The Bottom of the "Slippery Slope"

re: God said, "thou shalt not kill", I think he meant that those words applied to each and every day, not just when we find it convienient..."

The King James version has too loose a translation in many parts. This is one of the most egregious errors in the entire book. The older versions of the Bible translate to the very specific statement: "Do not murder." There's a universe of difference there, but "do not murder" is the meaning that has historically been applied to even the King James version of the commandment.

The Old Testament is a veritable history of war upon war in the ancient world. If the commandment was literally "do not kill" and had been obeyed by Moses' followers, then the Old Testament would have come to a bloody halt at the end of the book of Exodus.

When someone commits violence against you, there are only a few very limited situations in which you can respond peacefully and actually resolve the problem. We did not go into Iraq, even though we really wanted to get Saddam. Instead, we went along with UN sanctions against Iraq. So what happened? That's precisely one of the things that is in the litany of "offenses" that the US committed against Islam (not the UN? Why is the UN excused from this when it was their idea? We were the ones who wanted to get Saddam!) In the meantime, Saddam could end the sanctions tomorrow just by complying with the UN demands. So there you are with one very obvious example of how doing something other than killing these offenders will backfire.

Mama <----- anthropology, Prehistoric Civilizations

Most Americans are pretty "Christian" like that, whatever they believe.

One of the reasons why I love this country as much as I do; warts and all. No doubt we got'em, but I see more decency and things to admire here than elsewhere. Definitely worth sacrificing for, and I would. Would'nt trade it for anything. Where else can you, OWK, Kevin Curry, & I get into a "1st amendment furball" and then still look for agreement and revel in it when we find it? No sir, here we have something special. I aim to keep it that way...

Pakrman,

Thanks for your sincere comments. It's difficult for me to take issue with anything you wrote.

I wish more people on this forum were more interested in justice than in blind revenge, which will merely create more terrorists. Our interventionist foreign policy during the past 50 years has turned many countries and many peoples against us.

If we want to combat terrorism, we should stop bullying other countries and poking our nose into everyone else's business. That means getting our military out of Korea, Bosnia, Kosovo and 50 or so foreign bases. It also means putting an end to all foreign aid and military assistance, especially to countries involved in religious and ethnic civil wars. (We are hated by Arabs in the Middle East because our government supports and provides billions of dollars in military aid to Israel. We have taken sides in a religious war that has been going on for hundreds of years. It's time to declare our neutrality.)

We need to turn away from the hubris, arrogance and empire building that have perverted this great Republic, fueled hatred for America, and placed our citizens in harm's way. We should heed the warnings of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson: Be wary of entangling alliances.

If we insist on remaking the world in our own image, terrorism will be tugging at our elbow for years to come. We cannot win the war against terrorism by creating more terrorists. We should root out and kill the perpetrators of the recent terrorist attack on American soil. But, ultimately, more bombs and missiles aimed at innocent Muslim civilians will merely encourage, not deter, further acts of terrorism.

I ask you again, Please explain how one person's need constitutes a just claim on the property of another.

In a society, each member has a just claim on property of their compatriots - it is a codified and well recognized feature of a society. Governments formalize and enforce these claims all the time. We are interdependent. A baby has a just claim on its parents, and on other members of society should its biological parents falter. An injured or distressed person has a just claim on the good efforts of his able bodied neighbors. A passerby claims your polite dealings. You make a claim on society for protection, justice, and right to seek happiness. That's what makes a society: claim and counterclaim, justly honored by its decent members.

In a society, each member has a just claim on property of their compatriots

No, they do not, unless you believe man is a sacrifical animal.

- it is a codified and well recognized feature of a society.

Perhaps in a society of cannibals.

Governments formalize and enforce these claims all the time.

In violation of individual rights.

A baby has a just claim on its parents, and on other members of society should its biological parents falter.

No, a baby has a just claim on his parents. If you will not take care of your child, I am not obligated to, current socialist laws notwithstanding.

Do not confuse what is law with what is moral.

An injured or distressed person has a just claim on the good efforts of his able bodied neighbors.

No, he does not.

You make a claim on society for protection, justice, and right to seek happiness.

No, my just claim to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness are my rights and they are pre-cedent to the govt. Govt exists to protect these rights. My only obligation is not to violate these same rights of others.

That's what makes a society: claim and counterclaim, justly honored by its decent members.

Individuals make society, and individual rights are not additive. Two people do not have more rights than one.

That is the philosophy of cannibals.

We can't just say to heck with them, let them find another country, we have to deal with that issue at some point.

Well...actually....we can say to heck with them. We (and, in fact, just about every society I'm aware of) does precisely this. Oh, the rich may be called the nomenklatura in the USSR, or the nobility in some other society, but fundamentally the poor are out of sight and out of mind.

As to your second point, no - neither we nor anyone else says find another country. (Though Mexico comes close to doing this as they export poor people!). What we can do (and have done) is to supply psycological opiates. Television comes to mind. The lottery, with its many promises of rapid, unearned riches, is another.

And the thing is, that there are people who exit the lower strata and become successful to some degree. As long as they perceive some chance of doing so, they'll submit to the system.

On your last point - the need to deal with the issue - I'm not so sure. People want equality when they're below the mean, and they detest it when they're above it. And as long as the "dream" of moving from poor to rich survives, people will perceive themselves as being able to advance. Hence, they won't oppose the existing order of things very strongly. All IMHO, of course....

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.