I was referring to the aforementioned ideas that look great on paper but don't work out in real life.
I was thinking more along the lines of the Patriot Act and warrantless searches and wiretapping that everyone signed the dotted line for in the wake of 9/11 before anyone said, "Um, hey, wait a minute, this grants the president unconstitutional powers and violates core rights"...
, for one, am very happy that laws against public indecency exist. I think our right to a moral society is equally relevant with our right to privacy.
But public indecency is infringing other people's rights. And that's what I mean -- of course I want to live in a moral society -- but you can have a moral society without it being rooted in any one religious doctrine.
They're left out of the Constitution, though. It occured to me that the Founding Fathers had to have a reason for that, because obviously privacy and morality were high atop their lists for citizen rights. So we can assume - or at least I do - that they anticipated that it was something that would change and should with the people.
Exactly -- they left it out because to declare which moral standard they personally upheld (and obviously this was something the founding fathers were not even in agreement, given what a diverse religious -- and nonreligious -- representation they were) would be in contradiction with "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion."
Because if it wasn't illegal to be nude in public, don't you think we'd already have those billboards in our society like France?
No, we wouldn't. In some places, sure -- but as long as the government isn't making a law that requires nude billboards all over, the core values of the American people themselves would keep those billboards largely out of sight by protesting and boycotting and complaining. And that's what I'm saying: the federal government shouldn't have to make these laws -- that's local government!
It is class envy: your whole argument is that they have more money than the little guy and that that's not fair.
No, I never said that it's unfair for some people to have more money! And my argument is that corporations buy and pay for politicians, who ignore individuals to keep the funding of a corporation. The politicians give in to the corporations who want big profits, and meanwhile corporations are screwing over people. This is particularly abhorrent in sectors such as, oh, pharmaceuticals, who have the US patent office by the balls and are responsible for so much of the health care crisis in this country. (And no, I have not watched Michael Moore's documentary, nor do I intend to, lol.)
You want the government to enforce a Biblical principle? A principle of morality?
Should have phrased it differently. Generosity is a universal human moral...that the Bible happens to agree with. ;)
Robin Hood may have been a hero, but he was also a socialist - in a time when a socialist was needed, granted.
What about the early Church who came together and shared all they owened? True religion is giving to widows and orphans in their distress, sayeth Paul.
A little off-topic, but ideally I believe it's the Church who should be providing welfare and healthcare to the people. If the Church would do its job instead of building megachurches, then the government wouldn't have to concern itself with these matters. But unfortunately the Church is distracted, and the government is picking up the slack for it. I think that's tragic.
We can stop at any time, you know; I don't even mind giving you the last word. I grin while I debate and never carry it to a personal level, honestly, but I know that everyone's not like that.
Oh, nothing personal taken and I hope you know I'm not worked up at you; my blood pressure raises because I care so much about all these issues myself and they've been ones I've been wrestling with a lot over the past four years.
Four years ago, btw, I would have agreed with you completely on all your stances. ;)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-02-09 02:24 am (UTC)I was thinking more along the lines of the Patriot Act and warrantless searches and wiretapping that everyone signed the dotted line for in the wake of 9/11 before anyone said, "Um, hey, wait a minute, this grants the president unconstitutional powers and violates core rights"...
, for one, am very happy that laws against public indecency exist. I think our right to a moral society is equally relevant with our right to privacy.
But public indecency is infringing other people's rights. And that's what I mean -- of course I want to live in a moral society -- but you can have a moral society without it being rooted in any one religious doctrine.
They're left out of the Constitution, though. It occured to me that the Founding Fathers had to have a reason for that, because obviously privacy and morality were high atop their lists for citizen rights. So we can assume - or at least I do - that they anticipated that it was something that would change and should with the people.
Exactly -- they left it out because to declare which moral standard they personally upheld (and obviously this was something the founding fathers were not even in agreement, given what a diverse religious -- and nonreligious -- representation they were) would be in contradiction with "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion."
Because if it wasn't illegal to be nude in public, don't you think we'd already have those billboards in our society like France?
No, we wouldn't. In some places, sure -- but as long as the government isn't making a law that requires nude billboards all over, the core values of the American people themselves would keep those billboards largely out of sight by protesting and boycotting and complaining. And that's what I'm saying: the federal government shouldn't have to make these laws -- that's local government!
It is class envy: your whole argument is that they have more money than the little guy and that that's not fair.
No, I never said that it's unfair for some people to have more money! And my argument is that corporations buy and pay for politicians, who ignore individuals to keep the funding of a corporation. The politicians give in to the corporations who want big profits, and meanwhile corporations are screwing over people. This is particularly abhorrent in sectors such as, oh, pharmaceuticals, who have the US patent office by the balls and are responsible for so much of the health care crisis in this country. (And no, I have not watched Michael Moore's documentary, nor do I intend to, lol.)
You want the government to enforce a Biblical principle? A principle of morality?
Should have phrased it differently. Generosity is a universal human moral...that the Bible happens to agree with. ;)
Robin Hood may have been a hero, but he was also a socialist - in a time when a socialist was needed, granted.
What about the early Church who came together and shared all they owened? True religion is giving to widows and orphans in their distress, sayeth Paul.
A little off-topic, but ideally I believe it's the Church who should be providing welfare and healthcare to the people. If the Church would do its job instead of building megachurches, then the government wouldn't have to concern itself with these matters. But unfortunately the Church is distracted, and the government is picking up the slack for it. I think that's tragic.
We can stop at any time, you know; I don't even mind giving you the last word. I grin while I debate and never carry it to a personal level, honestly, but I know that everyone's not like that.
Oh, nothing personal taken and I hope you know I'm not worked up at you; my blood pressure raises because I care so much about all these issues myself and they've been ones I've been wrestling with a lot over the past four years.
Four years ago, btw, I would have agreed with you completely on all your stances. ;)