Posted on 10/23/2010 1:50:52 PM PDT by Brian Kopp DPM
Agreed.
Our interpretation of what the natural rights of man entails in its intersection with the law has quite obviously changed, in a system that was designed to acknowledge those rights, as well as to Constitutionally accommodate change, and to hash out what the proper role is of a limited government of enumerated powers that respects the natural rights of man.
This is commonly referred to as moral relativism, do you support this?
But good luck convincing 75% of Americans that what they do in the bedroom is “evil” and subject to Government regulation, and that the regulation would not at all be a violation of their natural rights, and that such regulation is compatible with a limited government of enumerated powers.
Does this 75% figure actually have some data to back it up or is it just a nice round number?
Do you think the Founding Fathers envisioned a government where laws were passed, amended or repealed based upon what a majority of the population thought?
So if you don't see laws against contraception as a violation of natural rights, and as compatible with a government of limited and enumerated powers. WHY oh WHY are you not actually for passing such laws again?
Believing that laws would be constitutional IS NOT the same as supporting such laws.
Yes, the 75% figure I cited previously was from a survey of American couples that answered that they used birth control methods other than “none” and “rhythm”.
The founding fathers envisioned a government where the people were sovereign, and what a majority of the people thought would be reflected (if Constitutional) in the ideals and goals of their Representation.
If you feel such laws against contraception were Constitutional (and thus compatible with a government of limited and enumerated powers that respects the natural rights of man), and you are against use of contraception, why are you not for enacting laws against contraception?
You feel that the decision striking them down was incorrect, yet you do not wish to correct the error?
Have we finally found a member of the Society for Preservation of Law Incorrectly Decided? A membership of ONE? LOL!
Amusing!
Sounds like Screwtape talking to me.
Let me refresh your memory, here is what you wrote in post #179:
Our interpretation of what the natural rights of man entails in its intersection with the law has quite obviously changed,
That sounds a lot like moral relativism.
The founding fathers envisioned a government where the people were sovereign, and what a majority of the people thought would be reflected (if Constitutional) in the ideals and goals of their Representation.
Really? You've got some evidence that the Founding Fathers believed in a government where a majority of the population determined everything?
If you feel such laws against contraception were Constitutional (and thus compatible with a government of limited and enumerated powers that respects the natural rights of man), and you are against use of contraception, why are you not for enacting laws against contraception?
There are a number of things that I am in favor of or opposition to, that doesn't mean that I believe these things should be legislated.
You feel that the decision striking them down was incorrect, yet you do not wish to correct the error?
First of all, this thread is about a decision by the Anglican Church nearly 80 years ago, I'm not even sure how the Supreme Court got brought into it.
Secondly, yes I believe that Griswold v. Connecticut was one of the worst SCOTUS rulings ever AND it set the stage for the murder of 52 million innocent Americans. There are no "penumbras" or "emanations" of privacy in the Constitution, it simply isn't there and the fact that the Court had to mention "penumbras" and "emanations" is an acknowledgement that it isn't there.
However, my feelings about Griswold DO NOT mean that I believe contraception should be illegal.
Thay also said many times that this government will only work if the people are moral and religious. It will not work with feral hedonist atheists. It will fall apart. They way things are heading there is every chance that in a decade or so consensual cannibalism and no age of consent needed for sex acts will desired by the majority. That is, if the headline dive into the abyss is not stopped.
Correction:
That is, if the headLONG dive into the abyss is not stopped.
Previously the view of our Republic was that laws against interracial marriage were compatible with a limited government of enumerated powers that respected the natural rights of man.
Was change in that view an example of moral relativism?
Only if you are an idiot with no idea what moral relativism actually means.
Determined everything? Really? You had to go to THAT preposterous length to try to make a hash out of what I actually said? No, our Founders were against a DEMOCRACY (where the majority determines everything), but the people are still sovereign within the framework of our Constitution (as I CLEARLY stated when including that proviso).
One of the WORST SCOTUS decisions ever, and yet you are not for “correcting” this decision? Really? Honestly?
I have a hard time taking you seriously on this.
A real live member for the Preservation of Incorrectly Decided Law! Wow! How much intellectual contortion does it take to hold such a stance?
“However, my feelings about Griswold (one of the worst SCOUTS decisions ever) DO NOT mean that I believe contraception should be illegal”
Again I ask you, again and again.
Why not?
Why not?
Why not?
Exactly, I didn’t even address that part.
Only had time to slip in and out lately.
Incredible discussion and you are dissecting all arguments with a hot scalpel.
Especially when those getting $ from the government are the majority (what to speak of fed $ going to the states).
It’s a death knell.
I agree, but that is not what you wrote. You used the phrase, "what the natural rights of man entails," and that certainly sounds like moral relativism to me.
Previously the view of our Republic was that laws against interracial marriage were compatible with a limited government of enumerated powers that respected the natural rights of man.
Was change in that view an example of moral relativism?
Of course not, nor was it a change in what the natural rights of man entails. Marriage IS NOT and NEVER HAS BEEN a right. Laws against interracial marriage were abolished based on the acknowledgement that personhood had nothing to do with race, there was no change in what the natural God-given rights of man is. (Unless of course you are one of those who believe that abolition of laws against interracial marriage should be used as a reason to legalize homosexual marriage, are you one of these people?)
One of the WORST SCOTUS decisions ever, and yet you are not for “correcting” this decision? Really? Honestly?
The problem with Griswold was the precedent it set more than the ruling itself.
I second that.
Most Lutheran churches did to.
It is starting to change, but it is the 3rd rail. Something few want to mention on the pulpit.
“The problem with Griswold was the precedent it set more than the ruling itself.” wagglebee
And you are honestly trying to tell me you are against a repeal of this decision, one of the worst ever? Are there other SCOTUS decisions you think were decided incorrectly that you ALSO do not want repealed? Or is this a one off?
You say you do not believe contraception should be illegal, and again and again I ask you....
Why not?
Why not?
Why not?
You’ve been answered.
Saying so doesn't make it so.
Have to go all Missouri on you!
SHOW ME.
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.