Posted on 03/14/2002 5:50:19 AM PST by wwcc
So, if you have issues with how the laws are made in this country, that's different from the foundation of this country.
But don't talk about justice. We have a legal system, not a justice system. There can be no justice until G-d restores the earth. We should do justice and do our best - but even that requires that everyone involved in our justice system also love righteousness and walk humbly before G-d. I don't see that happening any time soon.
Shalom.
What I get is a man who tried to make an issue of spelling in English in an inappropriate context and now tries to weasel out of the consequences of his own spelling errors.
What? Now it's ad hominem.
Reread your stuff. You'll find it full of ad-hominem attacks - much of it cowardly innuendo.
If you remember, when you first accused me of a non-sequitur you asked me not to respond. I honored your wish - apparently inviting your second accusation. I thought now would be the time to lay out my chain of reasoning, to include the steps I omitted. But that's a lot of work and, after reading your latests comments, I doubt it would lead to anything. That's the thought that leads to frustration and fatigue.
Not even close to being in agreement.
Individuals can, and do, make their own decisions about what is moral. Some conform to generally accepted systems. Some don't.
You missed the boat. Yes, people make moral choices daily - that's a no brainer. But they do not decide what is right and what is wrong. That has been decided. "Generally accepted systems" is a form a relativism wherein society decides - this is a form a relativism ("society says relativism"). The fact is that if individuals can decide what is right or wrong, then I cannot be wrong no matter what I do. Thus, if I kick you in the knee and steal all of your stuff, I am right because I say so, and under relativism's principles, you cannot object without contradicting your own bogus ethic.
By the same token, if I am Osama bin Laden, I could care less what American society says about what is right or wrong as muslim society dictates what is right or wrong for me. With this in mind, how do you adjudicate these differences between societies? - based on what universal principle that would apply to all? The Prime Directive? LOL. The answer is: Right and wrong come from God - there is no other answer.
You obviously have not worked out these problems yet.
Scalia's said as much in decisions he's made with the SCOTUS...fact is, he's probably sick of waiting for folks to change the hearts and minds of the American sheeple and this speech is his effort to affect that. As you and I both know, Roe v. Wade is absurdly unconstitutional and needs to be overturned. This won't make abortion illegal, but it would allow States to come to some sort of consensus as to what extent abortion will be allowed...there needn't be a Federal one-size-fits-all solution to the abortion issue.
FReegards...MUD
Scalia's said as much in decisions he's made with the SCOTUS...fact is, he's probably sick of waiting for folks to change the hearts and minds of the American sheeple and this speech is his effort to affect that. As you and I both know, Roe v. Wade is absurdly unconstitutional and needs to be overturned. This won't make abortion illegal, but it would allow States to come to some sort of consensus as to what extent abortion will be allowed...there needn't be a Federal one-size-fits-all solution to the abortion issue.
FReegards...MUD
Howdy, liberal dude...while I avidly disagree with the morality of killing the unborn, I can at least understand the reasoning of defending some defense of the practice early in a pregnancy. However, Pro-Choicers lose all credibility, IMHO, when they argue in defense of the constitutionality of Roe v. Wade. The SCOTUS should not be in the business of overruling abortion restrictions enacted by State Legislatures, and Roe v. Wade is simply wrong.
Welcome back to the fray...MUD
Who decided? You answer that a little later. God.
The fact is that if individuals can decide what is right or wrong, then I cannot be wrong no matter what I do
That statement is both right and wrong. Society can decide what's right and wrong as far as it's concerned. That's what the law is all about. But it cannot tell individuals, with any certainty, that acting contrary to the dictates of their conscience is right.
bogus ethic....You obviously have not worked out these problems yet.
Condescending and insulting comments. False and self-righteous conclusions. I had hoped to avoid this level of "discourse" with you at least.
Osama bin Laden...could care less what American society says about what is right or wrong as muslim society dictates what is right or wrong for (him)
False. Osama bin Laden, and every other Muslim Fundamentalist, makes the same claim you do - that his ideas of right and wrong come directly from God. Just not your God. We've been down this path many times before.
Bumping that!
Sorry can't argue states rights with you. Don't know enough about it. Nor strictly legal issues.
But I can reiterate my original point. Justice Scalia - using abortion as a lightening rod - argued for a more strict construction than his liberal (old sense) colleagues. He then stated that each time a new Justice is selected a mini-plebescite is conducted on what the Constitution ought to mean. Since selection is a political process people of many views are selected and that inevitably means that the meaning of the Constitution (practically speaking) changes with each Court and each generation. I thus find myself in agreement with Justices Holmes and Marshall, rather than with Scalia and other Conservatives of the present (In the past Conservatives held different views).
Nor do I see any way around it. Human ideas change with the times and with experience. If you want to retain the Constitution you have to allow it to change too. One could argue that amendment should be the only way to do that but, as a practical matter, our present system works pretty well.
7-1-1 :)
With the 4 deciding to overturn both their previous decision and the previously accepted portion of the SCOFLAs 7-0 decision: The voting process ended 6 days prior to the EC vote. The 4 wanted to spuriously over-ride that.
Not as long as a condition exists whereby the Left will take whatever's said & warp it to the point that what was actually said is unrecognizabe; and, that's precisely what's going to happen sometime down the line here, too.
Not as long as a condition exists whereby a Lamestream media will parrot & buttress any Leftist interpretation of what was said.
Not as long as a condition exists whereby that Leftist interpretation is presented while concurrently DENYING any clarification whatsoever from the opposition side (that's us, btw)
Yea; the who, what, where, when & hows of *a* SCOTUS' decision making process; especially a conservative SCOTUS should be -- no -- MUST be played the same way one plays a hand of Five Card Stud.
See how this POTUS is conducting this war; as far as public statements are concerned?
Same thing.
Fine.
Halleluja.
Let's read about it after a case has been decided whereby the question of abortion is found unconstitional & returned to individual states, OK?
The ammo here for a smear campaign & shameless demagogurery courtesy of the warped Left upon the next SCOTUS nomination, is mind boggling.
One does not tell people what they're going to do in these highly politicized times we live in.
Where in the HELL has this guy been the past 10 years that he'd not to be acutely aware of that little fact of life, anyway?
Did. Curious that the whole thing began when you brought up "religious absolutism" in a context that had nothing to do with it. Oh, and I didn't read into it what you did. Particularly the "cowardly" observation. What, pray, would be courage in this context?
If you remember, when you first accused me of a non-sequitur you asked me not to respond.
Well, there again was the humor at your expense. Honestly, I didn't think it was all that subtle.
I thought now would be the time to lay out my chain of reasoning, . . .
My breath is bated.
. . .to include the steps I omitted. But that's a lot of work . . .
Indeed. I'd suggest saving it. If I am correct it might make a fine dissertation.
Religious absolutism usually, and especially in this context, is related to moral absolutism. Religion is the fountainhead from which absolute morals spring.
Absolute morality, in this context, is the justification for condemning abortion as murder and as always, under almost all circumstances, immoral.
Liberal interpretation of the Constitution is seen as immoral and corrupt because it is seen as Godless, as against religion and its teachings.
And so on.
"cowardly"
Cowardly refers to the use of innuendo (innundo in tribute to The Philadelphia Story). An example would be the implication that spelling errors are a sure indication of ignorance - or is everything just "more humor at my expense"? At some point of course that ceases to be humor and becomes disrespectful bullying or an all-purpose out from responsibility.
Honestly, I didn't think it was all that subtle.
It wasn't. Believe me it wasn't. But I treated it with tolerance and honored it. My mistake.
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.