Posted on 05/23/2008 10:12:33 AM PDT by LeGrande
Ya think he may just be wanting to piss people off?
[Are you really claiming that police have the right to assault and batter someone simply because they see an angry male walking down the street with at bat?]
I think you read every fifth word and then throw it into that cuisinart you have for a brain and spit out what’s left. “Assault and Batter”, where the hell did that come from, I never advocated the police have that right. But certainly, if some guy looks like he has an intent to kill he can be questioned, followed, etc. It isn’t like you have time for a supoena if someone is about to axe handle their girlfriend. So if the police use their better judgement to stop that, all power to them.
“Or that people should take the law into their own hands? “
It happens all the time, it’s something I like to call “self defense”. Perhaps you are unaware of that concept?
“Do you know what they call that, they call it a Lynch Mob. “
No “they” don’t. But some people would call you a bloviating storeyteller.
“That is what you and your cabal are.”
A Lynch Mob???? Musta left my rope somewhere, all they gave me was a stinking keboard at the lynch mob headquarters.
“But you are even worse than a typical Lynch Mob because you want to punish the criminal before the crime has been committed. “
Make it up, spin it, anything to vent your emotions. I don’t even know what would be worse than a Lynch Mob, perhaps a bunch of people at their keyboards? Oooooh, scary, her comes the boogeyman.
But to state it more clearly, I’m certainly for stopping crimes before they are committed. For example, that’s why there is a yellow light, to prevent people from running red lights.
From what I’ve gathered by reading posts by libertarians I’ve found that libertarians tend to think the following:
-That harmful drugs should be legalized and provided inexpensively (by whom I haven’t figured out yet; not the government I hope)
-Prostitution should be legalized
-The government should keep out of the marriage debate (code words for legalizing homosexual marriage)
-Abortion should be allowed
-Sex perverts running a teenage sex slave ring should be left alone.
-People should be allowed to do absolutely ANYTHING they want, ANYTIME they want, on their own property, no matter what the consequences to their neighbors or community in the way of encroaching on them, spreading filth or pollution onto their neighbors properties.
The attitude is that if others don’t like it they can move. There’s no sense of community or responsibility of being part of a civilized society. They deny others the rights they claim for themselves. The individual rights that they claim they believe in apply only to themselves and everyone has to suck it up when they come barreling along through life like a runaway locomotive.
I’m not sure where they stand on illegal immigration, voting rights, or pornography, although I can take a guess based on their positions on other related issues.
No, because the issue is about lawbreaking, not religious persecution.
Sorry, but the cult defenders just aren’t going to get other people to defend the cult by pretending that it’s a religious issue when the rest of the world sees it for what it is: a law breaking issue.
The rest of us can see what the real issue is; that polygamy and statutory rape are illegal, even when disgustingly disguised as religious activity for the purposes of abusing the First Amendment as a cloak to protect it.
Becoming hysterical and shrieking the the sky is falling (OMG!!!! They’re coming after you next!!! ) doesn’t fool anyone who sees the truth. They rest of us are not being suckered in by their deceitful tactics.
Too bad it’s working on so many.
Believe you me, as a woman, I have wrestled with the notion of being one of several wives. I'm not married, and may not marry in this life. However, I have been promised that through my faithfulness in Christ's gospel, I will receive all of the blessings in the next life. (There will be eternal marriages performed in the millennium, etc.) I believe a loving Heavenly Father is not just going to assign unmarried women out to men. It just doesn't work that way.
I also have a testimony of Jesus Christ. I do not understand everything in the scriptures (Bible, Book of Mormon, etc.) But because I believe in Him, I have faith, and try to have patience over the principles of His gospel that I don't quite get. And I know that people think that men in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints sit around and think about all the wives they're going to have in the afterlife. That's simply not true. They are happy with their one wife.
I will post a quote from Jeff Lindsay about his feelings on polygamy (because they mirror my own.) Disclaimer: I posted from the bottom of his comments first, then put the quotes from Terryl Givens next. From Mormanity -Jeff Lindsay's blog I still can't get over the frequently repeated irony of immoral men and women, who see no problem with fornication or perhaps even adultery, showing great moral indignation over polygamy, which was based on a legal marriage contract. I admit that I don't understand polygamy and am grateful that it's behind us. While it perplexes me, I need to realize that there a lot of things in Christianity and in the Bible in general that still perplex me. Faith and patience are still needed. God has not always done things the way I would do them (undoubtedly to His credit). In addition to that, great men of God have not always done things the way I think God would have them done (e.g., the way some Biblical patriarchs treated their wives or concubines). These gaps between my expectations and past practices of others are no excuse for wavering on my part, or for abandoning my faith in the Living God or departing from a covenant relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ. Someday we'll get all the frank answers we want, and we may be surprised and how we misunderstood things--but for now, a little more faith and patience may be in order when it comes to the occasional perplexities of religion. Have you read Terryl Givens' outstanding book, The Viper on the Hearth: Mormons, Myths, and the Construction of Heresy (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997)? With his literary background (he's an associate professor of English at the University of Richmond), Brother Givens brings a fresh set of tools to his analysis of Mormonism in modern society. His discussion includes an examination of major attacks on the Church, such as the claim that we are a cult. One passage I read again this morning and felt like sharing deals with polygamy. After examining how novels and the popular press dealt with rumors of Mormon violence and the "barbaric" evil of polygamy, Givens makes the following observations (p. 144): Also at odds with the fictional portrayal of the practice is the fact that in 1852, the same year that polygamy was publicly announced as a principle, Utah passed a divorce statute "that provided women much more control over their lives than was given by any other divorce statute of the nineteenth century, save only that of Indiana." [Louis Kern, An Ordered Love: Sex Roles and Sexuality in Victorian Utopia--the Shakers, the Mormons, and the Oneida Community (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1981), 191.] In an 1861 address, Brigham Young stated that "when a woman becomes alienated in her feelings and affections from her husband, it is his duty to give her a bill and set her free." Even more surprisingly, he claimed that for a husband to continue cohabiting with such a wife was tantamount to fornication. [Richard S. Van Wagoner, Mormon Polygamy: A History (Salt Lake City: Signature, 1986) 92-93.] Such opinions were clearly not meant merely for show. During his presidency, Young granted 1,645 divorces. [Ibid., 91. Also see Eugene E. Campbell and Bruce L. Campbell, "Divorce Among Mormon Polygamists: Extent and Explanations," Utah Historical Quarterly 46 (winter 1978): 4-23.] Polygamy, then, proved to be a male Utopia only in the conceptions of some indignant--but apparently envious--novelistic fantasizers. Why the ferocious response by both the secular and the religious press? Such an egregious affront to Western standards of moral propriety may seem self-evidently offensive, but more than moral indignation is at work here. That such sensationalizing took place in the context of the most vehement moral outrage is neither surprising nor disingenuous. For it is precisely the transgressive nature of polygamy that excites both envy and rejection. The supposed virtue of exposing "the moral leprosy" of Utah gives at the same time opportunity to luxuriate in all the seamy details one is excoriating. Many writers and journalists continue to "luxuriate" in seamy details involving past polygamy and the present polygamy of some excommunicated rebels, but it's not an accurate depiction of Mormon past or present.
This is from the first part of the post on Lindsay's blog. (And no, I haven't read the book yet, but I intend to.)Terryl Givens on Polygamy
Depictions of polygamy [in works of fiction] were also, and as predictably, wildly distorted. But then, the actual practice of plural marriage was seldom the stuff of steamy fiction. Writers of pulp fiction were unanimous in their claim that, in one author's words, "what was planned by Young for man's paradise proved woman's hell." [Mrs. W.A. King, Duncan Davidson; A Story of Polygamy (Philadelphia: Dorrance, 1928), 27.] But from Brigham Young's pronouncement that he would rather be the corpse in a funeral procession than have to accept the doctrine of polygamy [Journal of Discourses, 3:266] to the dozens of elders incarcerated in Territorial prison for their devotion to the practice to a generation of uniquely stressful marital relations for men and women alike, polygamy was far removed from the male paradise of fiction. Plural marriage was in practice a painful struggle against consciences shaped by Puritan values that most members, converts from Protestant faiths, shared. Domestic arrangements were inconvenient, fraught with jealousies, and, after the first wave of antipolygamy legislation, hampered by flight, concealment, and frequent relocations.
Well,that was strange. Some of my comments above went red on me. Not on purpose, I don’t know how to do color in HTML. LOL.
To go on, I do not condone polygamy because the Lord has commanded that it not be practiced in this day and age through revelation. However, I still support the members in the FLDS church as Americans. They still have rights to due process and all the powers of the law in their self-defense. And until the state of Texas shows the evidence that they are engaging in pervasive child abuse, I will still regard them as innocent until proven guilty. (One Warren Jeffs picture kissing an underage girl is revolting. And I was distressed at that man’s comment that he didn’t see anything wrong in it.) This is going to be a battle in the courts. The state of Texas has to prove their allegations, and so far, IMO, they have done a terrible job.
It certainly is. I can think of two right off the bat that have been broken by the Agents of the Texas CPS.
Google up 18USC241 and 18USC242.
Some of these CPS goons are going to prison....
CPS has lost in Court every single step of the way, and they daily admit to more 'errors' and outright lies.
Too bad there's so many people defending the Texas version of a gang of Mike Nifongs right on this board.
Yes, I mean you.
L
Is that who that young girl is? OK. I guess the state of Texas is going for the pervasive theory of (alleged) abuse in the FLDS compound. I know there are problems in the compound, there are underage marriages, however the state of Texas has the burden of proof. And so far, they have blown it.
I heard an interesting statistic the other day. In the inner city of Detroit, Michigan, 80% of all black men will be arrested and go to prison. Do we see CPS of Michigan swooping in and removing those boys from their homes because in the future they might be arrested and imprisoned? No.
Texas has blown their case, by taking all of the children away, it will be that much harder to prove that abuse does occur with the young teenage girls.
While I love your point of view as stated and I appreciate where you are coming from as I too have been there, you must realize that in most ways these folks are really weird. We really cannot compare inner city situations to this. Plus the teenage boys are not diddling the little girls as they are being expelled because they are competitors for the girls.
As usual, you are not.
From what I have seen on FR, the atheists have higher morals than a lot of the YECers.
It's possible, in general I wouldn't expect it. But certainly cases of that occur. There are some very moral atheists. I knew two wonderful people, nice as can be, who didn't believe.
But the thing is, just being relatively moral is not going to help them. They'll be judged by a perfect Holy God/Creator who knows no sin. And He is going to judge us by His own perfect standard. Not by some Bell curve of human goodness, where if you're closer to Mother Theresa than to Adolf Hitler, you're ok.
Scripture calls us to "Be Holy for I am Holy.", "Be perfect for I am perfect". There are only two ways to stand before such an awesome Holy God and live. Never sin, or be forgiven. Atheists will be judged by their works. And their evil deeds, even if they are few in number will condemn them.
God who knows the future, has already declared, "None are righteous, no not one.". But He also holds out the promise, "Come let us reason together, though your sins are like crimson, they shall be whiter than snow."
Those two people, were extended family members, in their 70's. Not the kind of people you expect to change. But we began praying for them regularly. Four years later they accepted Jesus as their Savior. Awesome!
Which is the more moral person.
The atheist that lives a moral life because he is considerate of his fellow humans or the non-atheist that leads a moral life so he will go to heaven?
Which one is more moral? Two convicts are sentenced to death. They are both offered a pardon by the governor. One refuses the pardon. The other accepts the pardon.
There are two flaws in your premise.
The first is that you are still trying to compare people on a scale of human goodness. Both your atheist and your non-atheist were found guilty by the Lord and sentenced to death. But the non-atheist assuming it's a true Christian non-athiest will receive a pardon. You're still viewing it from a human perspective where one is less evil than the other. From God's perspective both were evil. Yet God loved both while they were still sinners and died for both. Sadly, only one accepted the pardon.
The second flaw, is that the non-atheist leads a moral life so he will go to heaven. That's not the way it works. Scripture says nobody is saved by the law. "By grace are ye saved, not by works, lest any man should boast." The reason Christians do good works, is that they love the Lord. They don't have to earn their salvation, they already have it, it was an unmerited gift. All they had to do was accept it.
And here's how Jesus answered your question.
Jhn 3:18-21 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.
You see in God's eyes, those that recognize that they have done evil and repent and seek out the Lord, they are more moral. They choose good. Those that don't, have chosen evil, because they loved darkness.
Of course, if your atheist has always led a moral life because he is considerate of his fellow man, then he has no need of a savior. Jesus didn't come to save the righteous. But scripture says nobody has done that except Jesus and He was God incarnate.
To go back and answer your question, certainly a person who cares about others is more moral than someone who acts out of self interest. But it's still the wrong question.
The righteous non-believer is a hypothetical that doesn't exist, any more than a righteous believer exists apart from the imputed righteousness of Jesus.
God declared that none of us were righteous. So for one convict to reject the pardon while claiming he's better than the other convict, is pointless. He may in fact be better than the other convict, but he still falls short of true righteousness, and unless he accepts the pardon, he will die.
It’s not my fight but who’s more moral is an argument that matters to anthroprocentrics like yourself.
Theocentrists like myself and Danny whilst not eschewing morality consider it secondary to salvation as a benchmark.
However, once salvation is accepted then one could expect an adhrence to our taught and even innate morality.
We all hear the voice of God, even you atheists. You don’t act moral as you say just randomly or even strictly from conditioning.
I have 5 kids, even little babies know it’s wrong to kill puppies..where did their voice of good come from.
They also know to fear evil very quick as well...they have a sense of it....
You can’t possibly think all of this is just a cosmic acident and that your own life has no direction of purpose built into it by your creator.
I’m living proof that we all have it...I can ping several freepers here who can attest to that without me having to make a public confssional-testimony. Very few folks have lived thr road map I have to get here by God’s plan I can promise you and a large number of folks depend on that providence.
I hope it comes to you...at least a nod to something that created you.
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.