|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
posted May 23, 2009 07:45 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Ok..the constitution does grant the right to follow any religion you want. However, lets go with the 'dark' occult (one of which is Satanism). There are religions that believe that human sacrifices, sex with minors, and other things I deffinately would not personally like to see legal should be legal. So..we should just make those legal so they can follow their religion?
The founding fathers simply would not recognize such a belief system as a religion.
They said God granted us our liberties. God did not grant us the right to murder or rape others. They would not have said that in the name of liberty we must let evil have free reign.
Quote:
"(T)he foundation of our national policy will be laid in the pure and immutable principles of private morality; ...the propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained..." George Washington, First Inaugural, April 30 1789
Quote:
Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams
Quote:
"Can the liberties of a nation be sure when we remove their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people, that these liberties are a gift from God? Thomas Jefferson
Quote:
A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicity. Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted May 23, 2009 07:53 AM |
|
|
So..what you are saying is..that we should give religions the right to practice as they wish .. as long as they agree with your moral compass? Or are you saying that religion should be limited in what it can and can not be allowed to 'get away with'?
For me it is simple. No religion should be given special privilages at all, but none should be taken away just because it is a religious choice. Like the choice of not being made to undergo medical treatment. Just because it is based on a religious choice, and not a 'I've done my medical research and made my choice' choice..it should not just be ignored. We'll not debate if somebody is in their right mind here.
Some 'scientific medical research' can be faulty also, and if somebody believed in that research and chose not to take the treatment this topic would have never been brought up. Since it is a religious choice..suddenly it is. Can we move to a different topic, however? This seems to be going around in circles.
____________
Message received.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 23, 2009 08:12 AM |
|
|
Quote:
So..what you are saying is..that we should give religions the right to practice as they wish .. as long as they agree with your moral compass? Or are you saying that religion should be limited in what it can and can not be allowed to 'get away with'?
I am saying that the founding fathers had a Judeo-Christian view of God and morality.
The founding fathers believed government had the duty of restraintig evil. That is proclaimed throughout the Bible and I quoted Jefferson saying as much.
The founding fathers would not recognize the right of anyone to murder, rape, or otherwise injure others.
Every person has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. No one can use his "freedom of religion" to take away my life or any other of my rights.
The founding fathers wrote about God-given rithts. God did not grant us the right to harm each other except in very limited circumstances such as self-defense, defending another, or in war.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted May 23, 2009 08:24 AM |
|
Edited by Mytical at 08:27, 23 May 2009.
|
But it does not really matter what the founding fathers wanted or thought. The constitution says "Freedom of religion" not "Freedom of religion as long as it is what the orginal founding fathers wanted." So..going by the LETTER of the law, any religion should be treated EQUALLY, regardless of their beliefs.
Edit : In fact the founding fathers wanted to seperate church and state totally because they had suffered religious persecution in England. They wanted EVERYBODY to have the right to practice their own religion. It is the cornerstone of America.
____________
Message received.
|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
|
posted May 23, 2009 08:31 AM |
|
|
you know, there comes a time for change in everyone's lives, and the lives of societies. Its called evolving to the new realities.
It's funny how most people try to hold dearly the "original" thoughts and ideas of those before us, who were slave owners, in this case.. Not saying it's abnormal to do so, cuz normal is "conforming to the standard or the common type"
____________
What are you up to
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 23, 2009 08:31 AM |
|
|
Quote:
But it does not really matter what the founding fathers wanted or thought. The constitution says "Freedom of religion" not "Freedom of religion as long as it is what the orginal founding fathers wanted." So..going by the LETTER of the law, any religion should be treated EQUALLY, regardless of their beliefs.
In order to properly interpret the Constitution you should read what the founding fathers wrote and consider the historical context in which the Constition was written.
In other words, we must ascertain the ORIGINAL INTENT.
Let's take this silly example. Let's say the Constitiontion said that the House of Representatives must be painted green. Now lets say over the course of the past 200 years the color that used to be called green is now called purple. Did the founding fathers intend for the House to be painted in the color that they knew as green or the color that we know as purple?
You may find this discussion of original intent interesting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7SpA2Qe3FM
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted May 23, 2009 08:34 AM |
|
|
If they wanted only a specific guideline, they would have written it into the Constitution. We can argue what they ment all day, but it changes nothing. The fact is they put "Freedom of Religion" not "Freedom of Christianity" (or taoism, or etc).
____________
Message received.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 23, 2009 08:45 AM |
|
|
Quote:
If they wanted only a specific guideline, they would have written it into the Constitution. We can argue what they ment all day, but it changes nothing. The fact is they put "Freedom of Religion" not "Freedom of Christianity" (or taoism, or etc).
If you want to ignore the original intent because you don't like the original intent feel free to do so. But don't pretend that that is what the Constitution means.
The founding fathers would not recognize your "right" to harm me. The founding fathers said I have a God-given right to my life and that my right to live could only be taken away by due process-a criminal trial.
The Constitution does say "in the year of our Lord" which clearly refers to Jesus Christ. The God the founding father spoke of is the God the Bible describes.
But you don't have to focus on Christianity in any way to say that I don't have the right to harm you. You have the right to live. That right can only be taken away by a criminal trial. I don't have the right to take your life unless you are trying to kill me or someone else.
I did not say that only Christianity has freedom of religion. I was saying that the founding fathers would refuse to recognize a "religion" that said they have the right to sacrifice you to the devil as a valid religion. You have the right to live. They don't have the right to take your life just because they want to sacrifice you to the devil.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted May 23, 2009 08:51 AM |
|
|
Meh, and you can convince yourself that a bunch of people who fled religious persecution wanted special privilages for certain religions and not others all you like. Since neither of us are gonna budge on this, time for another topic.
Johnny kills Jill. Jill's brother Harry finds Johnny and kills him. No proof if Johnny attacked Harry or not (no witnesses and forensic evidence is inconclusive) but no proof he didn't. You are on the Jury. Guilty or not guilty? Sentence?
____________
Message received.
|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
|
posted May 23, 2009 09:10 AM |
|
|
we need more background, there are like 100s of potential questions to ask for a jury to make some kind of informed decision. As of now there is only motive, however there is motive on both sides.
Motive A: Johnny may have tried to kill both Jill and harry
or
Motive B: Harry may have been acting out of vindication.
____________
What are you up to
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted May 23, 2009 09:36 AM |
|
|
Hmm good point. All the facts known about the case is as follows.
Harry sees Johnny kill Jill, but doesn't reach the area before Johnny leaves (ie Johnny at that time did not try to kill Harry). Because of a technicality Johnny is found NOT guilty of killing Jill.
Harry goes after Johnny.
He finds Johnny alone (no witnesses) in an open area and kills him. It takes 3 days before somebody finds the body (it was way out of the way somewhere) and all three days it rained. Further, something else happens to destroy any evidence, but Harry admits to killing Johnny. He claims it was self defense, but no evidence to support that is available...
____________
Message received.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 23, 2009 09:39 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Johnny kills Jill. Jill's brother Harry finds Johnny and kills him. No proof if Johnny attacked Harry or not (no witnesses and forensic evidence is inconclusive) but no proof he didn't. You are on the Jury. Guilty or not guilty? Sentence?
I would render the verdict of "not guilty." A jury can aquit any they want to even though most prosecuters will not tell you that.
Criminal Law Handbook
|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
|
posted May 23, 2009 09:40 AM |
|
|
I would have to ask Harry where he left the body.. It matters... a lot...
____________
What are you up to
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted May 23, 2009 09:41 AM |
|
Edited by Mytical at 09:42, 23 May 2009.
|
Yes they can. A person can shot somebody right in front of them and they still could say not guilty.
He left the body right where he killed the person at. Lets say out in the desert (he got lucky and there was a lot of rain for a desert  )
____________
Message received.
|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
|
posted May 23, 2009 09:57 AM |
|
|
Guilty! "He finds Johnny alone" In a desert.. I wont go into very much why thats insane, but it is insanely impossible for someone to run into a person who happens to be "the guy" in a desert in the middle of nowhere.
____________
What are you up to
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 28, 2009 10:56 AM |
|
|
http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=3906861&cl=13694708&ch=4226713&src=news
Is the man in the link guilty of murder? He shot a robber 6 times. The prosecuter says he should only have shot him one time.
You can see on the tape there were two robbers with guns. The pharmacist pulled a gun and shot one robber and the other ran. I would say the pharmacist was frightened about being killed and his adrenaline was very high. Yes, he shot the robber even when the robber was knocked to the floor after the first shot. But it seems unjust to charge a man who was threatened in such a way with murder.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted May 28, 2009 03:12 PM |
|
|
If you get killed while committing a crime, too bad for you. That's my feeling, anyway.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
veco
Legendary Hero
who am I?
|
|
posted May 28, 2009 04:44 PM |
|
|
Responsibilty - if you don't have it (and very few do) guns should be illegal no matter what.
____________
none of my business.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 28, 2009 04:51 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Responsibilty[/url] - if you don't have it (and very few do) guns should be illegal no matter what.
So the innocent man who is just working at his job should when the robbers came in waving their guns should have no right to self-defense? That makes no sense to me.
|
|
veco
Legendary Hero
who am I?
|
|
posted May 28, 2009 05:26 PM |
|
|
And hiding guns in a corner 'just in case' so that child might get hurt is a better idea? Your personal safety won't rise because if the robber expects you to have a weapon then he'll be ready for it. Is the false sense of security really worth risking an accident?
Look at countries where people are not allowed to have guns, the crime rate isn't sky-rocketting because of it.
____________
none of my business.
|
|
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
