Justice Scalia: 'I Have Religious Views...They Have Nothing to Do with My Job' [Archive]

bobbyw24

11-15-2009, 07:23 AM

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has never passed up the opportunity in abortion cases to remind his colleagues that the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision continues to divide America. In a 2000 dissenting opinion, he chided such centrist conservatives as Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy for earlier predicting a truce of sorts in the abortion wars.

"While I am in an I-told-you-so-mood," he wrote in Stenberg v. Carhart, "I must recall my bemusement ... at the ... expressed belief that Roe v. Wade had 'called the contending sides of the national controversy to end their national division' ... and that the decision in [the 1992 Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v.] Casey would ratify that happy truce."
For more than two decades, Scalia has stood out among even his most conservative colleagues in angry opposition to abortion rights. As the abortion debate now clouds negotiations over federal health care legislation, it is plain that – irrespective of how far to the right Scalia has been on the substance of the abortion dilemma – he has been dead right about the enduring controversy.

Further, with the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' pressing for a ban on any abortion financing in the health care legislation, Scalia, a Roman Catholic, brings to the fore the salient question of how religion influences one's view of abortion.

At the Supreme Court, where there are now six Catholic justices, that question is increasingly in the air, yet has swirled most around Scalia. When he joined the Supreme Court in 1986, six Roman Catholic justices already had served over the years, beginning with Chief Justice Roger Taney in 1836. The Catholic William Brennan was still on the bench when Scalia was named, and several other Catholics have served since. The Catholics with Scalia among the current nine are Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Sonia Sotomayor.

Yet, more than any of them, Scalia, who was raised in a strict Catholic home, then attended a Jesuit high school and the Jesuit Georgetown University, has been identified as a Catholic justice. Scalia publicly presents himself this way, and the news media have reinforced the importance of Catholicism to his life and his sense of himself. During an interview last year on CBS' "60 Minutes," Scalia was asked about the fact that he and his wife have nine children. "We didn't set out to have nine children," Scalia said. "We're just old-fashioned Catholics, playing what used to be known as 'Vatican roulette.'" In a more serious vein, Scalia has spoken publicly about the importance of fidelity to the Church's traditional values, such as saying the Rosary and observance of all holy days.
What makes all this relevant in the abortion debate is that as Scalia is passionate about his religion, he is also passionately against the notion that the Constitution contains a right to abortion. From everything he says these are separate, parallel passions. "I am always reading a text and trying to give it the fairest interpretation possible. That's all I do," he says. "I have religious views on the subject. But they have nothing whatsoever to do with my job."
While Scalia rejects the notion that his Catholicism directs his rulings, he does acknowledge that, like his religion, his insistence on the wrongness of Roe stirs his deepest emotions. "Roe v. Wade was a lie," he says. "It still tears society apart and becomes a national political issue." Scalia insists that because the right to abortion was delivered up by appointed justices of the Supreme Court, rather than elected officials in the legislative process, it will never be considered publicly legitimate. (That assertion is undercut by the fact that a majority of people polled have long said women should have a right to abortion under at least some circumstances.)
There is no ignoring that Scalia's strongly stated religious views are in sync with his opposition to abortion. And the connection between these two emphases has long preoccupied Court observers and become part of the political debate. Some lawyers express discomfort at the suggestion that either Scalia is disingenuous about how his beliefs influence him on abortion or that serious Catholics could not think nonreligiously about legal matters. Yet other lawyers, pointing up the magnitude of the abortion question in American life, speak bluntly about Scalia's views.

One such critic is University of Chicago law professor Geoffrey Stone, who says he believes Scalia's Catholicism affects his anti-abortion-rights vote. Stone found it significant that the five justices, including Scalia, who voted in 2007 to uphold a federal ban on the abortion procedure known by critics as "partial birth," happened to be Catholics.
"Scalia is, of course, right that his general view about abortion is consistent with his larger judicial philosophy. Roe v. Wade is not defensible from the standpoint of an originalist," Stone told me in an interview, referring to Scalia's philosophy that the Constitution should be interpreted according to the understandings of its original Eighteenth century drafters. "But what made the [2007 Gonzales v.] Carhart case noteworthy was that the governing precedent was so clear. What caught my interest was that in a situation in which any open-minded and responsible judge would simply have gritted his teeth and followed the precedent, these five justices simply couldn't bring themselves to do so. Instead, they felt impelled to write a patently disingenuous opinion to avoid following a recent and clearly controlling decision. [Stone was referring to the 2000 Stenberg v. Carhart decision striking down state "partial birth" bans.] This wasn't the product of a conservative judicial philosophy. It was the product of something more powerful. The only plausible explanation for their behavior was that they had a deep moral revulsion to following the law in this case."
Testing the religious, political or other non-judicial inclinations of a judge is not easy. The nature of the process dictates that a justice's reasons for a vote are explained through law, through precedent, through reference to statutes and the Constitution.

It is true that irrespective of Scalia's Catholicism, his conservative approach to the Constitution would likely dictate his opposition to abortion rights. Yet it is also true, as Scalia has told me, that one of the lasting lessons he has carried from his years of Catholic education is, "Do not ... separate your religious life from your intellectual life. They're not separate."
Joan Biskupic is the author of American Original: The Life and Constitution of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, published this month by Sarah Crichton Books/ Farrar, Straus and Giroux, and from which parts of this essay were adapted.

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/11/14/justice-scalia-i-have-religious-views-they-have-nothing-to-d/

tonesforjonesbones

11-15-2009, 09:04 AM

LibertyEagle

11-15-2009, 09:13 AM

That was interesting and I agree with Scalia. I am a Christian FIRST and an American second..that will never change. Non religious people do not understand this concept. We are only here to please GOD. tones

You'd probably better explain a little more, Tones. Because right now, you have just confirmed a lot of people's concerns about ever electing a Christian to office.

In reality, Scalia upholds his oath of office to the Constitution.

What makes all this relevant in the abortion debate is that as Scalia is passionate about his religion, he is also passionately against the notion that the Constitution contains a right to abortion. From everything he says these are separate, parallel passions. "I am always reading a text and trying to give it the fairest interpretation possible. That's all I do," he says. "I have religious views on the subject. But they have nothing whatsoever to do with my job."

tonesforjonesbones

11-15-2009, 09:18 AM

Icymudpuppy

11-15-2009, 09:19 AM

Christian first?

So, we should bring back Divine Right of Kings? Inquisition? Crusade wars?

LibertyEagle

11-15-2009, 09:20 AM

tonesforjonesbones

11-15-2009, 09:28 AM

I would vote for christians over atheists ANY day...tones

Austrian Econ Disciple

11-15-2009, 09:28 AM

Well..I would not support abortion...it's nowhere in the constitution BUT I would leave it to the states and to the people to VOTE on it. Right now , there really is no legislation on abortion pro or con, only case law and a supreme court decision on case law. I don't know why the states don't put it to a vote. They have the power and if the people want to pass legislation banning abortion ..well..that's fine.

As far as being a Christian first...all Christians that I know feel that way. How can anyone put politics before God? I certainly wouldn't support porn, prostitution etc..those things are immoral. We have a serious problem with morality and it's sure not doing this country any good at all. tones

A true to the bible Christian cannot be a libertarian. I'm curious, even though you don't support porn, prostitution, etc. you would still acknowledge that the only moral position; Natural Law, specifically addresses that you can do what you want with your private property as long as it does not violate another persons private property, correct? Therefore you understand that porn, prostitution, etc. should be legal? I all ready know that no person or State can take away my axiomatic rights, but should one be punished by the State for practicing or purchasing said goods or services?

People shouldn't support abortion not because it isn't in the Constitution, but because it violates NAP and Natural Law. This is one thing that irks me with Constitutionalists. They don't understand any of the reasoning, logic, or axioms behind the Constitution. That is why the only law of the land should be the Declaration of Independance. I think it's an abomination that people can vote and make legal a crime. So if 51% of the people can vote to steal my property, or to violate my life and make that legal then it should be binding? What? There are universal axioms. No one has the right to violate my property, or my being without my consent. No one can vote to steal it, nor take it. It seems from 1776 to today we stepped back to generally the 1400s in terms of intellectual bounds. Not good, not good.

Austrian Econ Disciple

11-15-2009, 09:31 AM

I would vote for christians over atheists ANY day...tones

I'm pretty much Agnostic/Atheist so you would vote for Obama over me? GWB over me? Huckabee over me? What happened to voting on principles? This is why the religious folks make me extremely nervous. This is why I said I would never vote for anyone who even dares talk about religious views in the public forum. That is a private matter. Secondly, most atheists are more christian than christians, lmao. I'm probably more closer to christs words than 90% of the christians.

tonesforjonesbones

11-15-2009, 09:32 AM

I do not believe that morality can be legislated..that is a matter of the heart. What you do in the privacy of your home is your business..but if it got on a ballot I would vote against it. THat is voting my concience and I do have that right. I have the right to free will just like you..and I would exercise that right to vote nay if it comes up. You have the right to vote for it..that's the way it shoul;d be. tones

tonesforjonesbones

11-15-2009, 09:33 AM

Most atheists are certainly NOT Christians...tones

LibertyEagle

11-15-2009, 09:34 AM

I would vote for christians over atheists ANY day...tones

So, you would vote for someone like George Bush who claimed to be a Christian, over say someone who was an atheist, but was a strong constitutionalist and had shown they would strictly abide by it?

Not me. If they haven't shown by words and ACTION that they will abide by their oath of office, I could care less WHAT religion they ascribe to, or whether they ascribe to one at all.

tonesforjonesbones

11-15-2009, 09:35 AM

Well..what use is the 10th amendment if the vote of the people can be over ruled by judges? Tones

Austrian Econ Disciple

11-15-2009, 09:35 AM

tonesforjonesbones

11-15-2009, 09:40 AM

I would vote for Bush over Obama...I Ihave a hard time being convinced that there are many Christians in Washington. ROn Paul is a Christian who is sticking to the constitution. Huckabee is a Christian..I disagree with some of his policies and his zionism..so I coudln't vote for him on a normal basis, but if it was between Huckabee and some democrat...you bet I'd vote for Huckabee. I would vote for Ron Paul above ANYONE out there. What about Chuck Baldwin, many voted for him and he is a devout Christian..and sticks to the Constitution. I wonder if he would support porn, abortion, prostitution? Tones

tonesforjonesbones

11-15-2009, 09:41 AM

I have the right to vote my concience just like you do austrian. If it comes up on the ballot..my vote would be nay. tones

LibertyEagle

11-15-2009, 09:42 AM

I do not believe that morality can be legislated..that is a matter of the heart. What you do in the privacy of your home is your business..but if it got on a ballot I would vote against it.

Wouldn't that be hypocritical? I mean, you say that what people do in the privacy of their own homes is their own business, but then say you would vote against it if given the chance.

THat is voting my concience and I do have that right. I have the right to free will just like you..and I would exercise that right to vote nay if it comes up. You have the right to vote for it..that's the way it shoul;d be. tones

Yeah, if you want to be hypocritical, yeah, you do. But, be honest about it. What you are doing is trying to force your own opinion for how you behave, on everyone else. When you have already stated that it should be each person's business to decide for themselves.

NYgs23

11-15-2009, 09:44 AM

Christian first?

So, we should bring back Divine Right of Kings? Inquisition? Crusade wars?

Christianity doesn't compel you to believe in any of those things. Christianity is compatible with voluntaryism. In fact, I would argue that being a voluntaryist is the only way to be a consistent Christian.

tonesforjonesbones

11-15-2009, 09:46 AM

GBurr

11-15-2009, 09:46 AM

Liberty Eagle is right.

Restricting people with a popular vote is the same as restricting them with a Gun. It is wrong. If you think that you can vote to make immoral things illegal even though they don't infringe on anyone's rights then you are no better than the tyrants we have in Washington.

NYgs23

11-15-2009, 09:46 AM

A true to the bible Christian cannot be a libertarian.

Nonsense.

I'm curious, even though you don't support porn, prostitution, etc. you would still acknowledge that the only moral position; Natural Law, specifically addresses that you can do what you want with your private property as long as it does not violate another persons private property, correct? Therefore you understand that porn, prostitution, etc. should be legal? I all ready know that no person or State can take away my axiomatic rights, but should one be punished by the State for practicing or purchasing said goods or services?

Immorality does not equal illegality. As a Catholic, I believe that eating meat on Fridays during Lent is immoral, but that doesn't mean I believe in using violence to prevent you from doing so.

LibertyEagle

11-15-2009, 09:50 AM

we've had this argument before Liberty Eagle and my stance is the same. I have the right to vote against issues that i do not agree with. I do not agree with immoral things..and if it comes up on a ballot, I will vote against it. Everyone should. What idiot would vote for for issues THEY DISAGREE WITH??????? TONES

I guess it depends on whether one has principles.

Do you realize how many things Dr. Paul has voted against, not because he disagreed with it, but because it was unconstitutional?

tonesforjonesbones

11-15-2009, 09:50 AM

tonesforjonesbones

11-15-2009, 09:51 AM

LibertyEagle

11-15-2009, 09:58 AM

I think ya'll should read what the Founders said about morality, particularly Thomas Jefferson on homosexuality. Now, I have homosexual friends,and that is their business...but if gay marriage comes up on a ballot I would vote against it. Best thing to do is keep it off ballots. It is going to get shot down by the people. I am against state instituted marriage..I think we should all focus on that rather than gay marriage. Get the state out of the marriage business and let the churches do it like it was before. Then it wouldn't be a political issue if gays wanted to marry..tones

Tones, a constitutionalist's reason to be against a gay marriage amendment is because it is about special rights and that is unconstitutional. And like you said, we should also be trying to get government completely out of the marriage business altogether. No one should have special rights.

LibertyEagle

11-15-2009, 09:59 AM

Austrian Econ Disciple

11-15-2009, 10:14 AM

I have the right to vote my concience just like you do austrian. If it comes up on the ballot..my vote would be nay. tones

Do you have any intellectual honesty? This is what irks me....

If you support the State intervening in a persons private property, you therefore give them the authority, power, and institution to violate what you do not agree with; abortion. You cannot give a group of people rights that you do not have yourself.

You cannot violate another persons property and call that moral, legal, or any other juxtaposition or justification for your views. It is immoral, illegal, and a violation of Natural Law. I'm going to be blunt, but you are a criminal just the same as any other who support the State. There is literally no logical difference between your position and the position of the welfarism thiefs.

Ethek

11-15-2009, 10:14 AM

ok Gburr...so you are talking about protecting the minority right? So...if the tables were turned, and say...prostitution was voted by the majority to be legalized...you are ok with activist judges protecting the minority of voters who voted nay by over ruling the majority vote? TOnes

I think the distinguishing factor is that it is not within the power of government at any time to overstep its bounds on Natural Law. The Constitution is a framework. The error of the document is that it in now way conveys its intent. It does not verbatim list issues and how they should be addressed. Its the intent that everyone must be educated about, not the constitution itself.

Government is instituted to protect rights. Using it as a tool of the mob to infringe in any way on Natural Law, even if it is something 'immoral' is no better than the immoral act. Government is force, not reason.

The way to influence people is to live an example to be emulated. That or leverage Dale Carnegie how to win friends and influence people. At least give people a chance to be manipulated out of certain behavior face to face.

Those persuaded against their will are of the same opinion still. Government force to impose morality creates resentment. Your resources used to pay for your own oppression and vis versa. These issues are not for government to decide.

I respect Tones.. but Christianity will get much further without becoming mired in issues for government power to settle... it will just swing the other way win the 51% opinion decides it so. Everyones agenda will be much better served under limited Government.

Ethek

11-15-2009, 10:18 AM

I think Austrian Econ and I are of the same mind set most of the time.

Austrian Econ Disciple

11-15-2009, 10:19 AM

Nonsense.

Immorality does not equal illegality. As a Catholic, I believe that eating meat on Fridays during Lent is immoral, but that doesn't mean I believe in using violence to prevent you from doing so.

Have you read the bible? There are hundreds upon hundreds of violations of NAP, Natural Law, etc. Every tenant of libertarianism is trashed in the Bible.

Meatwasp

11-15-2009, 10:21 AM

Why I quit being a large L libertarian is most believe in a woman's right to choose. I thought it was okay to do what you want if it doesn't hurt another person. Explain abortion.

LibertyEagle

11-15-2009, 10:21 AM

I think the distinguishing factor is that it is not within the power of government at any time to overstep its bounds on Natural Law. The Constitution is a framework. The error of the document is that it in now way conveys its intent. It does not verbatim list issues and how they should be addressed. Its the intent that everyone must be educated about, not the constitution itself.

People need to understand BOTH. But, you seem to misunderstand the purpose of the Constitution. It was largely to confine the federal government, by enumerating what they had jurisdiction over. THIS is the problem. A huge percentage of what the federal government has their nose in now, is prohibited by the Constitution. If people understood this and the REASON why our Founders designed it this way, then we would not be in this mess we are in today.

Government is instituted to protect rights. Using it as a tool of the mob to infringe in any way on Natural Law, even if it is something 'immoral' is no better than the immoral act. Government is force, not reason.

The way to influence people is to live an example to be emulated. That or leverage Dale Carnegie how to win friends and influence people. At least give people a chance to be manipulated out of certain behavior face to face.

Those persuaded against their will are of the same opinion still. Government force to impose morality creates resentment. Your resources used to pay for your own oppression and vis versa. These issues are not for government to decide.

I respect Tones.. but Christianity will get much further without becoming mired in issues for government power to settle... it will just swing the other way win the 51% opinion decides it so. Everyones agenda will be much better served under limited Government.

Ethek

11-15-2009, 10:25 AM

People need to understand BOTH. But, you seem to misunderstand the purpose of the Constitution. It was largely to confine the federal government, by enumerating what they had jurisdiction over. THIS is the problem. A huge percentage of what the federal government has their nose in now, is prohibited by the Constitution. If people understood this and the REASON why our Founders designed it this way, then we would not be in this mess we are in today.

Your absolutely correct in that its purpose is to be a 'set of iron shackles' on Government. It does not come across in my post. Blinded by the obvious perhaps?

Austrian Econ Disciple

11-15-2009, 10:26 AM

I think Austrian Econ and I are of the same mind set most of the time.

Kudos! Much respect sir.

Austrian Econ Disciple

11-15-2009, 10:29 AM

Why I quit being a large L libertarian is most believe in a woman's right to choose. I thought it was okay to do what you want if it doesn't hurt another person. Explain abortion.

Half of the Libertarian Party is against abortion, half is for it. The other half seem to not understand how abortion obliterates NAP, one of the underlying and fundamental truths and tenants of libertarianism. Then again, the Libertarian Party is not homogenous as not every person is a libertarian. Confused yet? :D

Then again, the LP is the best party out there.....myself, I base it on the individual candidates. There are certainly many RLC candidates that are better than the LP candidate. However, as a Party, no other party has a LP "Radical" Caucus that was started by Murray Rothbard. :D Take that as you will. Nor does any other party have more than one or even one Anarcho-Capitalist.

Austrian Econ Disciple

11-15-2009, 10:32 AM

People need to understand BOTH. But, you seem to misunderstand the purpose of the Constitution. It was largely to confine the federal government, by enumerating what they had jurisdiction over. THIS is the problem. A huge percentage of what the federal government has their nose in now, is prohibited by the Constitution. If people understood this and the REASON why our Founders designed it this way, then we would not be in this mess we are in today.

Indeed, it is a shining failure, wouldn't you agree? It was a failure in the middle 1800s when Lysander Spooner excoriated the ineptness of the document. It actually provides the institutions of power, and thinks it can restrain that power. What in human history has taught us this will ever work?

armstrong

11-15-2009, 10:33 AM

these issues sometimes drive me crazy,,,,you can not legislate morality,or values a simple Idea on this is can I make a law or sue my neighbor for growing dandelion's in his lawn and infesting mine ? or my neighbors cars are 20 years old and dirty and makes my neighborhood look bad.....we are free to be!

ClayTrainor

11-15-2009, 10:39 AM

I would vote for christians over atheists ANY day...tones

Do you realize how collectivist this is? If Ron Paul was an atheist, would that change your view of him? If there was an atheist libertarian almost identical to ron paul in every other way, running against Sarah Palin, who would you vote for?

jsu718

11-15-2009, 10:48 AM

A true to the bible Christian cannot be a libertarian.
I think it's an abomination that people can vote and make legal a crime. So if 51% of the people can vote to steal my property, or to violate my life and make that legal then it should be binding?

Blame the system, not the religion. And like others, I completely disagree with your take on what a "true to the Bible Christian" is... and wonder why you are here on the "Ron Paul Forums" if you think he, being a true to the Bible Christian and the most widely supported libertarian at the moment, is a contradiction of thought.

Being a Christian is not about telling other people how to live their life, it is about how to live your own life... that right there is pretty much spot on libertarian. If you have read the bible yourself and not gotten your ideas of Christianity from different denominations that often get their ideas from traditions of their sect rather than from the teachings of the Bible itself.

I for one happen to think it is much harder to be a libertarian as an atheist than it is to be a libertarian as a Christian, since as a Christian the entire concept of free will, the idea of "judge not lest ye be judged", and of course the 10 Commandments, all lead pretty directly to a libertarian govt way of thinking.

Why I quit being a large L libertarian is most believe in a woman's right to choose. I thought it was okay to do what you want if it doesn't hurt another person. Explain abortion.

One side doesn't view the fetus as a person yet... the other side does. That's the whole issue.

Austrian Econ Disciple

11-15-2009, 11:03 AM

Blame the system, not the religion. And like others, I completely disagree with your take on what a "true to the Bible Christian" is... and wonder why you are here on the "Ron Paul Forums" if you think he, being a true to the Bible Christian and the most widely supported libertarian at the moment, is a contradiction of thought.

Being a Christian is not about telling other people how to live their life, it is about how to live your own life... that right there is pretty much spot on libertarian. If you have read the bible yourself and not gotten your ideas of Christianity from different denominations that often get their ideas from traditions of their sect rather than from the teachings of the Bible itself.

I for one happen to think it is much harder to be a libertarian as an atheist than it is to be a libertarian as a Christian, since as a Christian the entire concept of free will, the idea of "judge not lest ye be judged", and of course the 10 Commandments, all lead pretty directly to a libertarian govt way of thinking.

One side doesn't view the fetus as a person yet... the other side does. That's the whole issue.

If you want I can go down and document at least 300 instances of NAP and Natural Law violations committed by Christians in the Bible. A true to the Bible Christrian has to take the whole Bible and not just parts of it. Yes, Ron Paul is a Christian, but he certainly is not a true to the Bible Christian. He is a christ Christian. One thing that always was quite ironic to watch is how Christianity was supposed to be a religion that was de-centralized, personable, private, and had no structural organization. That was what Christ preached and how he lived. I'm not sure what Ron Paul does in his private life, nor does it concern me. All I know is he keeps it private.

Instead of taking it as an affront, perchance you should read the whole Bible and not just the parts that follow NAP and Natural Law. I've defined what I believe is a true to the Bible Christian, instead of arguing semantics perhaps you can show me how you justify these clear violations of the tenants of libertarianism? I'm very weary of any organized religion and the State. Has history taught us naught?

Personally, I think it's much easier being a libertarian as an Atheist/Agnostic because we have no conflicting beliefs or principles. Reconciling your religious views with libertarianism is very difficult. There is no religion that is libertarian, therefore an atheist does not have this conflict. However, that said it's up to you. You can believe in the spaghetti monster for whatever reason I don't care, as long as you follow NAP and Natural Law you are awesome in my book, and will receive my undying support.

jsu718

11-15-2009, 11:15 AM

Instead of taking it as an affront, perchance you should read the whole Bible and not just the parts that follow NAP and Natural Law. I've defined what I believe is a true to the Bible Christian, instead of arguing semantics perhaps you can show me how you justify these clear violations of the tenants of libertarianism? I'm very weary of any organized religion and the State. Has history taught us naught?

Oh I have read the whole bible, and am an ordained minister as well. You can't just pick and choose parts that violate natural law either. It teaches very specifically against just about all systems of organized religion. You seem to be basing your argument more on organized religion and history rather than the teachings of the bible and applying the label "true to the Bible" as more of a historical view than as an argument based on the text.

NYgs23

11-15-2009, 11:36 AM

Have you read the bible? There are hundreds upon hundreds of violations of NAP, Natural Law, etc.

Odd, since it was Christian philosophers who borrowed the concept of natural law from the Greeks, elaborated on it, and brought it to forward to the modern age. And it was Christian philosophers who originally came up with the concept of natural rights.

If you want I can go down and document at least 300 instances of NAP and Natural Law violations committed by Christians in the Bible.

I'm unnerved by the idea that you would be so obsessed as to bother to go through the whole Bible to find them. In any case, that would be a trick, since Christians don't even appear in until the New Testament.

A true to the Bible Christrian has to take the whole Bible and not just parts of it. Yes, Ron Paul is a Christian, but he certainly is not a true to the Bible Christian. He is a christ Christian.

I guess perhaps you meant biblical literalism. If so, I'm against that; that's really a post-reformation novelty that leads one on ridiculous theological paths. Nonetheless, you can be a "true to the Bible Christian" without taking the whole Scripture literally. I'd say that's to only way to be true to the Bible; taking, say, the Song of Solomon literally isn't being true the original intent of the text.

I'm very weary of any organized religion and the State. Has history taught us naught?

I don't understand the fear about "organized religion" so many people seem to hold. Would you prefer disorganized religion? So long as the religion remains a voluntary institution, it has nothing to do with statism.

Personally, I think it's much easier being a libertarian as an Atheist/Agnostic because we have no conflicting beliefs or principles. Reconciling your religious views with libertarianism is very difficult. There is no religion that is libertarian, therefore an atheist does not have this conflict.

If I were an atheist I would care nor bother about libertarianism or any of that stuff. I'd be busy expending all my time and energy trying to live as long as I possibly could. I'd be following Ray Kurzweil in his quest to live forever, not worrying about politics.

You can believe in the spaghetti monster for whatever reason I don't care, as long as you follow NAP and Natural Law you are awesome in my book, and will receive my undying support.

However, you can't expect people to put their religious beliefs up on a shelf, like they're some slightly embarrassing hobby. Our theology is fundamental to our conception of the world.

LibertyEagle

11-15-2009, 11:48 AM

When one is elected to higher office they represent all of the American people, not their personal religion. I still don't understand why members of congress swear upon a Bible, Torah, or Quran when they should be swearing upon the constitution and there should be no interference of any religion when it comes to the constitution.

lol

They are swearing their oath of office TO the Constitution and they are doing so, while having their hand on the Bible. It's supposed to help assure they are being honest. It's the same reason why they do it in court, Abraham.

LibertyEagle

11-15-2009, 11:52 AM

When John Quincy Adams took the oath of office of the presidency he swore upon a book of laws, rather than a bible to preserve the separation of church and state, this is how presidents and elected officials should be doing it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Quincy_Adams

Having your hand on the Bible while swearing an oath TO the Constitution, has nothing whatsoever to do with separation of church and state. WHICH, by the way, is NOT in the Constitution, ANYWHERE.

LibertyEagle

11-15-2009, 12:07 PM

Neither is swearing upon a religious book.

It is a custom, Abraham. One that has been around since the founding of this country. For the life of me, I don't see why you take such an issue with it. It's not like they are swearing an oath TO the Bible, and that is what you seem to think it is.

Why is it that you think it is just fine in a court of law, but not when swearing an oath that you will uphold the Constitution. Again, it is solely to help insure you are telling the truth when you swear said oath.

LibertyEagle

11-15-2009, 12:21 PM

You just made absolutely no sense at all.

And I ask again...

Why is it that you think it is just fine in a court of law, but not when swearing an oath that you will uphold the Constitution. Again, it is solely to help insure you are telling the truth when you swear said oath.

Gaius1981

11-15-2009, 12:35 PM

I am a Christian FIRST and an American second..that will never change. Non religious people do not understand this concept. We are only here to please GOD. tones

That's downright creepy. I don't mind religious people, but could never vote for a person with such views.

LibertyEagle

11-15-2009, 12:50 PM

Because when someone is in court they are asked to represent one's self only, when a president is sworn in they are representing all of the American people.

That is ridiculous. When someone swears an oath, they are representing THEIR OWN SELVES, in that it is THEY who is swearing the oath. You are confusing this with WHAT they are swearing an oath TO.

NYgs23

11-15-2009, 12:56 PM

That's downright creepy. I don't mind religious people, but could never vote for a person with such views.

Clearly you do mind religious people who put any import on the religious beliefs. Religion isn't just some frivolous hobby for peoples' amusement. It's a set of metaphysical claims about the structure of reality.

jmdrake

11-15-2009, 01:14 PM

Christian first?

So, we should bring back 1) Divine Right of Kings? 2) Inquisition? 3) Crusade wars?

1) But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. Matt 23:11

2) Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. John 8:7

3) My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom was of this world then would my servants fight. John 18:36

Don't mistake Christianity for the bastardized religion that has been taught by apostate Christians past and present.

Now here's what it means to be Christian first and American second. At one time slavery wasn't just legal in this country it was protected by the constitution! Those who aided the escape of slaves on the underground railroad were not only breaking the law, they were breaking the "fugitive slave" clause of the constitution. And they were right to break it. So yes. If this government were to go beyond simply disregarding the constitution to the point where it ratified something something immoral into the constitution and sought to force everyone to follow that immoral edict, my Christianity would come first. That doesn't me I don't make mistakes. It doesn't mean I don't sin. But I would never allow the government to force me into immorality.

Regards,

John M. Drake

MelissaWV

11-15-2009, 01:43 PM

Clearly you do mind religious people who put any import on the religious beliefs. Religion isn't just some frivolous hobby for peoples' amusement. It's a set of metaphysical claims about the structure of reality.

And believing such, one must remember that the beliefs of others are also valid. That's why one shouldn't, even as the most devout Christian ever, use a lofty position on the Supreme Court, or in the White House, to legislate morality from the top down. There is a process in place to change the Constitution. If a ban on abortion, an official religion, or anything else along those lines, is desired... then perhaps that process should be followed. If it is as popular as one would think, it should pass and become an Amendment, no?

Lest we also forget that these oaths are sworn before God as well. I have a lot of views that might interfere with doing certain jobs, and therefore I don't do them. It's like going in and getting a job as an abortionist, then stating that religious scruples prevent you from actually performing any abortions. Why'd you take the job?

No, it's perfectly fine to be incredibly religious, and still be able to separate that from the oath and the job itself. If he couldn't do that then I would hope he would nevr have gone for the job in the first place.

GBurr

11-15-2009, 01:46 PM

ok Gburr...so you are talking about protecting the minority right? So...if the tables were turned, and say...prostitution was voted by the majority to be legalized...you are ok with activist judges protecting the minority of voters who voted nay by over ruling the majority vote? TOnes

The minority's rights are not being infringed by prostitution. It is a consensual act between 2 people. In no way to does prostitution or online gambling or any other consensual moral issue infringe on your rights or my rights.

we've had this argument before Liberty Eagle and my stance is the same. I have the right to vote against issues that i do not agree with. I do not agree with immoral things..and if it comes up on a ballot, I will vote against it. Everyone should. What idiot would vote for for issues THEY DISAGREE WITH??????? TONES

You have no right to vote to restrict someone's rights. You may have the ability but it is not a right. By voting to restrict someone's actions in the name of morality even when their actions do not infringe on your rights you are becoming a tyrant.

You really need to educate yourself on the true definition of a RIGHT.

heavenlyboy34

11-15-2009, 01:53 PM

Tones, a constitutionalist's reason to be against a gay marriage amendment is because it is about special rights and that is unconstitutional. And like you said, we should also be trying to get government completely out of the marriage business altogether. No one should have special rights.

+a zillion :cool:

bobbyw24

11-15-2009, 02:13 PM

Thanks for moving this to Religion--I keep forgetting about that sub-forum

anaconda

11-15-2009, 03:09 PM

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/72/John_Jay_%28Gilbert_Stuart_portrait%29.jpg/250px-John_Jay_%28Gilbert_Stuart_portrait%29.jpg

A quote by the first Chief Justice John Jay (and coauthor of the Federalist papers):

"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers and it is the duty - as well as the privilege and interest - of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."

I'd pay to see a debate between Scalia and Jay. If he's not too busy duck hunting with Dick Cheney.

jmdrake

11-15-2009, 04:05 PM

And believing such, one must remember that the beliefs of others are also valid. That's why one shouldn't, even as the most devout Christian ever, use a lofty position on the Supreme Court, or in the White House, to legislate morality from the top down. There is a process in place to change the Constitution. If a ban on abortion, an official religion, or anything else along those lines, is desired... then perhaps that process should be followed. If it is as popular as one would think, it should pass and become an Amendment, no?

Lest we also forget that these oaths are sworn before God as well. I have a lot of views that might interfere with doing certain jobs, and therefore I don't do them. It's like going in and getting a job as an abortionist, then stating that religious scruples prevent you from actually performing any abortions. Why'd you take the job?

No, it's perfectly fine to be incredibly religious, and still be able to separate that from the oath and the job itself. If he couldn't do that then I would hope he would nevr have gone for the job in the first place.

Well the right to an abortion is nowhere in the constitution. Even the most ardent pro choice advocates admit that. Since it was "made up" by an overzealous supreme court there is nothing wrong with undoing it through the supreme court. Plessy vs. Fergusson was a bad supreme court decision. Overturning it didn't require a constitutional amendment.

That said if there was a constitutional amendment to ban abortion it would probably go much further than the pre Roe v. Wade law and ban abortion everywhere instead of just in the states that want to ban abortion.

LibertyEagle

11-15-2009, 04:16 PM

1) But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. Matt 23:11

2) Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. John 8:7

3) My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom was of this world then would my servants fight. John 18:36

Don't mistake Christianity for the bastardized religion that has been taught by apostate Christians past and present.

Now here's what it means to be Christian first and American second. At one time slavery wasn't just legal in this country it was protected by the constitution! Those who aided the escape of slaves on the underground railroad were not only breaking the law, they were breaking the "fugitive slave" clause of the constitution. And they were right to break it. So yes. If this government were to go beyond simply disregarding the constitution to the point where it ratified something something immoral into the constitution and sought to force everyone to follow that immoral edict, my Christianity would come first. That doesn't me I don't make mistakes. It doesn't mean I don't sin. But I would never allow the government to force me into immorality.

Regards,

John M. Drake

Well said. But, I also doubt that you would ever take an oath to follow such immoral laws in the first place.

constituent

11-15-2009, 04:28 PM

As a Catholic, I believe that eating meat on Fridays during Lent is immoral

why?

NYgs23

11-15-2009, 04:45 PM

why?

Because it's a religious requirement that we are supposed to obey. But that doesn't mean I advocate throwing people in cages for not doing it.

american.swan

11-15-2009, 06:26 PM

Exactly and that should be the rationale that is used for the stance. To my knowledge, there is nothing in the Constitution that interferes with the Christian faith, so there should be no problem in upholding your oath of office. Funny how that works, eh? I mean, since it was largely Christians who wrote the thing to begin with.

If you cannot abide by your oath of office, then you have no business ever taking that oath.

There is a problem here. I have to ask a question. Why didn't Catholic South America create the first US style constitution? I'll tell you why. Because Catholics, bless their hearts, aren't Protestants.

LibertyEagle

11-15-2009, 07:10 PM

There is a problem here. I have to ask a question. Why didn't Catholic South America create the first US style constitution? I'll tell you why. Because Catholics, bless their hearts, aren't Protestants.

Who said they were?

american.swan

11-15-2009, 07:14 PM

A true to the bible Christian cannot be a libertarian. I'm curious, even though you don't support porn, prostitution, etc. you would still acknowledge that the only moral position; Natural Law, specifically addresses that you can do what you want with your private property as long as it does not violate another persons private property, correct? Therefore you understand that porn, prostitution, etc. should be legal? I all ready know that no person or State can take away my axiomatic rights, but should one be punished by the State for practicing or purchasing said goods or services?

People shouldn't support abortion not because it isn't in the Constitution, but because it violates NAP and Natural Law. This is one thing that irks me with Constitutionalists. They don't understand any of the reasoning, logic, or axioms behind the Constitution. That is why the only law of the land should be the Declaration of Independance. I think it's an abomination that people can vote and make legal a crime. So if 51% of the people can vote to steal my property, or to violate my life and make that legal then it should be binding? What? There are universal axioms. No one has the right to violate my property, or my being without my consent. No one can vote to steal it, nor take it. It seems from 1776 to today we stepped back to generally the 1400s in terms of intellectual bounds. Not good, not good.

You make me think. I like that. You speak of the "principles" behind the Constitution that no one seems to know. Your right, we should know those and we likely don't. The same can be said for the Bible. The principles behind the whole thing is VERY IMPORTANT. The Bible has a very strict property rights law. If you damaged anything of another's, you had to repay/replace double. That was the law. This was codified in the minds of the early Israelite nation after it entered the land God gave it. We should do away with most of the laws today and re-establish this double repayment requirement. If my dog digs and destroys 10 of your tomato plants, I should be required to give you 20 new tomato plants, and this requirement should be such that a jury isn't required. Everyone in the neighborhood should instantly know without a moments thought that I owe 20 tomato plants. Also, I probably need to provide you with a good deal of tomatoes during the winter that those tomato plants would have given you if my dog hadn't ruined them.

constituent

11-15-2009, 08:02 PM

Because it's a religious requirement that we are supposed to obey.

"religious requirement" = moral

?

what if it is a "religious requirement" to blow up infidels? does that make blowing up infidels "moral?"

tonesforjonesbones

11-15-2009, 10:50 PM

LibertyEagle

11-15-2009, 11:09 PM

Those things that are not listed in the constitution should be put to a vote. People have the right to decide. All gay marriage has been pushed through by activist judges...NO state has voted in gay marriage by a majority. If activist judges are allowed to over ride the people..why even have a tenth amendment? Obviously the majority of Americans want to live in a MORAL COUNTRY. I don't believe the church should be involved in politics, but surely individuals are influenced by their belief systems and will vote their concience. That is right and good. Tones

No, they do not. Our Founders intended for us to be largely self-governed. Which means no government, at any level, would make all the decisions. Tones, this is what individual liberty is all about.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

If they do not infringe on your own liberty, why do you feel the necessity to infringe on someone else's liberty?

american.swan

11-15-2009, 11:10 PM

Who said they were?

Just making the point that Christians don't fit in a box.

Bman

11-15-2009, 11:18 PM

A quote by the first Chief Justice John Jay (and coauthor of the Federalist papers):

"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers and it is the duty - as well as the privilege and interest - of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."

I say again. I am not going to vote for something I disagree with..that's just silly. tones

So let me get this right.

You'd vote for Obama before you'd vote for Peter Schiff?

My goodness their aren't enough negative adjectives in the American language, nor bytes of information that could be stored for me to properly berate you over the internet.

May god have mercy on your soul. You need it.

jmdrake

11-15-2009, 11:30 PM

No, they do not. Our Founders intended for us to be largely self-governed. Which means no government, at any level, would make all the decisions. Tones, this is what individual liberty is all about.

Ummm.....it's pretty clear that the founding fathers were ok with individual liberty being abridged at the state level. The bill of rights originally applied only to the federal government. There were all sorts of state laws that most of us would snicker at today. Forget gay marriage. Even fornication was against the law in many states.

Further the idea that "no government, at any level, would make all of the decisions" is a bit of a stretch. Unless what you really mean is "no single level of government will make all of the decisions". Take abortion. Either the question has to be decided at the federal level or the state level. Right now it's been decided at the federal level. The federal government has largely preempted the right of the states to protect the unborn. If that power is taken away from the federal government and given back to the states then the state has greater power to regulate the "right" of the individual.

Note that I'm not a "pure" states rights person. I do think that there are some rights that are so fundamental that they should not be abridged and if the federal government has to preempt state law to do so then so be it. I wouldn't put abortion in that category. I don't put marriage in general in that category, unless we are going to give marriage licenses to the polygamists, polyamorists, and animal fetish people of the world.

If they do not infringe on your own liberty, why do you feel the necessity to infringe on someone else's liberty?

I have a question. What do you think of the Michael Vick dog fighting conviction? I'll explain why I'm asking this later.

LibertyEagle

11-15-2009, 11:38 PM

Ummm.....it's pretty clear that the founding fathers were ok with individual liberty being abridged at the state level. The bill of rights originally applied only to the federal government. There were all sorts of state laws that most of us would snicker at today. Forget gay marriage. Even fornication was against the law in many states.

Further the idea that "no government, at any level, would make all of the decisions" is a bit of a stretch. Unless what you really mean is "no single level of government will make all of the decisions". Take abortion. Either the question has to be decided at the federal level or the state level. Right now it's been decided at the federal level. The federal government has largely preempted the right of the states to protect the unborn. If that power is taken away from the federal government and given back to the states then the state has greater power to regulate the "right" of the individual.
No, I mean exactly what I said. Not everything was intended to be legislated. But, they wanted those things that were going to be, to be kept as close to us as possible. So that we had the maximum control over the outcome and could throw the bums out, more easily. But, they never intended for every little thing to be legislated; that was not what they believed at all.

Note that I'm not a "pure" states rights person. I do think that there are some rights that are so fundamental that they should not be abridged and if the federal government has to preempt state law to do so then so be it. I wouldn't put abortion in that category. I don't put marriage in general in that category, unless we are going to give marriage licenses to the polygamists, polyamorists, and animal fetish people of the world.
Like beyond what the Constitution allows?

jmdrake

11-15-2009, 11:58 PM

No, I mean exactly what I said. Not everything was intended to be legislated. But, they wanted those things that were going to be, to be kept as close to us as possible. So that we had the maximum control over the outcome and could throw the bums out, more easily. But, they never intended for every little thing to be legislated; that was not what they believed at all.

I think you're making the founding fathers out to be more of a monolithic group than they actually were. Some went back to their home states and legislated all sorts of stuff. And even at the federal level there was legislation that wasn't exactly pro liberty by some of the founding fathers. (Alien and sedition acts. Whiskey rebellion. Shay's rebellion. etc).

Like what beyond what the Constitution allows?

I was talking about how the bill of rights have been incorporated to apply to the states. I'm no more interested in the state of Tennessee creating a statewide "free speech zone" than I am the federal government. And yes I'm familiar with the "we can more easily throw the bums out at the local level" argument, but there's some stuff I don't even want to leave to that. I know there are people who disagree with me on that and I don't mind.

I see you didn't answer the Michael Vick question. Do people have the right to vote to abridge someone's right to do what he will with his own dog property? And I know some people might claim "animal rights" but I don't believe that something that can be legally killed or eaten, or sent to a laboratory to be experimented on has any rights. So what justifies someone taking away someone else's individual right to engage in dogfighting? (Unless you think Vick shouldn't have been arrested.)

angelatc

11-16-2009, 12:41 AM

No, they do not. Our Founders intended for us to be largely self-governed. Which means no government, at any level, would make all the decisions. Tones, this is what individual liberty is all about.

If they do not infringe on your own liberty, why do you feel the necessity to infringe on someone else's liberty?

It's the main difference between Republicans and Libertarians. I too tend to lean to the Republican side on local issues. For example, I think that it's perfectly fine that gambling and prostitution are legal in some cities, but I don't want them to be legal in mine.

The fact that I bought property in a town with standards means I'm ok with those standards.

LibertyEagle

11-16-2009, 02:12 AM

I see you didn't answer the Michael Vick question. Do people have the right to vote to abridge someone's right to do what he will with his own dog property? And I know some people might claim "animal rights" but I don't believe that something that can be legally killed or eaten, or sent to a laboratory to be experimented on has any rights. So what justifies someone taking away someone else's individual right to engage in dogfighting? (Unless you think Vick shouldn't have been arrested.)

Because you wanted to pull the discussion off-course and I chose not to partake.

LibertyEagle

11-16-2009, 02:13 AM

Bman

11-16-2009, 02:57 AM

It's the main difference between Republicans and Libertarians. I too tend to lean to the Republican side on local issues. For example, I think that it's perfectly fine that gambling and prostitution are legal in some cities, but I don't want them to be legal in mine.

The fact that I bought property in a town with standards means I'm ok with those standards.

You do understand that by taking this stance in your community you are making criminals out of people for not sharing your morality, not because they are a violent threat to the community. By doing so you draw a subjective line that can be used against yourself. It could be applied to the idea that you are OK with the standards of the Federal Government because you bought a property in the United States of America. One has to be very careful when concerning the use of public force. It really can, does, and has come back to bite most of us in the ass in one way or another.

YumYum

11-16-2009, 04:09 AM

YumYum

11-16-2009, 04:17 AM

You make me think. I like that. You speak of the "principles" behind the Constitution that no one seems to know. Your right, we should know those and we likely don't. The same can be said for the Bible. The principles behind the whole thing is VERY IMPORTANT. The Bible has a very strict property rights law. If you damaged anything of another's, you had to repay/replace double. That was the law. This was codified in the minds of the early Israelite nation after it entered the land God gave it. We should do away with most of the laws today and re-establish this double repayment requirement. If my dog digs and destroys 10 of your tomato plants, I should be required to give you 20 new tomato plants, and this requirement should be such that a jury isn't required. Everyone in the neighborhood should instantly know without a moments thought that I owe 20 tomato plants. Also, I probably need to provide you with a good deal of tomatoes during the winter that those tomato plants would have given you if my dog hadn't ruined them.

Would you take your rebellious child outside the village gates and stone him or her to death?

jmdrake

11-16-2009, 07:03 AM

Because you wanted to pull the discussion off-course and I chose not to partake.

It's not "off course". Our decision not to allow cruelty to animals is a moral one. It's not one of "rights". If I'm tired of taking care of a puppy donate it to a research lab I won't be arrested. They might do all sorts of things to that puppy that are worse than anything Vick did. But we as a society have taken the moral position that it is ok because the larger society at least benefits from it. Had Michael Vick run a chicken farm and some undercover animal rights groupie caught all sorts of abuses on film, same result. But harm an animal for sport and there is moral outrage. The reason I brought that example up is because a similar example was used in my criminal law class to explain the fact that even in a "post modern", we still make legal decisions that restrict the liberty of individuals based on sense of morality. But that morality is guided by something other than the Bible.

Regards,

John M. Drake

angelatc

11-16-2009, 07:21 AM

You do understand that by taking this stance in your community you are making criminals out of people for not sharing your morality, not because they are a violent threat to the community. By doing so you draw a subjective line that can be used against yourself. It could be applied to the idea that you are OK with the standards of the Federal Government because you bought a property in the United States of America. One has to be very careful when concerning the use of public force. It really can, does, and has come back to bite most of us in the ass in one way or another.

So go live in a town where you don't have any community standards. Vote with your feet, man!

If I wanted to live somewhere where anything goes, somewhere where the zoning laws aren't enforced and "anything goes" is the law of the land, I'd live in Detroit.

You're going to have to learn to live with the fact that most people are indeed proponents of small government.

NYgs23

11-16-2009, 09:16 AM

what if it is a "religious requirement" to blow up infidels? does that make blowing up infidels "moral?"

Blowing people up is aggressive. Not eating meat on Friday is not aggressive. If I thought my religion required me to commit an act of aggression, I would reject that religion as not being from God.

NYgs23

11-16-2009, 09:18 AM

Religion = agenda

If so, then atheism also = agenda.

jsu718

11-16-2009, 10:02 AM

If so, then atheism also = agenda.

Neither one by itself constitutes an agenda. Once again lets look to Ron Paul as our model. He is a Christian... does that mean that he has an agenda based on that? Is he pushing to replace the Constitution with the 10 Commandments or something? No, he follows his ideals regardless of how he personally feels about the issues.

jmdrake

11-16-2009, 12:44 PM

Well said. But, I also doubt that you would ever take an oath to follow such immoral laws in the first place.

I thought about this for awhile. The above statement presents an ethical dilemma. Say if you already took your oath before the constitution was changed? Take prohibition for instance. You're convinced that it's pure bunk but it passes. You are a prosecutor. Prosecutors have long been given prosecutorial discretion on when to bring charges in a case. You know there are bootleggers in your area that don't do any harm, but aren't following the law either. (The "sheriff of Mayberry" kind.) Do you resign because you know in your heart that you won't "fully uphold the constitution" as it is now written? Or do you keep your job, knowing full well that you'll look the other way unless you're really forced to do otherwise? Or say if you were elected to a governor in a free state before the constitution was ratified? You know the fugitive slave law is wrong. Do you resign, or do you simply not enforce it? I'm not certain I would resign. Resigning opens the door for someone else to more vigorously execute a law that you know is wrong. Now what about taking a job after the fact? There still is prosecutorial discretion so it's a similar analysis.

Of course this is all totally different from Scalia. A "right" to an abortion is found nowhere in the constitution. Even the most adamant pro choice advocate will admit this when pressed. Roe v. Wade is simply the way the Supreme Court has interpreted the constitution. But as a Supreme Court justice he has a right, and a duty, to interpret the constitution as he sees fit, especially in areas of murky jurisprudence such as abortion. Stari decisis is not written in the constitution. It is a common law doctrine. And stari decisis has been overcome in the past to overturn bad law. And anyone who thinks justices don't infuse their own personal beliefs into the law then you are kidding yourself. There is a legal roadmap to get to almost any decision that is even remotely controversial. Personal beliefs merely prod a justice in one direction or another.

Regards,

John M. Drake

Bman

11-16-2009, 04:24 PM

You're going to have to learn to live with the fact that most people are indeed proponents of small government.

I understand. My question is are you sure you want to give me the ability to enforce my morality over you? I certainly think not, so in that case are you going to move out if I move in and end up taking over?

I'm just trying to open your mind enough, so that you realize you are playing with fire.

What works for you, can also work against you. It's a two way street, but at least the one path won't land you in jail for not living by someone elses moral standards.

I'd suggest if Detroit would be a good place for me to live, that you may want to check out Iran.

jmdrake

11-16-2009, 05:48 PM

I understand. My question is are you sure you want to give me the ability to enforce my morality over you?

I will ask you the same question I asked LibertyEagle. What do you think of the Michael Vick conviction? Do you realize that animal cruelty laws are based on morality?

Bman

11-16-2009, 06:02 PM

I will ask you the same question I asked LibertyEagle. What do you think of the Michael Vick conviction? Do you realize that animal cruelty laws are based on morality?

You can't equate acts of violence to paying for sex. I said we have to be careful as to how we use public force. Using it against violent crime is something I would support. In nature nothing rolls over and dies. Everything living wants to live. It is far different than just a case of morality. How we punish those who carry out these acts is were public policy should be discussed. You're really trying to twist the conversation. Sure we can apply morality to the topic, but in all honesty there's nothing moral about defending life. It's quite natural.

jmdrake

11-16-2009, 11:03 PM

You can't equate acts of violence to paying for sex.

:rolleyes: Nonsense. I suppose you've never heard of S & M.

I said we have to be careful as to how we use public force. Using it against violent crime is something I would support. In nature nothing rolls over and dies. Everything living wants to live.

Even carrots want to live? :rolleyes: Besides it doesn't matter. In this society we have decided that animals have no rights. We can eat them, kill them wantonly if they are "pests", do all sorts of horrid experiments on them etc. But we make a moral decision that we have a problem with "needless" violence against animals, but we make exceptions for food, fur and federal funding. We also take certain animals off the food and fur list.

It is far different than just a case of morality. How we punish those who carry out these acts is were public policy should be discussed. You're really trying to twist the conversation. Sure we can apply morality to the topic, but in all honesty there's nothing moral about defending life. It's quite natural.

:rolleyes: I'm not twisting anything. I'm simply giving a part of the conservation that you aren't used to. This is the exact conversation used in my criminal law class to explain the fact that morality is still a consideration in criminal law. Only instead of talking about Michael Vick we talked about "crush videos". (Erotic videos where animals were crushed.) You can say it's "different" because this is "about violence", but then you are left without an explanation of why we allow violence against certain animals in certain situations and not others. There is a stronger liberty case to be made against abortion than there is against dog fighting. At least the fetus, if allowed to come to term, will at some point be granted rights under our system. Dogs rescued from Michael Vick could easily be taken to the pound and "put to sleep" if they didn't get adopted soon enough and nobody would bat an eye.

Regards,

John M. Drake

Bman

11-17-2009, 12:36 AM

:rolleyes: Nonsense. I suppose you've never heard of S & M.

Just because you can beat someone during sex doesn't mean that the two items are congruent.

Even carrots want to live? :rolleyes: Besides it doesn't matter. In this society we have decided that animals have no rights. We can eat them, kill them wantonly if they are "pests", do all sorts of horrid experiments on them etc. But we make a moral decision that we have a problem with "needless" violence against animals, but we make exceptions for food, fur and federal funding. We also take certain animals off the food and fur list.

:rolleyes: I'm not twisting anything. I'm simply giving a part of the conservation that you aren't used to. This is the exact conversation used in my criminal law class to explain the fact that morality is still a consideration in criminal law. Only instead of talking about Michael Vick we talked about "crush videos". (Erotic videos where animals were crushed.) You can say it's "different" because this is "about violence", but then you are left without an explanation of why we allow violence against certain animals in certain situations and not others. There is a stronger liberty case to be made against abortion than there is against dog fighting. At least the fetus, if allowed to come to term, will at some point be granted rights under our system. Dogs rescued from Michael Vick could easily be taken to the pound and "put to sleep" if they didn't get adopted soon enough and nobody would bat an eye.

Regards,

John M. Drake

In all honesty I don't buy into moral skepticism 100%. Especially when it comes to the act of taking life. I'm not saying people won't find reasons to take life, and sure it may be debatable on how best to punish someone for their actions (i.e. there's a reason I brush my teeth with Tom's of Maine toothpaste, amongst other things). The problem here is you won't admit that there is simply something wrong, that one does not need to be taught, with shocking an animal numerous times until it dies simply for enjoyment. You can lie to me, but you cannot lie to yourself, and if you think I'm going to buy into your nonsense on this topic you are greatly mistaken.

jmdrake

11-17-2009, 06:33 AM

Just because you can beat someone during sex doesn't mean that the two items are congruent.

Those in that lifestyle find it as much a legitimate form of sex as you find same gender sex. Both have nothing to do with procreation.

In all honesty I don't buy into moral skepticism 100%. Especially when it comes to the act of taking life. I'm not saying people won't find reasons to take life, and sure it may be debatable on how best to punish someone for their actions (i.e. there's a reason I brush my teeth with Tom's of Maine toothpaste, amongst other things). The problem here is you won't admit that there is simply something wrong, that one does not need to be taught, with shocking an animal numerous times until it dies simply for enjoyment. You can lie to me, but you cannot lie to yourself, and if you think I'm going to buy into your nonsense on this topic you are greatly mistaken.

:rolleyes: Are you serious? I didn't say there was nothing wrong with being cruel to animals. Quite the opposite. I'm saying that it is morally wrong! Just because you apparently don't know what the term "morally wrong means" gives you no right to turn this into a personal attack.

What you seem unable to admit is that even in a "post modern" society we still make moral judgments. You've made several in this last post. First you've made the judgment that violence isn't legitimate part of sex. Second you've made the moral judgment that cruelty to animals is ok if it's for food or science, but not ok for pleasure. (Or maybe you're an animal rights activist. But that's still a moral judgment). Third you've made the moral judgment that because I don't agree with you I must be "lying". It's that last moral judgment that is the most dangerous. That's the kind of moralism that leads to fascism.

Regards,

John M. Drake

Bman

11-17-2009, 07:51 PM

gives you no right to turn this into a personal attack.

Quote me where I personally attacked you? I think you're taking something out of context.

What I am saying is you are trying to apply the word moral to something that is axiomatic.

Moral skepticism is a lie for the most part. Just a way for people to try and plead ignorance.

jmdrake

11-17-2009, 10:42 PM

Quote me where I personally attacked you?

You can lie to me, but you cannot lie to yourself

I think you're taking something out of context.

No I didn't. You called me a liar. I don't mind. I've been called worse.

What I am saying is you are trying to apply the word moral to something that is axiomatic.

:rolleyes:

There is nothing "axiomatic" about the fact that violence against animals is permitted in some instances and not in others. It's a moral decision. There are certain "police powers" of the state which include health, morality and public order. Guess which police power animal cruelty laws fall under?

Moral skepticism is a lie for the most part. Just a way for people to try and plead ignorance.

Ignorance means "uninformed" and you are certainly uninformed about how morality still plays a part in the legal system.

Really, just look at what started the thread. It was about Scalia and his views on abortion from both a religious and legal perspective. From a legal perspective there's no right to an abortion in the constitution. From a moral perspective he finds it objectionable. But no matter how you slice abortion it's still an act of violence! The only reason abortion is even up for debate is that some people are not morally persuaded that the object of that violence is an entity deserving of any rights. Sadly some worry more about dead dogs than they do dead humans. So morality is very much a part of the equation. I'm not "lying" to you or myself nor am I "pleading ignorance". I'm trying to help you understand something that you seem to be having trouble comprehending.

Regards,

John M. Drake

Bman

11-18-2009, 05:59 AM

You can lie to me, but you cannot lie to yourself

No I didn't. You called me a liar. I don't mind. I've been called worse.

My opoligies for being Joe Wilson.

Ignorance means "uninformed" and you are certainly uninformed about how morality still plays a part in the legal system.

Really, just look at what started the thread. It was about Scalia and his views on abortion from both a religious and legal perspective. From a legal perspective there's no right to an abortion in the constitution. From a moral perspective he finds it objectionable. But no matter how you slice abortion it's still an act of violence! The only reason abortion is even up for debate is that some people are not morally persuaded that the object of that violence is an entity deserving of any rights. Sadly some worry more about dead dogs than they do dead humans. So morality is very much a part of the equation. I'm not "lying" to you or myself nor am I "pleading ignorance". I'm trying to help you understand something that you seem to be having trouble comprehending.

Regards,

John M. Drake

What I'm saying is that there is nothing moral about killing. People want to act like it is. Maybe the court system wants to act like it is. People use morality as a way to hide from their choices in such instances.

So give me the moral argument for shocking an animal repeatedly until it dies for enjoyment. I'd like to hear it.

jmdrake

11-18-2009, 06:34 AM

My opoligies for being Joe Wilson.

What I'm saying is that there is nothing moral about killing. People want to act like it is. Maybe the court system wants to act like it is. People use morality as a way to hide from their choices in such instances.

So give me the moral argument for shocking an animal repeatedly until it dies for enjoyment. I'd like to hear it.

I'm not sure how may times I have to repeat myself until you get it. I'm not saying that shocking an animal until it dies is moral. I'm saying that it's not moral and that's why it is illegal. This country has made a moral choice.

Actually let me qualify that. If you can make a case that there is some scientific research benefit to shocking an animal repeatedly until it dies then not only is it legal, you can get federal funding for it. Off the top of my had I can't think of one. Years ago proving that the electric chair worked was a reason I suppose. But I do know of a lot of animal research that's much worse than being shocked to death. (Being purposefully given cancer, having your head cut open and probes stuck in etc.)

Now if your argument is that the rest of society has this wrong and that such research is immoral fine. Do you think it should thus be illegal? If yes then you've just validated the point that I was making. If no then why should one form of illegal treatment of animals be legal and the other be illegal?

Regards,

John M. Drake