Posted on 03/14/2002 5:50:19 AM PST by wwcc
Ah! You misunderstood. "The hand of God" was sarcasm. You see, there is no way to get a judiciary in a representative Republic without either (1) electing them or (2) appointing them. Option (2) is the least political, hence the founders were attempting to remove politics from the process.
Religion is the fountainhead from which absolute morals spring.
Actually, you'd be surprised at what is considered immoral in different cultures at different points in history with different religious views, and how universal it seems to be. There are simply prevailing moral trends that persist from society to society and from generation to generation.
Even hard-core religious zealots of any stripe recognize the fact that morality has fringes as God is unknowable and our perceptions of Him are filtered through humanity. Well, except Muslims. It's part of their faith that the Koran is immutable and literally handed down from Allah and copied exactly every time.
Liberal interpretation of the Constitution is seen as immoral and corrupt because it is seen as Godless, as against religion and its teachings.
Careful with the passive voice. It's a strawman just waiting to happen. The liberal interpretation is condemned simply because it makes up things that ain't there. The closest you'll get to somebody saying that the Constitution bans abortion, for example, is the "life, liberty, . . ." clause in the Declaration.
But I'm not going to bother to defend what you think that other people think, because that's defending a scarecrow.
(innundo in tribute to The Philadelphia Story)
"I hate to say it but: There you go again!" I'm sure this has some relevance. Maybe a clever aside. Not sure, never saw the film. For me, that era consisted exclusively of the Marx Brothers.
implication that spelling errors are a sure indication of ignorance
Actually, that was an inference, which tells more about the hearer than the speaker.
Nope. Didn't misunderstand and have already dealt with this issue in an earlier post. I guess you read only those posts directed to you (an inference), or remember only what you want to (another inference). Sometimes I do that too, but there's always the risk of getting caught with your pants down - as with spelling errors.:)
Actually, you'd be surprised at what is considered immoral in different cultures at different points in history with different religious views, and how universal it seems to be.
Nope. Wouldn't be surprised and have dealt with the issue in an earlier post as well - althought not as completely or directly as the above. Right there are universals but wrong there are also major differences. Cannabalism, for example.
Well, except Muslims.
Muslims are not too different than medievil Christians or Biblical era Jews.
Careful with the passive voice. It's a strawman just waiting to happen. The liberal interpretation is condemned simply because it makes up things that ain't there.
I don't think so. History is full of groups and individuals who change their legal and political positions in accord with their needs of the moment. I thought I illustrated this when I brought up Oliver Wendell Holmes and the Conservative Republicans of the late 19th century but maybe not. I'm fresh out of other examples but I'm sure you get the point.
"I hate to say it but: There you go again!" I'm sure this has some relevance. Maybe a clever aside...
implication that spelling errors are a sure indication of ignorance
I don't know what you mean by "There you go again" but this was "just a little humor at your expense". A very, very clever little girl mispronounced (and undoubtedly would have misspelled) the word.
Actually, that was an inference, which tells more about the hearer than the speaker.
Nope. It was an implication. Come on. 'Fess up. Don't be cowardly.
I see a right to abortion in the 9th Amendment, and in the 4th Amendment - the right to be secure in one's person.
Life begins at independence. A woman can't be forced to use her body to provide life support for another, if she doesn't want to. You can extend this logic out to support a position against welfare. It's entirely consistent with conservatism. The state has no business in protecting the life of the unborn until that unborn life can live on its own, (no one (mother) should have to live for the sake of another(a physically attached person))
The Constitution places "persons" in an inferior position, to "citizens". Persons are not necessarily free. Children do not attain full liberty until they are responsible even though they are citizens, as defined by the 14th Amendment.
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a38ae1fc86628.htm
That is a deprivation liberty in accordance with due process of law. If age discrimination can be used to deprive liberty, it can be used to deprive life too. Murder is a state, not federal crime. The Constitution leaves it up to the States to outlaw murder, and they do just fine with that obligation (As they would many other obligations, like education, health care, welfare, drug regulation, etc., had it not been for Reconstruction and the 14th Amendment allowing Congress to butt in).
The Constitution leaves it up to the States to decide how long before birth life begins to be something it is responsible for protecting. They will do just fine on that too.
If a State decides that it is under no obligation to protect life until, say, 6 months after conception (i.e. it decides that's when life becomes independent), then neither I nor the Constitution has a problem with that. That would allow a woman to choose abortion up to 6 months into the term. I think this is what would happen if Roe V. Wade were properly overturned. - Abortion would be available, but less convenient, and the Constitution would be healthier.
I'm not pro-choice, but I'm pro-state-choice, and pro-Constitution.
I sometimes get overzealous in my pinging (and duly chastised!)
..Sooo, let me know if you want off (or on) my ping list...
Pretty much, it didn't take long for me to be interested elsewhere.
(an inference) Uh, no, not according to the definition of the word.
Muslims are not too different than medievil Christians or Biblical era Jews.
I would respectfully disagree. In fact, I would think that Jesus would find the religious leaders of his day more tolerant of dissent than mullahs.
History is full of groups and individuals who change their legal and political positions in accord with their needs of the moment.
Hence the value of an immutable Constitution. If not, then why bother having the thing in the first place?
I don't know what you mean by "There you go again"
Maybe I should avoid some future problems: Do you know to what it refers?
this was "just a little humor at your expense". A very, very clever little girl mispronounced (and undoubtedly would have misspelled) the word.
Hope you haven't quit the day job.
Nope. It was an implication.
So now you claim to know my mind better than me. Quick quiz: How many fingers am I holding up?
Nope. But I do know that it's the only thing in your reply that I find even a little interesting.
And?
That amendment nullified the debt owed slaveowners (slavery had already been abolished by the South in the North when the South willingly ratified the 13th Amendment) for emancipation - the first instance of the Federal Government taking an individual's property without compensation, and it still hasn't broken the habit.
The 14th Amendment is a fraud:
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a38ae1fc86628.htm
Thanks for bringing up the subject, but lets get back to abortion.
Surely you're not accusing me of youth and inexperience...So? (I could fill in the rest but only at the risk of implication/inference/innuendo)
That would be quite impossible.
And don't call me Shirley.
The point is that the states cannot not outlaw murder. The federal government and the constitution are required to protect the rights of the American people. The only debatable point is, when is a person a person and since person is analagous to human, when is an unborn human.
From Post #96. The first "non-sequitur". The thinkers of the 18th century were strongly affected by the wars of the previous two centuries. They distrusted religion, monarchy, and all claims to absolute truth. I refer you to "The Age of Voltaire" by Will and Ariel Durant for a good description of the time. The founders of our country were a part of that group. It is therefore not reasonable to think they would write found a country based on the absolute immutability of some document. Any reading of the Federalist papers shows that the Constitution was a political document right from the beginning. The Constitution was written by two men and adopted by a group of others who argued about every point. It was not universally admired and its meaning was disputed immediately.
From Post #102. The second "non-sequitur".
A reply to your claim "Actually they appealed to reason". Actually they were largely a group of lawyers and were partisan as hell - something Washington complained about. Actually political discourse at the time was far more bitter and ill-mannered than today. Actually spin - more properly known as rhetoric - was coin of the realm then just as now and just as previously.
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.