A perfect example...

[Stan Shannon]

Oakman wrote:

Like it or not there's a lot of established law that has expanded the power of the Federal Government

Oakman wrote:

They were empowered to do this a long time ago,

Yes, and the consequencies of that is becoming increasingly obvious with people such as Barney Frank.

Oakman wrote:

this has been true. Yes, the 10th amendment was offered up as a sop to the libertarian elements of the Founding Fathers who believed that the government that governed least governed best

There was nothing libertarian about it. It was intended to give all power not defined in the constituion to the states and to the people - including defining moral conduct.

Oakman wrote:

Arguing about who can do what to whom with what is something that the Supreme Court, and Barney Frank shouldn't bother with.

But the power to do that must exist somewhere. And that is at the state and local level.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

[Stan Shannon]

Synaptrik wrote:

So, ruling on discrimination against gay people is a violation of church and state?

No, the federal government empowering itself to define morality for the people is a violation the true intent of the concept of separation of church and state.

Synaptrik wrote:

I assume you mean that the church is empowered to impose a moral code of ethics upon society? And that's the violation? Neither should in my opinion.

No, the people should be empowered to do so as intended by the original intent of the founding fathers. Without a moral code of ethics, you have no civilization. It must come from somewhere. Either from a centralized authority or from the people. Take your pick.

Synaptrik wrote:

If homosexuality is biological, which they can show now that it happens in the womb, and not a choice, then discrimination is wrong.

Actually they can't show that - it is still quite theoritical. But even if they could, we are not obliged to subvert our moral principles or our democratic rights to the dictates of science. Equally creative, carefully selected scientific research would also prove that homophobia is genetic and therefore perfectly acceptable. The right to discriminate is the most basic and fundamental of all forms of freedom. You simply can't dictate to others who they must interact with and still consider them to be free.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

[Stan Shannon]

oilFactotum wrote:

Homophobe is simply a noun that describes someone who has homophobic characteristics and that fits Scalia. That's like saying 'Barney Frank is a homosexual' is a moral judgement. What moral judgement am I making with that statement?

If the word carried no power for moral condemnation, Frank would not have used it. He was making an overtly moral statement. If someone had said "We don't want to present a case to the court as long as that homosexual has votes" it would certainly have been interpreted for what it was intended to be.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

[Al Beback]

Gary Kirkham wrote:

If righteousness came by the Law, then Christ died in vain.

But he did die in vain. Insted of using his magical powers to stop evil, like any modern superhero would, he decided to play the martyr card. He gets no sympathy from me.

ShamWow

[Oakman]

None of your answers is at all responsive, Stan. So let's declare me vindicated and move on.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[Oakman]

Stan Shannon wrote:

No, the federal government empowering itself to define morality for the people is a violation the true intent of the concept of separation of church and state.

But the state of Indiana should have the opower and the right to establish a church and require attendance, twice a week? Man, you are making the same arguments the Ayatollahs make.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[Oakman]

Stan Shannon wrote:

If the word carried no power for moral condemnation, Frank would not have used it. He was making an overtly moral statement.

Are you reacting this strongly because people have used the word about you?

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[Lost User]

Stan Shannon wrote:

No, the federal government empowering itself to define morality for the people is a violation the true intent of the concept of separation of church and state.

Then how did the capital crime of Murder get onto the statute books. Murder is contrary to the teaching of morality - commandment 6 Or am I misinterpreting your "violation the true intent..." ?

[oilFactotum]

Stan Shannon wrote:

If the word carried no power for moral condemnation, Frank would not have used it.

So you say. :rolleyes: You haven't answered my question - What moral judgement am I making when I say 'Barney Frank is a homosexual.'?

[Synaptrik]

But its not defining morality. Its defining what qualifies for restriction by the state.

Stan Shannon wrote:

But even if they could, we are not obliged to subvert our moral principles or our democratic rights to the dictates of science.

Who's moral principles? I don't have a moral interest in two people loving each other and wanting a serious life long commitment with the legal benefits accorded by the law. I would accept your argument a little easier if we truly had a separation of church and state. But the word marriage is in thousands of legal documents. So, its either take the language out of the system, offering no tax support, or any other benefits if you're married and make it a religious institution. If its a state institution then it grows with the state and society as a whole in spite of religion's resistance. I think at times that you argue against the tyranny of the majority and minority, but you are suggesting that its acceptable at the state level. The pressure is coming from the people despite your theories of media and leftist propaganda. Time will tell of course.

This statement is false

[Stan Shannon]

It was entirely responsive. You assertions were correct, but completely ignore that most of our current problems arise from those very stated changes. Barney Frank, Barack Obama, et al, are perfect examples of precisely what the founders warned us would happend if we made the changes that have been made. And they were not libertarians. Their interpretation of the 10th amendment was not for libertarian purposes. It was precisely so that states and local governments could decide on issues such as abortion and sodomy and flag burning as they saw fit without being dictated to by the federal government. That is exactly what the 10th amendment is for.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

[Stan Shannon]

Synaptrik wrote:

But its not defining morality. Its defining what qualifies for restriction by the state.

Which becomes an issue of morality. That is why you have Frank condmening someone for being a homophobe. People who are homophobes can be restricted by the state. People who are homosexual cannot. It is simply a mirror image of our old moral traditions.

Synaptrik wrote:

Who's moral principles? I don't have a moral interest in two people loving each other and wanting a serious life long commitment with the legal benefits accorded by the law. I would accept your argument a little easier if we truly had a separation of church and state. But the word marriage is in thousands of legal documents. So, its either take the language out of the system, offering no tax support, or any other benefits if you're married and make it a religious institution.

Well, everyone else for the last 200 years decided differently. Sorry...

Synaptrik wrote:

I think at times that you argue against the tyranny of the majority and minority, but you are suggesting that its acceptable at the state level.

It is no more tyranical to condemn homosexuality than it is to condemn homophobia. It is exactly the same thing. The only difference is that the former was a form of social tyranny based upon the traditions and moral beliefs of the people, whereas the latter is political tyranny coming from a ruling elite.

Synaptrik wrote:

The pressure is coming from the people despite your theories of media and leftist propaganda. Time will tell of course.

No it isn't. The people are responding to the formulation of a new moral imperative being defined for them by the institutions of our society which are controlled by people with a single minded dedication to destroying our social infrastructure. We have been taken over by a form of religious fundamentalism - it just has one less God then does the others.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

[Stan Shannon]

Richard A. Abbott wrote:

Then how did the capital crime of Murder get onto the statute books. Murder is contrary to the teaching of morality - commandment 6

Murder is not defined in the constitution, so I have no idea what you are talking about.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

[Stan Shannon]

oilFactotum wrote:

What moral judgement am I making when I say 'Barney Frank is a homosexual.'?

He is a vile and immoral sexual pervert.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

[Oakman]

Stan Shannon wrote:

It was precisely so that states and local governments could decide on issues such as abortion and sodomy and flag burning as they saw fit without being dictated to by the federal government.

You have textual proof of this? I means somewhere Thomas Jeferson or James Madison has to have said something like "If we keep the Federal Government weak, then the 13 states can all become religious dictatorships!" When you start talking like this, I wonder why you find Osama Bin Laden odious. In truth, Stan, it appears that if one of you was willing to change the name he addresses his God by, you would be perfectly happy in each other's paradise, and could work together to establish that heavenly dictatorship here on earth. Is there anything in Shari'a Law that isn't what you'd like to see on the books at the Indiana State House?

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[Stan Shannon]

Oakman wrote:

You have textual proof of this? I means somewhere Thomas Jeferson or James Madison has to have said something like "If we keep the Federal Government weak, then the 13 states can all become religious dictatorships!"

I have 200 years of textual proof. The states all in fact became religious dictatorships and niether Jefferson or Madison lifted a finger to change it. In fact, they seemed to have been entirely comfortable with the notion.

Oakman wrote:

When you start talking like this, I wonder why you find Osama Bin Laden odious. In truth, Stan, it appears that if one of you was willing to change the name he addresses his God by, you would be perfectly happy in each other's paradise, and could work together to establish that heavenly dictatorship here on earth. Is there anything in Shari'a Law that isn't what you'd like to see on the books at the Indiana State House?

You know, Jon, it isn't so much that you compare me to an international terrorist that I find offensive. Its that you compare my parents, my grandparents, and their parents to an international terrorist. You compare the entire history of the US to an international terrorist. You compare the men who ended slavery to an international terrorist, you compare the men who freed the world from Nazis to an international terrorist. All of those people lived in a nation governed precisely as I describe. They supported it, they participated in it, they fought for it, they were all social conservatives. They all were entirely comfortable with laws being defined by christian people at the local level to define the legal parameters of their civilization and thought that was an entirely normal, American thing to do. Imagine that.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

[Oakman]

Stan Shannon wrote:

I have 200 years of textual proof.

In other words, not a word can you find - whereas I can dig up a great number of quotes from these gentlemen expressing the sentiments, you say they never had. Once again, let's say that my arguments are vidicated and move on.

Stan Shannon wrote:

All of those people lived in a nation governed precisely as I describe.

Nope, sorry. You are wrong. There may have been some backwater towns just as small-minded, unthinking, and cruel as you seem to want the entire country to become, but by and large, Americans have stood for freedom, for the right to say "no," and not to worship at any altar not of their own choosing. I ask again - what aspect of Shar'ia law - other than the name of the Supreme Being - do you disagree with?

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[Stan Shannon]

Oakman wrote:

In other words, not a word can you find - whereas I can dig up a great number of quotes from these gentlemen expressing the sentiments, you say they never had. Once again, let's say that my arguments are vidicated and move on.

Than please explain this: "Whosoever shall be guilty of Rape, Polygamy, or Sodomy with man or woman shall be punished, if a man, by castration, if a woman, by cutting thro' the cartilage of her nose a hole of one half inch diameter at the least." Thomas Jefferson, 1778 The historic facts are precisely as I describe. You can list all the quotes you like. That is not how they actually goverened or how they described the constitution.

Oakman wrote:

Nope, sorry. You are wrong. There may have been some backwater towns just as small-minded, unthinking, and cruel as you seem to want the entire country to become, but by and large, Americans have stood for freedom, for the right to say "no," and not to worship at any altar not of their own choosing. I ask again - what aspect of Shar'ia law - other than the name of the Supreme Being - do you disagree with?

I don't agree with any aspect of it. If you wish to believe your nation was governened by shari'ia law until liberated in 1947? 1971? there isn't much I can do about your hatred towards your own civilization and its traditions.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

[Oakman]

Stan Shannon wrote:

Than please explain this:

Easy, he was making a case against capital punishment except in cases of murder and offering up other penalties and punishments that would satisfy the bloodlust. Anyone who read the entire document would know that.

Stan Shannon wrote:

You can list all the quotes you like

So we slip from they were perfectly comfortable with their world, to they may have said that disagreed with a lot of what was happening as the country moved to the right, but they didn't actually pick up rifles and start shooting. Lo how the mighty have fallen.

Stan Shannon wrote:

If you wish to believe your nation was governened by shari'ia law until liberated in 1947? 1971? there isn't much I can do about your hatred towards your own civilization and its traditions.

Is that really your only defence? Instead of answering my question - a perfectly legitimate one given the stuff you've been spouting - you imitate Bin Laden agian by hurling nonsensical accusations at me that fly in the face of what I have said in this very thread. If you told me the whys and the wherefores of your differences with Osama, do you think I would say "Oh no, you really believe something else?" Perhaps you do, come to think of it, since you so easily try to use such silliness against me. I'm done. Have the last word, I shan't read it. I hate it when yoo go off the deep end, you know. We can be having a perfectly legitimate exchange of views and then suddenly you attack everyone and everything. It's a shame.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[Stan Shannon]

Oakman wrote:

I'm done. Have the last word, I shan't read it. I hate it when yoo go off the deep end, you know. We can be having a perfectly legitimate exchange of views and then suddenly you attack everyone and everything. It's a shame.

You're the one who started comparing people to terrorists, fuck wad.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.