Posted on 09/30/2004 1:56:48 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
As written by the Founding Fathers, you were guaranteed two things when it came to religion.
1) Congress was forbidden from creating a national religion.
True.
If the states wished to create, or continue with, a state-sponsored and state-funded religion, that was hunky dory with the framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Not true paulsen. -- New states were required to create republican forms of government, not theocracies.
If the original states wished to continue with their various state-sponsored and state-funded religions, that was permitted by the clever wording of the 1st.
The compromise worked. State religions died out, and new territories like Utah were not allowed to favor or establish state religions.
2) Congress was forbidden from making any law which prohibited the free exercise of an individual's religion.
True.
The states, however, were free to do so.
Not true paulsen. Article VI made clear that our Constitution & its Amendments were the Law of the Land, -- the "Laws of any State to the Contrary, notwithstanding".
They are unelected and unaccountable.
The Controlled Substances Act of 1970 was passed by both houses of Congress, and signed by the President. They answer directly to the people. The people have an opportunity every two years to change the makeup of Congress and repeal, or modify, the current drug laws.
Not so with any aspect of abortion, even partial-birth.
So the purpose of these threads is personal attacks ?
You also support this. Stealing is immoral. Killing is immoral.
You love laws against immoral acts. Just not "certain" immoral acts.
So get off your high horse, preacher-man, and join the crowd.
The people didn't want that. It was forced on them by people who argued, "you can't legislate morality" and "keep religion out of government." The moral relativists just moved the line of what was acceptable, just as they have with the definition of "obscenity." The vast majority used to know that abortion was wrong, just like they used to know obscenity was.
Abortion is just another one of your "victimless crimes" to the left. That won't work with me, because I don't concede that the government can't enforce laws against "victimless crimes" as you do.
To the others, methinks thou dost protest too much.
The above wording is what the Founders signed off on. Which is what I so clearly pointed out in my post.
A state-sponsored and state-funded religion is not a theocracy. Geez, even England wasn't a theocracy. I have no idea what you're talking about.
"They've legalized prostitution in some other countries. Why don't you go to one of them if that's the kind of place you want to live."
They've uesed government guns to enforce specified morality in other countries, specifically outlawing pornography. Why don't you go to one of those countries.
"Conservative Americans will fight to our last breaths to stop lily-livered liberals from turning our nation into some AIDS-ridden Needle Park"
Your completely missing the point, or more accurately purposefully ignoring the point. As a private citizen you are free to promote your morals as much as you want. The government is not a tool available for you to take those actions. The same tools you want to use to enforce your morality are being used by those "lily-livered" liberals to turn the nation into some AIDS-ridden needle park.
What you don't realize is that by using the same tools, you too are "lilly-livered" and just handing more power to your enemy.
They are unelected and unaccountable.
The Controlled Substances Act of 1970 was passed by both houses of Congress, and signed by the President. They answer directly to the people. The people have an opportunity every two years to change the makeup of Congress and repeal, or modify, the current drug laws.
Not so with any aspect of abortion, even partial-birth.
But you have to weasel your way around the VAWA to maintain that position. Some "unelected robe wearers" struck down a law against what are inarguably immoral acts, passed by both houses of Congress, and signed by the President.
This attitude is truly scary. Tell that to Jeffrey Curley! Oh wait; he's dead. Murdered by a couple of NAMBLA members inspired by porn...
As I said earlier:
-- You specialize in making pointless, nitpicking observations and it's become obvious that your pitiful need for attention is driving you mad.
Get a life. -- If you feel it is your mission to bedevil everyone on FR, at least make some ATTEMPT to keep your comments in context & apropos to the discussion at hand.
As it is, most of your posts amount to little more than spam.
Joe, I've noticed that no one can give you an answer for this. Libertines.
No, your anarchist arguments against all morality in law are.
My arguments are what's fighting drugs and prostitution in the U.S. It's no coincidence that those who see no problem with porn also want drugs and prostitution legalized. They would turn the reigns of power over to gangster pimps who would whore out America's youth.
You must have an awfully good filter on your computer! Before I set my spam filter to HIGH (with Earthlink) I was innundated with unwanted images in my inbox. It saddens me to no end to realize that children have seen those same images and been mentally raped--- had their innocence stolen. If this doesn't bother you (not you specifically, BearCub---anyone reading this), then you are too far gone.
In the context of the thread, this is bunk.
I use a free program called SpamBayes. It integrates with Microsoft Outlook and kills 99.9% of the spam I used to get daily. Every day more than 150 spam emails hit my inbox.
Personally, I have more problem with spam in general than I do with porn specifically. I think spamming should be a jailable offense.
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.