fantastic_jackie (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
fantastic_jackie) wrote2008-02-06 11:20 pm
fantastic_jackie) wrote2008-02-06 11:20 pmCOKE FOR PRESIDENT!!
This is it! I've found my candidate! XDXDXD
fantastic_jackie) wrote2008-02-06 11:20 pm
no subject
I wasn't saying it did; I was referring to the aforementioned ideas that look great on paper but don't work out in real life. It was just an example: laws against sodomy. ;)
As for morality, I believe we have a right to exist in a moral society; I, 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. Regardless of my rants on it in the past, I do believe the rights do exist:
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." -- John Adams, October 11, 1798
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. What the people want. And should the government back that? Ohhhh yes! 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?
But just because corporations have more money than individuals does not mean that they should get to have more impact on who is elected to office. Corporations aren't always corrupt -- but this country isn't just about big business.
So they get representation, but they just can't say anything? Again, I'm left wondering where in the Constitution it says that.
And again, there are some individuals who are just as or even more rich than some corporations. Do we abridge thier rights, as well? Because they have interests, and many of those interests are about their businesses and/or investments. There's also the fact that the definition of Corporation within the bill includes nonprofit organizations, which are entirely different from business corporations. They have an entirely different set of retirement plans, even, and for a reason! Because the ACLU is absolutely nothing like Fidelity: they have entirely different purposes!
And I believe the wealthy have a certain responsibility to those who are not so wealthy. That's a biblical principle.
It is class envy: your whole argument is that they have more money than the little guy and that that's not fair. As for that last bit... you realize you have just contradicted yourself? You want the government to enforce a Biblical principle? A principle of morality?
I agree with the principle, obviously, but I do NOT believe that it is the government's right nor place to enforce the rich to be generous. Robin Hood may have been a hero, but he was also a socialist - in a time when a socialist was needed, granted. We don't have a right to tell people that they can only be so rich until they have to start sharing. Special interests exist; we regular folk assemble, petition, write letters, etc. For business folk and political relations, it's already illegal to accept bribes: what more can we do? It is wrong, no matter what the intentions, to abridge the rights of our citizens!
Wow, my blood pressure's up too early in the morning. Must go do something relaxing like write fanfic. ;)
Lol 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. ;) I enjoy the debate and the difference of opinion; best way to learn, in my book. :)
no subject
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. ;)