Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: nathanbedford
"If you want to impose the criminal law on someone you have the burden of justifying it."

And since imposing criminal sanctions based on religious values in this (and other) regard has been constitutional since the beginning, that's all the reason I need. If a majority of the people support a criminal law based purely on ethical reasons with a religious foundation then that is their right in a democratic republic, baby. Who are you to say your cost/benifit empirical analysis is somehow a more authoritative or moral basis for criminal law than a motivation based on divine revelation from God? If you can bring enough people to your way of thinking so they vote in different laws, go for it. But so far your position has consistently been rejected over a thousand years over a broad spectrum of cultures. And I will continue to support laws consistent with my theistic presuppositions.

55 posted on 11/25/2011 9:54:59 AM PST by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies ]


To: circlecity
But so far your position has consistently been rejected(emphasis supplied)

Really?

Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003)

60 posted on 11/25/2011 1:14:52 PM PST by nathanbedford ("Attack, repeat, attack!" Bull Halsey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson