Originally posted by whodey As I said, if the populace is wicked the natural reaction of the state is to impose more laws to constrain them. It does nothing to improve the morality of the populace, rather, it merely inhibits the oppurtunity to continue doing evil things.
I am asking you to explain why you think the Nakoula Basseley Nakoula case demonstrates that the U.S. is "an immoral state" with a government that is "making everything illegal". Are you aware of the crimes Nakoula was convicted of? Do you think his crimes should have been ignored by the state?
Originally posted by whodey The state should not have anything to say about who can get married and who should not. In fact, buying a marriage liscence is down right retarded. Why is the state involved?
Getting the state out of the business of protecting married people [and their children] and defining their rights and responsibilities through laws, and the enforcement of those laws, may take another generation, or two or three. In the meantime, do you think the institutionalized discrimination against homosexuals should simply be allowed to continue?
Originally posted by FMF I am asking you to explain why you think the Nakoula Basseley Nakoula case demonstrates that the U.S. is "an immoral state" with a government that is "making everything illegal". Are you aware of the crimes Nakoula was convicted of? Do you think his crimes should have been ignored by the state?
Crimes? The man was sentenced for fraud in 2010 and apparently one of the conditions of his probate was to not use the internet without permission from his parol officer. Is this a crime? If he did he certainly broke the rules, but to say it is a crime seems a bit hysterical. So they are looking into whether or not the film proves that he broke his parol. Had it not been for the film, they would not be investigating him at all even though they seem to indicate that the making of the film is not really what is on trial here due to 1rst amendment rights.
Originally posted by FMF Getting the state out of the business of protecting married people [and their children] and defining their rights and responsibilities through laws, and the enforcement of those laws, may take another generation, or two or three. In the meantime, do you think the institutionalized discrimination against homosexuals should simply be allowed to continue?
You in no way need marriage to protect couples or their children. This is absurd.
Originally posted by whodey Crimes? The man was sentenced for fraud in 2010 and apparently one of the conditions of his probate was to not use the internet without permission from his parol officer. Is this a crime? If he did he certainly broke the rules, but to say it is a crime seems a bit hysterical. So they are looking into whether or not the film proves that he broke his parol. ...[text shortened]... te that the making of the film is not really what is on trial here due to 1rst amendment rights.
How much money did he steal from people? Do you think the state should have ignored his crimes?
Originally posted by FMF Do you think the institutionalized discrimination against homosexuals should be perpetuated until you get what you want in terms of marriage laws?
I do not think the zoo will allow what you want in terms of marriage.
Originally posted by whodey Who said anyone ignored them? He was out on parol FMF.
And he was arrested when his breaking of the conditions came to the authorities' attention. The parole/probation was part of his punishment for stealing somewhere in the region of $1,000,000 from ordinary fellow citizens. You still have not explained how the U.S. enforcing these laws demonstrates that it is "an immoral state" with a government that is "making everything illegal".
My first thought is a question, do the two words or ideals belong in the same sentence?
The only thing i am sure that any government in history has proven is that you can not legislate morality. Yet we as the public body continue to try. I once heard that the truest definition of insanity was "to do the same thing over and over the same ay and expect a different out come." Possibly if we could take the greed out of mankind we would not have to worry so mecu about morality?
Originally posted by wizard100947 [b]My first thought is a question, do the two words or ideals belong in the same sentence?
The only thing i am sure that any government in history has proven is that you can not legislate morality.b]
Then you don't know your history. For example, before slavery was made illegal in the US the consensus was that slavery was "OK". However, years after being made illegal the thought of it is repugnant to all.
It is a sobering reminder of how we are mere lemmings.
Originally posted by whodey Consider the following quotes from James Madison and Benjamin Franklin and from Charles De Montesquieu.
First Madison's quote:
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary."
Now from Ben Franklin:
"The Constitution is likely to be well ...[text shortened]... le of government to enforce morality? If not, what laws, if any, are devoid of morality?
This is what I have to say to you: this is it. This one counts. Liberals don't like laws, and logic; they like feelings and and being able to pick and choose.
We get this one wrong, and it might well herald the end of the Republic.
Politics and Morality
15 Oct '12 01:10
Back to Top