Posted on 10/23/2001 8:39:39 AM PDT by spycatcher
By the way, a Semitic is a son of Shem and many are white including British and Americans.
I don't think the reasons you described, are quite valid...
But this libertarian would recognize you as morally entitled to kick the living crap out of someone who sold drugs to your children, against your will.
And those that facilitate that?
This conversation started by a claim that it's OK for someone to knock the crap out of someone else for selling something to a third person that's willing to buy. It would seem the Libertarians are having to stretch their beliefs to get it to jibe with Jesus' actions.
I understood the conversation to revolve around some Christians attempting to use Christ's actions in the temple, as justification to employ the initiation of force against sinners.
It is important to recognize however, that Christ's actions in the temple were morally justifiable, (even under libertarian philosophy) because Christ was presumably acting in defense of his own rights (inasmuch as those who traded there, defiled HIS house, without HIS permission, hence violating his property rights)
Force may morally be employed in defense of rights. It may not be morally initiated (even against sinners) if rights have NOT been violated.
Is that a clear explanation?
Well, for one thing, it reflects upon the shoddy quality of the "research" behind this "Moon God" crap (the original topic of this thread).
It's truly amazing how your "Adam was a white guy" crap dovetails so neatly with Identity dogma.
One of my favorite quotes from the above thread:
"If Adam is made in the image of God and if Adam began in Tanzania, you white boys have got a problem because that means you are the children of niggers."
-- Eugene F. Rivers 3d, an evangelical minister
Enjoy
If it's OK for Christ to initiate force to protect his rights on his earth, then it's OK for us to initiate force to protect our children in our country against those that would do harm or facilitate harm.
Force may morally be employed in defense of rights. It may not be morally initiated (even against sinners) if rights have NOT been violated.
Those who sell hard drugs violate rights in the same manner the moneychangers violated rights in the temple.
Is that a clear explanation?
Yes, I'm glad you agree that a people has a right to protect themselves from activities that could lead to destruction.
How's that? Do you have proof that Muhammed wasn't white?
I'm not like you, I don't look for this Jew-hating stuff to use against people. Why would I want to read their website when they're full of crap?
It's truly amazing how your "Adam was a white guy" crap dovetails so neatly with Identity dogma.
That's about the only thing that matches and that's biblical.
One of my favorite quotes from the above thread: "If Adam is made in the image of God and if Adam began in Tanzania,...
Tanzania?
...you white boys have got a problem because that means you are the children of niggers." -- Eugene F. Rivers 3d, an evangelical minister Enjoy
You better not let JimRob see you using that language (even if you are quoting someone else), a definite no-no.
The use of force is as a remedy is justified in both cases. Note the use of force isn't justified by it's validity in some other instance, both are instances of rights violations and that is what justifies the particular remedy of force. The initial rights violation is the initial forceful act.
Once again, words have meanings... please pay careful attention here.
Christs actions in the temple were NOT an intiation of force.
His actions were an employment of defensive force, in response to force initiated by those choosing to be in the temple (on his property), against his (the property owner's) will.
Please pay careful attention to the words.
They have a very precise and important meaning.
Good. Another Liberatarian that has seen the light on protecting society against destruction.
Exactly. The American people own the property of the government and the American people have decided that they don't want hard drug dealers on their (the government's) property. The initiation of force is justified.
Please pay careful attention to the words. They have a very precise and important meaning.
Yes they do. "A government of the people". The people are the government, the people own government property, initiation of force is justified to whack hard drug dealers and those that facilitate them.
The current King of Jordan is a direct descendent of Muhammed.
Which is why in most cases, Protestants may go back and forth between Presbyterian, Methodist, evangelical congregations etc., but don't seriously consider becoming Catholic or Jewish unless the influence of a partner is involved.
I wouldn't call that proof. Most American blacks are descended from whites (and are also the genetic Israelites, by the way).
The current King of Jordan is a direct descendent of Muhammed.
I wouldn't call that proof. Most American blacks are descended from whites (and are also genetic Israelites, by the way).
Do the American people own the homes of those whose doors they kick down for possession of those drugs?
I didn't think so.
(frankly I think you're being a bit silly)
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.