another example of how the country must be protected from people who hold extremist views like yourself and militant Islam.
espeir wrote:
so local statues like this are not allowed
But you and Stan have both made your views clear that, should a state choose to compel church attendance, there should be nothing preventing them from doing so.
-
espeir wrote:
prostitution, pedophilia, polygamy and public drunkeness
What about a local ordinance compelling church attendance on Sunday? Restrictions necessary to maintain social order -- to keep people from impeding the rights of others -- may very well be necessary; other than that, they shouldn't even be possible, short of constitutional amendment. Consider restrictions on the acts of driving while intoxicated, and drinking on the Christian Sabbath. If you think there is no difference, and believe that they both merit restriction, then you're espeir.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
What about a local ordinance compelling church attendance on Sunday?
What about it? How about the federal government enforcing a school curriculum that requires teaching children a secular world view? When the choice is between a million little local tyrannies and one big centralized one, all true Jeffersonians understand that the former is always to be preferred to the latter. "You have no concept of the depth and complexity of my beliefs." Jim A. Johnson -- modified at 16:36 Tuesday 18th July, 2006
-
espeir wrote:
Uhhh...Something like that isn't possible since the first amendment clearly states that the federal government can't establish a religion
Uhhh...we're talking about local ordinance. The reason community laws such as that haven't held up is because of the ideal of a secular government of religious men. Read Jefferson.
espeir wrote:
The differenec is in substance only. A ban on drinking one day a week does not establish a religion (especially since this was commonplace in 1787). If you think so, then this is just another example of how the constitution protects America from people who hold extremist views like yourself and militant Islam.
A ban on drinking on the Sabbath has nothing to do with social order, and everything to do with legislating the beliefs of a specific religion -- a subset of the religion, actually. Your assertion to the contrary is just another example of how the country must be protected from people who hold extremist views like yourself and militant Islam.
espeir wrote:
so local statues like this are not allowed
But you and Stan have both made your views clear that, should a state choose to compel church attendance, there should be nothing preventing them from doing so.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Uhhh...we're talking about local ordinance. The reason community laws such as that haven't held up is because of the ideal of a secular government of religious men. Read Jefferson.
Uhhhh...Wrong. The reason local governments cannot enforce such laws is because state constitutions do not allow it. The federal constitution does not allow the federal congress to make such enforcements or restrictions (although this evolved after the civil war), but state governments apply such restrictions and enforcements to smaller governments within the states. Jefferson encouraged states to model state-level constitutions after the then federal one in many ways (not just by encouraging them to adopt 1st amendment-like provisions).
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
A ban on drinking on the Sabbath has nothing to do with social order, and everything to do with legislating the beliefs of a specific religion -- a subset of the religion, actually. Your assertion to the contrary is just another example of how the country must be protected from people who hold extremist views like yourself and militant Islam.
You individual opinion is irrelevant. You do not have a fundamental right granted by the constitution to drink on Sunday or any other day. It is therefore within the ordinary power of our various legislatures to determine rules as to when drinking can be allowed. This includes making bars close at 2 AM, which most places do.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
But you and Stan have both made your views clear that, should a state choose to compel church attendance, there should be nothing preventing them from doing so.
What are you talking about? I just said not 2 posts ago that doing so would be unconstitutional because it forces people to adhere to a religion (specifically prohibited by the first amendment). My argument is that the government elected by the people can and every day does restrict certain "rights" (as you specifically define...but only certain things), but not fundamental rights. In another thread you stated that Democracy is a failure. I therefore lump you on the opposite end of the extremist spectrum as militant Islam. Fortunately, we have a form of government that not only represents my desire to be allowed to drink on Friday night, but protects me from extremists like you.
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
What about a local ordinance compelling church attendance on Sunday?
What about it? How about the federal government enforcing a school curriculum that requires teaching children a secular world view? When the choice is between a million little local tyrannies and one big centralized one, all true Jeffersonians understand that the former is always to be preferred to the latter. "You have no concept of the depth and complexity of my beliefs." Jim A. Johnson -- modified at 16:36 Tuesday 18th July, 2006
You've got to be one hell of a retard to accept any tyrrany.
-- For proper viewing, take red pill now
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Uhhh...we're talking about local ordinance. The reason community laws such as that haven't held up is because of the ideal of a secular government of religious men. Read Jefferson.
Uhhhh...Wrong. The reason local governments cannot enforce such laws is because state constitutions do not allow it. The federal constitution does not allow the federal congress to make such enforcements or restrictions (although this evolved after the civil war), but state governments apply such restrictions and enforcements to smaller governments within the states. Jefferson encouraged states to model state-level constitutions after the then federal one in many ways (not just by encouraging them to adopt 1st amendment-like provisions).
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
A ban on drinking on the Sabbath has nothing to do with social order, and everything to do with legislating the beliefs of a specific religion -- a subset of the religion, actually. Your assertion to the contrary is just another example of how the country must be protected from people who hold extremist views like yourself and militant Islam.
You individual opinion is irrelevant. You do not have a fundamental right granted by the constitution to drink on Sunday or any other day. It is therefore within the ordinary power of our various legislatures to determine rules as to when drinking can be allowed. This includes making bars close at 2 AM, which most places do.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
But you and Stan have both made your views clear that, should a state choose to compel church attendance, there should be nothing preventing them from doing so.
What are you talking about? I just said not 2 posts ago that doing so would be unconstitutional because it forces people to adhere to a religion (specifically prohibited by the first amendment). My argument is that the government elected by the people can and every day does restrict certain "rights" (as you specifically define...but only certain things), but not fundamental rights. In another thread you stated that Democracy is a failure. I therefore lump you on the opposite end of the extremist spectrum as militant Islam. Fortunately, we have a form of government that not only represents my desire to be allowed to drink on Friday night, but protects me from extremists like you.
espeir wrote:
Uhhhh...Wrong. The reason local governments cannot enforce such laws is because state constitutions do not allow it. The federal constitution does not allow the federal congress to make such enforcements or restrictions (although this evolved after the civil war), but state governments apply such restrictions and enforcements to smaller governments within the states. Jefferson encouraged states to model state-level constitutions after the then federal one in many ways (not just by encouraging them to adopt 1st amendment-like provisions).
Fine, change "local ordinance" to "state law". My point was that, according to you and Stan, if a state were to change their constitution to compel church attendance, that would be peachy so long as the change was the will of the people. Jefferson actively campaigned against this in Virginia.
espeir wrote:
You individual opinion is irrelevant. You do not have a fundamental right granted by the constitution to drink on Sunday or any other day. It is therefore within the ordinary power of our various legislatures to determine rules as to when drinking can be allowed. This includes making bars close at 2 AM, which most places do.
Your assertion is irrelevant. My point was that laws should restrict rights only when such restrictions are necessary to maintain social order. Legislating arbitrary religious tenets does not meet that standard. It is admittedly a personal standard, but was held by most of the founders, and by most people outside of fundamental religious groups.
espeir wrote:
What are you talking about? I just said not 2 posts ago that doing so would be unconstitutional because it forces people to adhere to a religion (specifically prohibited by the first amendment).
What is the difference between legislating a dry Sabbath and mandatory church attendance? Both are compelling behavior based solely on religious beliefs.
espeir wrote:
In another thread you stated that Democracy is a failure.
Now you're just making shit up. I defy you to find that thread, jackass. I have said, and would say, no such thing.
espeir wrote:
I therefore lump you on the opposite end of the extremist spectrum as militant Islam.
Interestingly, I lump you squarely on the same end
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
What about a local ordinance compelling church attendance on Sunday?
What about it? How about the federal government enforcing a school curriculum that requires teaching children a secular world view? When the choice is between a million little local tyrannies and one big centralized one, all true Jeffersonians understand that the former is always to be preferred to the latter. "You have no concept of the depth and complexity of my beliefs." Jim A. Johnson -- modified at 16:36 Tuesday 18th July, 2006
Stan Shannon wrote:
When the choice is between a million little local tyrannies and one big centralized one, all true Jeffersonians understand that the former is always to be preferred to the latter.
And yet Jefferson considered his defeat of one of those local religious tyrannies to be one of only three life accomplishments worthy of inclusion on his tombstone.
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Many of the countries that you despise have the rule of law. It is a primitive and oppressive law, determined and enforced by a religious theocracy, but the law nonetheless, much like the Christian version of Sharia that you would have this country adopt.
And by endorsing an "international law", you're either endorsing that they have influence on American laws. Since demographically speaking, Arabs will soon rule Europe, I'd give you silly ideas a second thought.
Just where did your pointy, little head get the notion that I endorse this mythical "international law"?
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
When the choice is between a million little local tyrannies and one big centralized one, all true Jeffersonians understand that the former is always to be preferred to the latter.
And yet Jefferson considered his defeat of one of those local religious tyrannies to be one of only three life accomplishments worthy of inclusion on his tombstone.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
And yet Jefferson considered his defeat of one of those local religious tyrannies to be one of only three life accomplishments worthy of inclusion on his tombstone.
But only as a member of the Virginia government, not as a member of the federal government. HERE WAS BURIED THOMAS JEFFERSON AUTHOR OF THE DECLARATION OF AMERICAN INDEPENDENCE OF THE STATUTE OF VIRGINIA FOR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM AND FATHER OF THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA He also wrote... "The federal judiciary [is] an irresponsible body (for impeachment is scarcely a scarecrow), working like gravity by night and by day gaining a little to-day and a little to-marrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all be consolidated into one. ... when all government ... in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the centre of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government against another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated." "You have no concept of the depth and complexity of my beliefs." Jim A. Johnson
-
espeir wrote:
Uhhhh...Wrong. The reason local governments cannot enforce such laws is because state constitutions do not allow it. The federal constitution does not allow the federal congress to make such enforcements or restrictions (although this evolved after the civil war), but state governments apply such restrictions and enforcements to smaller governments within the states. Jefferson encouraged states to model state-level constitutions after the then federal one in many ways (not just by encouraging them to adopt 1st amendment-like provisions).
Fine, change "local ordinance" to "state law". My point was that, according to you and Stan, if a state were to change their constitution to compel church attendance, that would be peachy so long as the change was the will of the people. Jefferson actively campaigned against this in Virginia.
espeir wrote:
You individual opinion is irrelevant. You do not have a fundamental right granted by the constitution to drink on Sunday or any other day. It is therefore within the ordinary power of our various legislatures to determine rules as to when drinking can be allowed. This includes making bars close at 2 AM, which most places do.
Your assertion is irrelevant. My point was that laws should restrict rights only when such restrictions are necessary to maintain social order. Legislating arbitrary religious tenets does not meet that standard. It is admittedly a personal standard, but was held by most of the founders, and by most people outside of fundamental religious groups.
espeir wrote:
What are you talking about? I just said not 2 posts ago that doing so would be unconstitutional because it forces people to adhere to a religion (specifically prohibited by the first amendment).
What is the difference between legislating a dry Sabbath and mandatory church attendance? Both are compelling behavior based solely on religious beliefs.
espeir wrote:
In another thread you stated that Democracy is a failure.
Now you're just making shit up. I defy you to find that thread, jackass. I have said, and would say, no such thing.
espeir wrote:
I therefore lump you on the opposite end of the extremist spectrum as militant Islam.
Interestingly, I lump you squarely on the same end
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Fine, change "local ordinance" to "state law". My point was that, according to you and Stan, if a state were to change their constitution to compel church attendance, that would be peachy so long as the change was the will of the people. Jefferson actively campaigned against this in Virginia.
We've already been over this. You believe that the people should not be entrusted with the Democratic authority to govern themselves. Militant Islam believes the exact same thing. Again, the constitution protects us from extremists like you and for that I thank our founding fathers.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Your assertion is irrelevant. My point was that laws should restrict rights only when such restrictions are necessary to maintain social order. Legislating arbitrary religious tenets does not meet that standard. It is admittedly a personal standard, but was held by most of the founders, and by most people outside of fundamental religious groups.
And you have a Democratic right to push for such laws. However, you go a step further in stating that the people cannot be entrusted to decide which laws are reasonable. As you just stated, you fear the Democratic process because of your faulty perception of it. Again, I thank our founding fathers that our country is safe from people like you.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Now you're just making sh*t up. I defy you to find that thread, jackass. I have said, and would say, no such thing.
This one! Sheesh!
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Interestingly, I lump you squarely on the same end of the extremist spectrum as militant Islam. Hopefully, we have a form of government that will protect us from your desire that we not be allowed to drink on your holy days, and continue, in general, to protect people like me from extremists like you.
Extremists will always view the mainstream world as extremist, so this is of no surprise to me. Fortunately, the founding fathers did well to assure that our country is not ruled by small groups of people who hold views contrary to the general populace.
-
Just where did your pointy, little head get the notion that I endorse this mythical "international law"?
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
pointy, little head
You always use that same lame little put-down every time you've got nowhere to go. Pathetic.
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
pointy, little head
You always use that same lame little put-down every time you've got nowhere to go. Pathetic.
Yeah, and you use "try to keep up", "you need to take * 101", etc. Glad we're both so pathetically predictable. And you didn't answer my question, pointy-head.