Political Correctness? [Archive] - SOCNET: The Special Operations Community Network

grog18b

9 November 2009, 10:10

I was thinking that exact same thing last night Bert. I had what they called "Operation Whiteline" training back in 91. Had a big book on what to look for when doing narcotics interdiction stops. I still have it.

To make a very long and detailed story much shorter... NJSP got jammed for using that traning, and our department canned it very shortly after that.

We had a guy that worked I80 very extensively. He worked a K9 unit, and made several very large interdictions. The county judge in the area he was making these arrests noticed that he was only arresting hispanic people WITH HUNDREDS OF POUNDS OF COCAINE in their vehicles. This judge took it upon himself to accuse this officer of exactly this. Racially profiling, and started throwing out all of the officers cases. Based on this, we started getting Federal assistance and the criminals were charged federally for their crimes.

It's not good enough to say that most drug mules are of hispanic origin, driving rental vehicles from NM, TX, or CA, and are not the same name as the person who signed the rental document.

THAT is profiling, and wrong... :rolleyes:

BUT, a day after 9/11 I was dispached to a call. The report was of two "men of middle eastern decent" sitting outside a resturaunt in a van. Nothing further was given. No "acting suspiciously"... Nothing. Two dudes of ME decent in a van. My response was "Okay, what do you propose I do to them?" "Go check them out." was the reply.

Amazing how fast PC can be shitcanned when planes start hitting buildings.

I am all for politeness, but sometimes, things just need to get done, regardless of if someone's feelings get hurt. I'm not talking about trampling rights, but if you are of ME decent, and you sit in an airport lounge talking about suicide bombers... Don't be shocked when someone in a uniform grabs you by the teeth and takes you to a screening room.

RGR.Montcalm

9 November 2009, 10:17

I have seen many things sillier-

I.E. everyone on the baseball team gets a trophy so that no one feels left out.

Trophies are supposed to be for recognition of OUTSTANDING TALENT other than being able to wear the correct uniform. Not everyone is a winner; not everyone is an outstanding talent or even a significant talent. they're called 'bench warmers' in the league I played in.

Giving trophies to everyone decreases the value/motivation to excel.

'Social promotion' in school- the kid has a learning disability or apathy yet gets sent on to the next grade - otherwise he'll be taking smoke breaks with his 4th grade teacher...

BOFH

9 November 2009, 11:17

I think you have painted with too broad a brush. For instance, where does political correctness end and common politeness start? What you consider politically correct someone else might consider just normal courtesy.

That is exactly the sort of discussion I'm hoping to find here. Where DOES PC end and common politeness start? How does one tell the difference?

HighDragLowSpeed

9 November 2009, 11:44

We had a guy that worked I80 very extensively. He worked a K9 unit, and made several very large interdictions. The county judge in the area he was making these arrests noticed that he was only arresting hispanic people WITH HUNDREDS OF POUNDS OF COCAINE in their vehicles.

It's not good enough to say that most drug mules are of hispanic origin, driving rental vehicles from NM, TX, or CA, and are not the same name as the person who signed the rental document.

THAT is profiling, and wrong... :rolleyes: .

I hear you. But, (playing the devil's advocate here), did every stop result in a bust? If not, how many times did law abiding citizens who happened to be renting a car have to be stopped in order to catch the bad guys with the hundreds of pounds of cocaine?

Last I checked, renting a car isn't a crime. Perhaps it's me but I just dont think that "hispanic driving a rental car on I-80" constitutes legitimate probable cause for anything. Substitute "black with FL tags on I-95" or any other such combo wherever you want. It seems like what I'd call a path of least resistance at the time and expense of a lot of law adiding citizenry that get stopped without any other cause other than looks and type of car.

I can at least see the likely rationale as to why this particular approach was halted. It has nothing to do with political correctness.

I'm not talking about trampling rights, but if you are of ME decent, and you sit in an airport lounge talking about suicide bombers... Don't be shocked when someone in a uniform grabs you by the teeth and takes you to a screening room.

I see this as being totally different from the first example.

Longrifle

9 November 2009, 12:01

That is exactly the sort of discussion I'm hoping to find here. Where DOES PC end and common politeness start? How does one tell the difference?

Miles' Law.

When looking broadly at Healthcare, efficiency and equity can be viewed from a number of different vantage points; form the providers, the suppliers (of the devices, drugs), the recipients, the payers (insurance company, government, or individual), and the regulators /policy makers. A different way to look at heath equity is by the acronym PROGRESS, which is attributed to Timothy Evans and Hilary Brown. It is an acronym that includes specific dimensions of health equity: Place (residence),Race, Occupation, Gender, Religion, Education, Socio - Economic, and Social Capital.6 It can be assumed that the weights of each of these dimensions will be change based the society that is being analyzed. This is what Rufus Miles observed in 1978 as “where you stand depends upon where you sit.”Link (http://www.lawandpolicydoctor.com/)

sfmedicw9

9 November 2009, 12:04

We had a guy that worked I80 very extensively. He worked a K9 unit, and made several very large interdictions. The county judge in the area he was making these arrests noticed that he was only arresting hispanic people WITH HUNDREDS OF POUNDS OF COCAINE in their vehicles. This judge took it upon himself to accuse this officer of exactly this. Racially profiling, and started throwing out all of the officers cases. Based on this, we started getting Federal assistance and the criminals were charged federally for their crimes.

It's not good enough to say that most drug mules are of hispanic origin, driving rental vehicles from NM, TX, or CA, and are not the same name as the person who signed the rental document.

THAT is profiling, and wrong... :rolleyes:

The Judge was an idiot plain and simple - His background prior to being a judge probably had NO footing in the real world. He was probably a PD or an ambulance chaser and prior to that he was in an insulated liberal university riding on his mommy and daddys dime.

IF he had ever worked with LE or bothered to research what the DEA and Narcotics officers know throughout the USA is that certain elements of the Drug trade ARE populated by an inordinate amount of one race or the other.

During the snow cap missions we had to attend several intelligence briefings that gave broad overviews of the entire drug trade.

when individuals were put on a huge line and block chart it was obvious that certain segments were darker or lighter if you looked at it from a distance . The light areas were people that financed, or into the MC / meth / AB traffickers, the producers were by and large hispanic and the cutters and the crack makers and consumers were by and large black.

the drug routes like the I95 corridor was pretty mixed depending on the origins and the customer at the other end - but those movers could be correlated to either end of the corridors

SO despite what the liberal politically correct folks wish - PROFILING HAS ITS PLACE in LE

sfmedicw9

9 November 2009, 12:09

Does anyone remember that rocket scientist Donna Shalala ?

She stopped the different colors of passes and ID cards at certain places because it discriminated somehow on those of lower clearances

HighDragLowSpeed

9 November 2009, 12:18

IF he had ever worked with LE or bothered to research what the DEA and Narcotics officers know throughout the USA is that certain elements of the Drug trade ARE populated by an inordinate amount of one race or the other.

SO despite what the liberal politically correct folks wish - PROFILING HAS ITS PLACE in LE

I have no issue with the statistics.

What I do have issue with is when probable cause to catch a subset of a population involved in the drug trade is extended to anyone that matches what someone's idea of how the entire population looks (or ironically should look like given many latinos and muslims look as gringo as gringo can be).

The standard of proof needs to be higher...and not for political correctness reasons.

I also find it ironic that many of those so focused against any incremental government expansion with respect to the second amendment are so willing to expand the powers of government with regards to the fourth amendment.

sfmedicw9

9 November 2009, 12:35

And to the point of political correctness its nothing more than a power tool used by tyrants to stifle the voice of reason if that reason goes against policy

1. You are a racist if you dare bring up something negative about this POTUS or one of his core constituancies. (Hispanic or Blacks)

racist is a verbal hammer used by the left to silence criticism that they cant respond to for example.

- the problem with the black population by and large isnt the whites it is the blacks themselves that have been trapped by the liberal agenda of the nanny state, welfare, no self responsibility and black genocide by abortion. The democrats want the blacks on there plantation at all costs

If you dare say the blacks should take responsibility for themselves, or dare say that the blacks dont need to attend public schools that dumb them down or that blacks dont need the government to be successful then your a racist.

If you point out that the POTUS is more Caucasian than black then your a racist

If you point out that blacks fill the prisons at a higher percentage than whites because they commit more crime NOT because of racism then your a racist.

2. When did we become so fucking uptight as a country - four words - Blazing Saddles / fucking Funny - nuff said

3. This dull boring everyone is the same and colorless attitude in society SUCKS this brainwashing to the point that every word is carefully measured and analysed by the self appointed speech nazis makes life less interesting.

4. I grew up in a world of pollock jokes, jewish jokes, black jokes, catholic jokes etc etc etc and wouldnt change that for anything. they were downright funny. To think that we have reached a point were they can ruin you for saying the word nigger twenty years ago is scary it was a different and more colorful world back then- oops there goes my chance at the congress

5. perfect case in point - my icon - the nous defion scull, the politically correct banned it at the lake because it was too - ah well too German - i mean WTF we actually had to paint over the helipad because it had that symbol

snaquebite

9 November 2009, 12:44

"Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."

Greenhat

9 November 2009, 12:47

I also find it ironic that many of those so focused against any incremental government expansion with respect to the second amendment are so willing to expand the powers of government with regards to the fourth amendment.

Same here. All of the Constitution needs to be protected with equal zeal. The oath I took didn't allow me to ignore the fourth amendment while protecting the second.

My issue with "PC" is that I see it as an infringement on the first amendment, which is another part of that Constitution that I swore to protect.

sfmedicw9

9 November 2009, 12:48

What I do have issue with is when probable cause to catch a subset of a population involved in the drug trade is extended to anyone that matches what someone's idea of how the entire population looks (or ironically should look like given many latinos and muslims look as gringo as gringo can be).

The standard of proof needs to be higher...and not for political correctness reasons.

I also find it ironic that many of those so focused against any incremental government expansion with respect to the second amendment are so willing to expand the powers of government with regards to the fourth amendment.

Your not saying anything that I dont disagree with - but that is a red herring that has been dragged to death by the ACLU and other liberal organizations

The fourth amendment guarantees protection from unreasonable searches and sets the standard that LE must meet for a warant to issue - If you want to argue that this right is being trampled on with golf shoes then Im right there with you because it is BUT

the fourth doesnt mean that LE cant observe certain segment of society more than others (profiling) and thats were things get jammed up.

IF i was an agency director with limited recourse why wouldnt i watch those that are the proving subset that commits X crimes ore closely than those with little history of committing X crimes?

Its become a national joke the image of a little old white lady getting the gestapo treatment by TSA while hundreds of middle easterners get a pass for fear of insulting that sacred cow we call Islam

Oldpogue

9 November 2009, 12:51

I also find it ironic that many of those so focused against any incremental government expansion with respect to the second amendment are so willing to expand the powers of government with regards to the fourth amendment.

Thats a very interesting observation. I understand the frustrations of many LEOs about why they can't do the obvious. But where is the tipping point to where profiling ends and obscuring the fourth amendment begins.

Greenhat

9 November 2009, 12:56

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. "

Benjamin Franklin

sfmedicw9

9 November 2009, 12:57

But where is the tipping point to where profiling ends and obscuring the fourth amendment begins.

when action is taken to detain or search

Greenhat

9 November 2009, 13:00

grog18b

9 November 2009, 14:34

I don't consider fitting a profile to be probable cause. And that is really the issue, isn't it?

It is not. But, it IS (or was until the complaints started) one step on a checklist (totality of the circumstances) that support probable cause.

sfmedicw9

9 November 2009, 14:39

Yes it has been corrupted - everytime you hit a sobriety checkpoint, everytime someone is detained on the side of the road "to wait for canines", everytime your phone conversation gets added to the national databases by the NSA or any number of national agencies, everytime you go through airport screening, anytime agencies transfer your data to someone you havent authorized , Everytime your coerced into using your social security number, and all that BEFORE we start talking about internet data mining or BEFORE we start talking about the special provisions of the patriot act

on that we agree - BUT

there is no constitutional provision limiting the fed from watching you - the guarantee of privacy is not in the constitution - i wish it was

BertF

9 November 2009, 17:21

I am going a little offline here in regard to the line below. When the crap hits the fan the rules always go out the window. Case in point. Weight control. We all know the routine, the weigh-ins, the body calipers, the tape, etc. So, we are all slim and thin. Right!

So, it is Desert Shield time, the Iraqis have invaded Kuwait and I am sitting in a steam room at Ft. Bliss. In walks this guy who was about 5'7 and must have weighed about 300 pounds. His cheeks are so fat that his eyes are squeezed up and he looks Chinese. I ask what he is doing there. He explains. "I am a Stinger instructor and retired a year ago. I am now an "over-the-road" long haul trucker and put on about 150 pounds. The Army believes we will need stingers when we go into Kuwait so they called me back." I am looking at this guy and all I can think is that when the bullets are flying, apparently nobody is getting weighed.

Amazing how fast PC can be shitcanned when planes start hitting buildings.
I am all for politeness, but sometimes, things just need to get done, regardless of if someone's feelings get hurt. I'm not talking about trampling rights, but if you are of ME decent, and you sit in an airport lounge talking about suicide bombers... Don't be shocked when someone in a uniform grabs you by the teeth and takes you to a screening room.[/QUOTE]

Parajuevos

9 November 2009, 18:11

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

I don't consider fitting a profile to be probable cause. And that is really the issue, isn't it?

Of course, the process laid out by the fourth amendment has long been corrupted by allowing searches without warrants to occur because "probable cause" exists... the SCOTUS seems to have failed to understand that the Constitution was written to make the job of government interfering in the lives of people difficult.

What I am about to relate is not an argument. I,to, believe in the Fourth Amendment but there are times when a stretch might be justifiable.

During the early Seventies, in San Francisco, a renegade offshoot of the Nation of Islam, known as the Zebra Killers, went on a months long rampage killing as many whites as they could, before being caught.

In one particularly gory case, a young man and his wife were abducted off the street, the woman was sexually assaulted prior to the suspects going to work on them with machetes. The woman was decapitated and the husband severly wounded and left for dead. He was found wandering around in an incoherent daze by a couple of my fellow officers, his face destroyed by the vicious machete attack.

Prior to the woman being sexually assaulted and murdered and her husband maimed, a couple of plainclothes police officers being cognizant of the murders but otherwise lacking probable cause pulled over the white van that the married couple were being held captive in. The cops pulled the van over, because something didn't seem right and they were hoping to stumble across some PC to take the investigation a step further. While talking to the driver and the front seat passenger, they were unable to come up with anything incriminating and failed to look into the back of the van because they had no probable cause.

The van was released, the woman was murdered and the man was maimed.

Did the cops do anything wrong? An ACLU lawyer would have stated yes. They pulled the van over without any reason other than that the people driving it were black, thus they were racial profiling.( It would not have mattered to an attorney that blacks were killing whites, throughout the city, in unprovoked attacks.)

A cop might say they did not go far enough and should have used their creativity, if they thought that these guys were suspicious enough to pull over in the first place. Had they done that, maybe the case would have been thrown out of court, due to illegal search but then the couple most likely would have not met the horrible fate that they did.

Sometimes, we cops, have to go on gut instinct. Yes, I know, the fourth amendment is supposed to preclude us for doing so but sometimes there is just something about a situation that just may force us to act contrary to the fourth amendment.

nofear

9 November 2009, 20:18

There comes a point where political-correctness needs to be recognised as being a lower priority than people's lives, especially in cases as illustrated by Parajuevos. Some legislation in Australia specifically outlines that discrimination laws can be ignored in certain cases, usually related to combat etc.

We have to also realise, that history has shown that political correctness does not work. Ruling nations remained in power only for as long as they discriminated against their enemies / slaves. As soon as they stopped discriminating, the prior-discriminated rose up and overthrew the ruling race, and themselves became just as, if not more so, discriminatory.

I can understand that the argument will be that different cultures in our nations should not be discriminated against, BUT IT GOES BOTH WAYS.

We are seeing it now, where followers of Islam are attempting to discriminate against non-followers. Should we allow this for the sake of "political-correctness"? Hell no, but doing something to protect your own way of life / culture / religion can now be used against you, according to politically-correct laws.

That is the exact opposite of the supposed intent of political-correctness, but the contradiction is still allowed, if not expected.

The joke is now, and has been for a while, the the most discriminated against person in the world is the anglo-saxon heterosexual working male, due to the nature of political-correctness.

PC should be a guideline, a consideration, to be adhered to when practicable, and not a priorty at the expense of all else.

Bravo Five Romeo

9 November 2009, 22:36

I've noticed everyone likes to talk about how the current generation has been "emasculated," and I tend to agree...but then, on the other hand, our current generation also seems quite willing and able to stand up and fight, and have seen more combat and carnage that most previous, "tougher," generations.I don't see the pussification of our youth being a problem caused by political correctness run amok.
Out of control political correctness has, however, caused many other problems.

I see the pussification of our youth being a result of an unearned sense of entitlement and an overly litigious society that has schools and parents walking on eggshells... os risky behavior is avoided and competition is discouraged.

Bravo Five Romeo

9 November 2009, 22:54

As to political correctness run amok and some of the hypersensetivity surrounding it...
one of my favorite examples is the chief of the New Jersey State Troopers back in the 90's.

Racial profiling was a hot button issue at the time and the media was eating it up.
I was driving to work and listening to the radio and caught a news story about the Chief of the NJ State Troopers.
A reporter had asked him for his opinion on racial profiling.
the chief gave a very honest adult answer that this news program played a recording of.

He explained how all suspects are generally treated equally but there are times where it is simply a matter of common sense.
He explained that different gangs were made up of members of certain ethnic communities.

As one example he mentioned that the majority of the drug trafficing throughout the state was being run by a large Haitian gang and that of there was a crime involving drug trafficing, it would be reasonnably follow to begin the investigation within the Haitian community since the Haitian gangs hire their own kind... so you might be more inclined to look at a black suspect than a white suspect.

He also, as another example, mentioned the large problem of organized crime in and around Atlantic City which is primarily run by the Russian mob.
He said if he was investigating a crime that seemed related to organized crime, he would start his investigation in the Russian community (since there are only Russians in the Russian mob) and be more inclined to look at a white Russian suspect than a black suspect.

As I was driving and listening to the playback of this answer, which was better worded than what I just wrote, I remember being very impressed with the chief's articulate and honest answer.

Then the newscaster continued speaking, saying that Governor Whitman immediately fired the Chief and apologized for such unacceptable racist remarks.
I remember screaming WTF at my radio.

That's an example of political correctness run amok.

mdb23

9 November 2009, 23:24

SO despite what the liberal politically correct folks wish - PROFILING HAS ITS PLACE in LE

Criminal profiling, yes. Racial profiling? No.

With all due respect to previous posters, there seems to be quite a bit of confusion and a lack of understanding as to what actually constitutes racial profiling. Racial profiling has occurred when an idividual is stopped or detained solely (that is the important part) due to their race.

So, for example, if a cop is driving along Anywhere Street and sees a black male driving the opposite direction, and stops him simply (and only) due to the fact that he is black, then racial profiling has occurred. This is wrong anyway you look at it.

Another example of racial profiling would be a ME male being detained at an airport by DHS for no other reason than his ethnic background. Once again, bad.

However, race is allowed to be considered as one of many factors when an officer is conducting criminal profiling. For example, let's say that there have been a string of robberies between 0200 and 0500 in the 1500 block of MLK avenue. The suspects are reportedly 2 black males, 18-20 yoa. So you are driving down the 1500 block of MLK at 0300, and see two black males between 18-20 walking together.....can you stop them?

You bet your ass.

That is not racial profiling....that is criminal profiling. The difference is that you are basing the stop on multiple, articulable, factors. The subjects are in the area in which the robberies are occurring. They are there during the time frame in which the robberies are occurring. They match the race/sex/age descrition of the suspects.

That type of stop will NOT get you in trouble.

I hear a lot of people complain about racial profiling, but most are confused as to what the term really means. Simply put, the prohibition on racial profiling means that you can't stop someone simply (and only) because of their race.

That is a practice that I am not sad to see go.....

Greenhat

9 November 2009, 23:39

Sometimes, we cops, have to go on gut instinct. Yes, I know, the fourth amendment is supposed to preclude us for doing so but sometimes there is just something about a situation that just may force us to act contrary to the fourth amendment.

I disagree. You value that couple's lives more than individual freedom. I don't. I will not (and believe that our founding fathers pledge of "our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor" as indicative that they valued liberty over life) sacrifice liberty for security or life.

Greenhat

9 November 2009, 23:40

Criminal profiling, yes. Racial profiling? No.

.... entire post...

Thank you for that post. Clarified a number of things for me.

Parajuevos

10 November 2009, 00:01

I disagree. You value that couple's lives more than individual freedom. I don't. I will not (and believe that our founding fathers pledge of "our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor" as indicative that they valued liberty over life) sacrifice liberty for security or life.

There are times, in this life, that the book doesn't always work. I'd be willing to guess that you, as a soldier, possibly encountered a few such occassions and used common sense and ingenuity to accomplish your mission, when your actions, although possibly contrary to the legal/ written procedures would have facilitated the safety of your men or the success of the task at hand. Maybe not but that's my guess.

Not everything is as black and white as you make it seem. Discretion has to play into some of the decisions that we make and yes, I value the lives of the couple more than the individual freedoms of the murdering bastards who butchered them.

Greenhat

10 November 2009, 00:24

ThisChick

10 November 2009, 00:37

I have seen many things sillier-

I.E. everyone on the baseball team gets a trophy so that no one feels left out.

Or, how 'bout "everyone gets a marriage license so no one feels left out?"

Or, " - American" so that you don't feel...feel, feel, feelings...hmmm...could it be, dare we say, "Indulgence"?

Soooooo, I'm curious...If you take a double standard and add reverse discrimination, do you get Political [I]Incorrectness?

Anyone? :confused:

'Social promotion' in school- the kid has a learning disability or apathy yet gets sent on to the next grade - otherwise he'll be taking smoke breaks with his 4th grade teacher...

LOL. I think my HS principal used to take smoke breaks with my 4th grade teacher! Like Yikes, Scoob! :eek:

KidA

10 November 2009, 07:43

Or, how 'bout "everyone gets a marriage license so no one feels left out?"

Actually no.

The government should get out of the saying who can and can't get married business. Are you going to tell two lesbos or fags that their love for each other is somehow less than someone elses because they both have funbags or ding-dongs?

Now churches can refuse to marry anyone based on their beliefs. If the Southern Baptists don't want to marry two homos, they shouldn't have to be made to. If the homos want a church ceremony, find a church that will perform it.

But the government shouldn't tell them that they can't have a civil union so that if they stay together 50+ years their partner has the right to bury them, and to be left property, and to be able to handle their affairs - or if one of them gets cancer the other is considered next of kin because, you know, they fucking love each other and live together and share their lives.

That's wrong and government shouldn't have anything to do with it.

Guy

10 November 2009, 10:02

There are times, in this life, that the book doesn't always work. I'd be willing to guess that you, as a soldier, possibly encountered a few such occassions and used common sense and ingenuity to accomplish your mission, when your actions, although possibly contrary to the legal/ written procedures would have facilitated the safety of your men or the success of the task at hand. Maybe not but that's my guess.

Not everything is as black and white as you make it seem. Discretion has to play into some of the decisions that we make and yes, I value the lives of the couple more than the individual freedoms of the murdering bastards who butchered them.
:cool:

There are differences between the book not working and tossing the principles that the book is based on.Maybe I'm tired...what does the above statement imply?:confused:

prin·ci·ple
n.
A basic truth, law, or assumption: the principles of democracy.

A rule or standard, especially of good behavior: a man of principle.

The collectivity of moral or ethical standards or judgments: a decision based on principle rather than expediency.

A fixed or predetermined policy or mode of action.

A basic or essential quality or element determining intrinsic nature or characteristic behavior: the principle of self-preservation. A lot of times I'm acting and/or moving off of training, instinct and experience.

You value that couple's lives more than individual freedom.YES! HELL YES! Quit quoting that shit out of some book...:biggrin:

Stay safe.

Greenhat

10 November 2009, 11:11

:cool:

Maybe I'm tired...what does the above statement imply?:confused:

Rules are based on principles. How we live our lives, what we choose to do are generally based on principles. What we value, what we hold dear. Just because a specific rule to protect a principle doesn't match a situation doesn't mean we throw out the principle.

YES! HELL YES! Quit quoting that shit out of some book...:biggrin:

Stay safe.

I doubt that our founding fathers were just quoting some shit out of a book when they chose to declare independence and risk their lives, property and honor for liberty. That isn't some shit from a book, that is what the United States of America was founded upon; individual liberty. It is what the Constitution of the United States, that document we took an oath to protect, is all about.

We (the United States of America) haven't started down the slippery slope, we are on a bobsled well on the way to the bottom at a high rate of speed.

"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out for me."

Pastor Martin Niemoller (at least who it is attributed to).

KidA

10 November 2009, 11:20

I doubt that our founding fathers were just quoting some shit out of a book when they chose to declare independence and risk their lives, property and honor for liberty.

Me either - they were protecting their shit from a King who wanted a portion of it. They put the Life, Liberty stuff because they were great at propaganda - they had to unite everyone together in order to win - there were numerous rebellions at the time already.

Why let some colonizing King take revenue and own land when you can overthrow his rule, and take the land (and taxes) for yourselves, and do so in a manner that only wealthy white men can do the taking and the ruling?

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad that it happened, but I think you're over romanticizing their intents.

TJ2JM1783

10 November 2009, 11:52

ThisChick

10 November 2009, 12:10

Actually no. The government should get out of the saying who can and can't get married business....But the government shouldn't tell them that they can't have a civil union so that if they stay together 50+ years their partner has the right to bury them, and to be left property, and to be able to handle their affairs - or if one of them gets cancer the other is considered next of kin because, you know, they fucking love each other and live together and share their lives.

That's wrong and government shouldn't have anything to do with it.

Again, indulgence. Homosexuals already have those legal rights. Any U.S. citizen can leave their entire estate to a pet rock if they state so in a will. Trusts, power of attorney, that stuff's been around for years....

I'm curious, what do you think the long-term ramifications would be here? And why do you think Government should not be required or allowed to moderate? If reasonable evidence supports marriage being defined as a union between a man and a woman, why should we deny it because it makes a few people uncomfortable?

These questions apply straight across the board to every PC topic out there.

IMHO, the biggest problem with PC is that it is a threat to truth. As a concerned citizen, I see our nation fractioning because we're losing sight of a final authority.

I welcome your thoughts. :smile:

mdb23

10 November 2009, 12:15

stanpunjabTrini

10 November 2009, 12:43

Regarding our Founding Fathers, I think there was at least a two point campaign, 1) independence from Britiain AND 2) creation of the Republic.

Their journey to Republic is full of ideological thought and honorable action. It was way more than self preservation and self aggrandizement......
But, I agree that though they were men of principle, they compromised their principles on more than one occasion - mostly as a result of in-fighting between each other. And, yes, these compromises had to do with freedoms and rights.

All of this stuff was relative as opposed to an absolute belief in freedom, justice or equity. Freedom is obviously noble in all aspects but to say you believe in it while passing laws to abrogate those same rights in others is always objectionable, despite the pretense of saying that is what the people want!
Incorporating same sex marriage, as much as it seems weird to me for 2 men marrying, (2 women are OK, am I sexist or what!!), the practice of freedom demands they have a right to that societal freedom in the greater society. I may not like it but this is what America is about. God bless USA!!!!!!!!!! and I mean.
p.s The present strategy is to do wrong, think wrong, and instigate sh*t, and claim to be patriotic! What a crock! I digress.

Anything that abrogates the rights of citizens should be illegal and that does not mean X has a right to inflict harm on Y. If he does, he must be put down like the dog he is! and face the full extent of the law i.e. anyone who maliciously, and with malice aforethought, with intent, to deprive anyone of their right or freedoms......

Bravo Five Romeo

10 November 2009, 13:18

I'm curious, what do you think the long-term ramifications would be here? And why do you think Government should not be required or allowed to moderate? If reasonable evidence supports marriage being defined as a union between a man and a woman, why should we deny it because it makes a few people uncomfortable? Interesting. What other individual freedoms do you think the government should restrict?
IMHO, the biggest problem with PC is that it is a threat to truth. As a concerned citizen, I see our nation fractioning because we're losing sight of a final authority.So the religious argument then. So do you believe the government should make law based on a religious belief? You might want to check the first line of the First Amendment.

ThisChick

10 November 2009, 13:40

If you don't mind my asking, what year are you (regarding law school)?

No, I don't mind - that's a fair question and probably should've been clarified in my profile.

I'm pretty green. I'd most likely be classified as a 1st year - but it depends on how much of my work will transfer in. I am studying privately, but am not a registered full-time student at an ABA school on the account that there is a publishing company looking at some of my work from my aside profession. (Feel free to PM me about that and I'll supply you with any proof you require.) Regarding my knowledge of the law, so far, my studies have focused on Business Law, but my interest is in Con Law.

I'm not claiming to be a legal expert - just a student. I'm not on this forum to argue law either - that would be suicide. Opinion and reason are a whole other matter and IMHO, fair game.

I'm confident I can defend my statements and if not, I'll have no problem conceding, or owning up to it.

I'm signing off for the day and will return tomorrow. For now, I welcome your thoughts.

NWPTrainer

10 November 2009, 13:46

Me either - they were protecting their shit from a King who wanted a portion of it. They put the Life, Liberty stuff because they were great at propaganda - they had to unite everyone together in order to win - there were numerous rebellions at the time already.

Why let some colonizing King take revenue and own land when you can overthrow his rule, and take the land (and taxes) for yourselves, and do so in a manner that only wealthy white men can do the taking and the ruling?

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad that it happened, but I think you're over romanticizing their intents.

I don't think it's an over-romanticization at all. Yes, they were concerned over the King taking their private property. The protection of the right to own personal property is the foundation of liberty. If the government can take the money that I recieved for the effort I put into something, they are taking food out of my mouth and the mouths of my family. The fact that the government, with the military and police backing them, does it, makes it armed robbery, because the unspoken threat is, "If you don't do this, we take away your life/liberty/etc...."

It's well-known that Thomas Jefferson borrowed a lot of the concepts behind the Declaration of Independence from thinkers like Locke and Rosseau. Those thinkers were all about individual liberty. Does that mean that he read all the shit he read simply because he wanted to protect his money? Maybe, but I don't think it's that simple.

I don't have a problem with limited taxation. I think we do each need to do our part to pay for the national defense. I think though, that any power not granted to the federal government by the U.S. Constitution, should not be exercised by the federal government. Nor, should the feds, in effect, if not in title, have control of things like determining a drinking age, or the outlaw of different substances by the States, through the withholding of transportation or education dollars.

How does a bureaucrat in D.C. know what a ranch kid in Montana needs to be educated about anyway?

As far as the PC argument goes, yeah, I think we have gotten too PC for our own good. PC may be a matter of good manners, but good manners are a moral issue as far as I can see...You either believe that good manners are important to a functioning society or you don't. They're either the right thing to do or not, based on your personal beliefs. Calling a black guy a nigger, or an Arab a camel-fucking hajji are both wrong. We know that. But, if we aren't in the business of legislating religion and morality, then you shouldn't be in the business of mandating what people think, which ultimately, I feel is what we're trying to do.

bobofthedesert

10 November 2009, 13:48

And to the point of political correctness its nothing more than a power tool used by tyrants to stifle the voice of reason if that reason goes against policy

1. You are a racist if you dare bring up something negative about this POTUS or one of his core constituancies. (Hispanic or Blacks)

racist is a verbal hammer used by the left to silence criticism that they cant respond to for example.

- the problem with the black population by and large isnt the whites it is the blacks themselves that have been trapped by the liberal agenda of the nanny state, welfare, no self responsibility and black genocide by abortion. The democrats want the blacks on there plantation at all costs

If you dare say the blacks should take responsibility for themselves, or dare say that the blacks dont need to attend public schools that dumb them down or that blacks dont need the government to be successful then your a racist.

If you point out that the POTUS is more Caucasian than black then your a racist

If you point out that blacks fill the prisons at a higher percentage than whites because they commit more crime NOT because of racism then your a racist.

2. When did we become so fucking uptight as a country - four words - Blazing Saddles / fucking Funny - nuff said

3. This dull boring everyone is the same and colorless attitude in society SUCKS this brainwashing to the point that every word is carefully measured and analysed by the self appointed speech nazis makes life less interesting.

4. I grew up in a world of pollock jokes, jewish jokes, black jokes, catholic jokes etc etc etc and wouldnt change that for anything. they were downright funny. To think that we have reached a point were they can ruin you for saying the word N***** twenty years ago is scary it was a different and more colorful world back then- oops there goes my chance at the congress

5. perfect case in point - my icon - the nous defion skull, the politically correct banned it at the lake because it was too - ah well too German - I mean WTF we actually had to paint over the helipad because it had that symbol

x2

Blazing Saddles, one of my all time favorites.

mdb23

10 November 2009, 13:59

No, I don't mind - that's a fair question and probably should've been clarified in my profile.

I'm pretty green. I'd most likely be classified as a 1st year - but it depends on how much of my work will transfer in. I am studying privately, but am not a registered full-time student at an ABA school on the account that there is a publishing company looking at some of my work from my aside profession. (Feel free to PM me about that and I'll supply you with any proof you require.)

That answers my question. Thanks.

Longrifle

10 November 2009, 13:59

If you point out that the POTUS is more Caucasian than black then your a racist
He does, in fact, have more DNA from his mother's side than from his father's. Science is racist.

I teach science. Therefore, I teach racism. :rolleyes:

KidA

10 November 2009, 14:28

Again, indulgence. Homosexuals already have those legal rights. Any U.S. citizen can leave their entire estate to a pet rock if they state so in a will. Trusts, power of attorney, that stuff's been around for years....

THey aren't afforded the same rights as heterosexual couples. Surely you know this.

Same sex couples have been barred from hospitals because they aren't married, even when their partner is on their death bed.

You may be willing to state that the love a gay couple has for each other isn't the same as that of a hetero couple, but I'm just not that intuitive I guess.

Princeps Belli

11 November 2009, 02:34

Political Correctness = Don't talk about the realities of life

ThisChick

11 November 2009, 09:27

Interesting. What other individual freedoms do you think the government should restrict?

I guess before I answer this question, I’d need to know what you think it means to govern a society? You might just be misinterpreting me.

So the religious argument then. So do you believe the government should make law based on a religious belief?

And before I answer this question, which religious platform are you accusing me of hailing from here? And which one do you hail from?

You might want to check the first line of the First Amendment.

Well, the First Amendment is argued and challenged in courts all over the country on a daily basis. In fact, there is a company that performs yearly audits on the State of the First Amendment. You can find information on that here:

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/sofa_reports/index.aspx

It’s definitely a broad topic and as I am not a legal expert, I will not attempt to present a case here. But, I will say that the issue of amendment has crossed my mind on a couple of occasions.

To give one example of something I would like to see amended - flag burning. It’s just flat out disrespectful to the many men and women who’ve sacrificed their lives for this country. The Administration may not always have pure motives, but when a soldier takes a bullet because he made a vow to defend the principles our country was founded on, he generally does so willingly out of a sense of duty, loyalty and love. Burning the flag is the same as pissing on his grave and is a non-negotiable to me. People who burn the flag, IMHO, are basically denouncing citizenship. I say, kick ‘em out – let ‘em find their Utopia somewhere else.

ThisChick

11 November 2009, 09:33

THey aren't afforded the same rights as heterosexual couples. Surely you know this. Same sex couples have been barred from hospitals because they aren't married, even when their partner is on their death bed.

My apologies, I should’ve been clearer. Things are a bit different here in my state on this matter. :rolleyes:

http://www.assembly.ca.gov/LGBT_Caucus/laws/2003/ab0205/fulltextchapteredbill.htm

You may be willing to state that the love a gay couple has for each other isn't the same as that of a hetero couple, but I'm just not that intuitive I guess.

KidA, I would never make such a statement. That would be arrogant and a few other things... I worked with several homosexuals in my past profession and while I did not agree with their lifestyle, I do believe that those who were in monogamous relationships loved and had strong emotional bonds with their partners. I think when it comes to the human heart’s capacity to love, it’s best to leave that matter to a Higher Judge.

And for the record, I do not hate homosexuals, I just don't agree with their lifestyle. I'm never rude with them and treat them with the same kindness and respect I'd show anyone else. You on the other hand, seem to be sending mixed signals by name calling and then trying to extend compassion towards them. :confused: You’re certainly entitled to free speech, but if it were me, I’d re-visit that one….

I'm signing off for the day, I welcome your thoughts. :smile:

Greenhat

11 November 2009, 09:43

To give one example of something I would like to see amended - flag burning. It’s just flat out disrespectful to the many men and women who’ve sacrificed their lives for this country. The Administration may not always have pure motives, but when a soldier takes a bullet because he made a vow to defend the principles our country was founded on, he generally does so willingly out of a sense of duty, loyalty and love. Burning the flag is the same as pissing on his grave and is a non-negotiable to me. People who burn the flag, IMHO, are basically denouncing citizenship. I say, kick ‘em out – let ‘em find their Utopia somewhere else.

I'm just glad that our founding fathers had a clearer understanding of what liberty means than you seem to.

Btw, do you happen to know the proper way to dispose of a damaged or soiled US flag?

MoonDog

11 November 2009, 10:24

Theodore Roosevelt's ideas on Immigrants and being an AMERICAN in 1907.

'In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language.. And we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.'

Theodore Roosevelt 1907

If people adhered to this line of thought, we'd be a stronger country.

Theodore Rex was "The Man" :biggrin:

sfmedicw9

11 November 2009, 10:26

I'm just glad that our founding fathers had a clearer understanding of what liberty means than you seem to.

Btw, do you happen to know the proper way to dispose of a damaged or soiled US flag?

As distasteful as it is I would not restrict flag burning as a form of political protest.

The first amendment is not required to protect speech that we all agree with. It is to protect speech that is unpopular, It is to protect speech that is against the government, It is to protect speech that hurts feelings.

what part of that is so hard to understand ?

ahhh B5R your in good form again

just where do you think law is derived from? western law traces its lineage from religious beliefs - not that anyone in your bubble would agree with that

J2S

11 November 2009, 11:43

My apologies, I should’ve been clearer. Things are a bit different here in my state on this matter. :rolleyes:

http://www.assembly.ca.gov/LGBT_Caucus/laws/2003/ab0205/fulltextchapteredbill.htm

TC - I would shep the statute (keycite search on westlaw) and the case law interpreting the statute before wholly hanging my hat on it. Based on my reading of the Act (as amended since 2003), domestic partners under the act receive most, but not all of the benefits of marriage. Differences remain and you msut know from briefing cases, that "substanitally equivlent" is not the same as equivelent.

As for your response to B5R, you are a law student. You should be rabid to argue your case for your opinions.

sfmedicw9

11 November 2009, 14:06

Unless of course your arguing for a stay of execution for a liberal in one of my courts post revolution

mdb23

11 November 2009, 14:15

just where do you think law is derived from? western law traces its lineage from religious beliefs - not that anyone in your bubble would agree with that

I hope you don't consider me part of "the bubble," but I disagree with this statement......

I mean, look at all of the really important rules and directives that God put forth in the Bible.......

You shall not worship and Gods before me, shall not worship false idols, shall observe the Sabbath as a day of rest, don't covet or hump your neighbor's wife, don't blaspheme, remember to tithe... there are prohibitions on what we can eat, what we can wear, etc....

How many of our laws reflect or enforce those commands? None.

We actually have freedom of religion (which completely contradicts God's commandment), freedom of speech (once again, a direct contradiction), adultery is not a crimnal activity, we aren't required by law to to tithe, or to attend Church, and there are no laws requiring us to limit our activity on the Sabbath.....

There are no laws against eating pork or shellfish, or wearing certain types of fibers, etc.......

And what about Jesus, and his, "care for the sick and the poor" deal, as well as his distaste for those who are rich (easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into heaven)?

Any laws legally forcing us to do that? To care for our sick and poor? Like universal healthcare? How popular are those ideas?:biggrin: Crosssthread points?

My point is simply that, out of the bajillion commands and laws in the Bible, the only ones that really made it into our legal system are "don't commit murder" and "don't steal." We kind of ignore the rest......completely...... and even have laws to state the exact opposite of what the Bible commands.

If you want to argue that those two ideas are based in religion, well, I would argue that anyone with a brain would know that those are bad ideas, regardless of what some cleric said. But I digress.....

Now if you had said that many eastern countries have laws based on religion, I woulda been with ya on that one.....women not being allowed to do anything, religious police caning people, etc....that's what a country with a legal system based on a religion actually looks like.

But us, France, the UK? Nah.

Back in my bubble.;)

Greenhat

11 November 2009, 14:18

If people adhered to this line of thought, we'd be a stronger country.

Theodore Rex was "The Man" :biggrin:

Teddy Roosevelt was never able to define "American". Which kind of shot a big hole in that particular statement.

Teddy Roosevelt was a "Progressive". Among other things, he believed that Universal Health Care should be in place and the responsibilty of the government. Still so sure he was "the man"?

Bravo Five Romeo

11 November 2009, 14:19

And before I answer this question, which religious platform are you accusing me of hailing from here? And which one do you hail from?It doesn't matter if I'm a Moonie (maybe before your time) or a Satanist.
When you speak of the truth of final authority, you seem to be speaking of a religious belief and that our laws should reflect that religious belief.
The founding father's were pretty clear about how they felt about that.
Whether it is a religious belief of one percent of the population or ninety-nine percent of the population, if it has no secular value, then Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

Bravo Five Romeo

11 November 2009, 14:41

ahhh B5R your in good form again

just where do you think law is derived from? western law traces its lineage from religious beliefs - not that anyone in your bubble would agree with thatThat is debatable, but more importantly, it's irrelevant.

Whether our laws were inspired by religious dogma...
...or by an inate empathy for our fellow man that allowed us to work together in primitive communities
...or by some guy who randomly arranged the letters from a box of Alphabits cereal...
We can argue the origin of the basic laws of man, but it doesn't matter regarding the discussion about how our laws should be made here in the United States.

The founding fathers were strong supporters of separation of church and state as laid out in the First Amendment and countless writings and speeches given in the years that followed that further explained the meaning and intent of the Amendment.

It's designed, as most of the Bill of Rights is, to protect individual liberties, in this case freedom of religion. Separation of church and state doesn't just protect the government from religious beliefs, but religious beliefs from the government.

sfmedicw9

11 November 2009, 16:52

No its not irrelevant - its one of the most relevant concepts of constitutional law .

The founding fathers in there ingeniousness tells us exactly where we get our rights in the Declaration of Independance :

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

Its this concept that takes the away the ability of the tyrant to suppress the rights of the citizenry. In short man cant take away what he didn't give

Its this statement that has been tripping up the liberals and globalists for decades. This is why the libs and the socialist push a Godless society so hard - because once the Creator is rendered obsolete then the Tyranny can flourish

and MDB23 i am not talking about Nohide or Mosaic nor Levitical law. I am talking about Biblical principles of right and wrong that has been codified through the years and IS a basis for western law and can be traced back to 1280 BC, Other influences have contributed to modern law such as the ancient Greek laws but to say Religious Influences were not part of our current legal framework is not correct

ThisChick

11 November 2009, 17:11

Holy Smokes, Batman! :eek:

To give one example of something I would like to see amended - flag burning.

Alright, alright, alright! I did a little more research and found enough evidence to change my position. Altering the First Amendment is a slippery slope. I concede.

For the record, I’d still have a serious problem watching someone burn the flag and not being able to stop it. I will retain my sentiments on the matter.

I'm just glad that our founding fathers had a clearer understanding of what liberty means than you seem to.

Me too. Good thing I’m a student…:rolleyes:

Btw, do you happen to know the proper way to dispose of a damaged or soiled US flag?

Now GH, I know, that you know, that I know, that you knew, I knew, you knew I wasn’t talking about this. :tongue:

Based on my reading of the Act (as amended since 2003), domestic partners under the act receive most, but not all of the benefits of marriage. Differences remain and you msut know from briefing cases, that "substanitally equivlent" is not the same as equivelent.

As to the “rights” listed for domestic partners, I was simply referencing the list KidA gave me. I could be wrong, but it looks like they’re all there and haven’t been amended. I’m open here….

As for your response to B5R, you are a law student. You should be rabid to argue your case for your opinions.

Oh man, I’m just cutting my teeth on all this stuff. The only thing I’m rabid about right now is not getting my @** handed to me on a silver platter!! LOL!

It’s alright, that which does not break me will only make me stronger, and this is a good place for me to test the waters, let alone refine my skills. I will take on bigger challenges when I feel ready. For now, please pass the Tums! JK.

It doesn't matter if I'm a Moonie (maybe before your time) or a Satanist.

Actually, I believe it does, and I’m familiar with Sun Myung Moon’s philosophies. I understand where you’re coming from regarding the First Amendment, and agree with you on most points. But, there was a point to my question and I can’t answer yours if you don’t answer mine…

Alrighty then, folks! I’m a little turned around – are we off topic here? Can someone please point me in the general direction of Political Correctness?

Signing off – I will return after the weekend. Happy Veteran’s Day.:smile:[/FONT]

Bravo Five Romeo

11 November 2009, 17:14

No its not irrelevant - its one of the most relevant concepts of constitutional law .

The founding fathers in there ingeniousness tells us exactly where we get our rights in the Declaration of Independance :The Declaration of Independence is not the Constitution and it still doesn't matter where our basic laws of civilization come from when we discuss whether a religious belief with no secular value should influence law in the United States.
the Constitution is clear on it and the writers of the Constitution have left behind many writings to clarify their positions on their meaning.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

Its this concept that takes the away the ability of the tyrant to suppress the rights of the citizenry. In short man cant take away what he didn't givethat is an excellent argument in support of gay marriage... which was what brought this up in the first place.
I also like that the language does not say Christ, Krsna, Mohammed, Xenu... or anyone else... thus not endorsing any religion in articular... something many (particularly Christians) like to forget.

Its this statement that has been tripping up the liberals and globalists for decades. This is why the libs and the socialist push a Godless society so hard - because once the Creator is rendered obsolete then the Tyranny can flourishThat would be hysterical if people didn't actually believe that. I don't think that resisting having a religious belief forced upon them is the same as wanting to pave the road to tyranny.

and MDB23 i am not talking about Nohide or Mosaic nor Levitical law. I am talking about Biblical principles of right and wrong that has been codified through the years and IS a basis for western law and can be traced back to 1280 BC, Other influences have contributed to modern law such as the ancient Greek laws but to say Religious Influences were not part of our current legal framework is not correctTens of thousands of years ago when early Nomadic tribes hunted and gathered together or the first settlers camped out and planted seeds by riverbeds... did they weed out the murderers and thieves among them and forbid this behavior because the man in the sky said so, or because they were thinking of the best interest of the group... and themselves and their families.

I'm more inclined to believe many of the basic laws regarding murdering and stealing came from the very beginning of civilization as groups of early men traveled or lived together long before they had a religion that told them these things were bad... otherwise people wouldn't have been able to coexist long enough to come up with religion. Though I have no doubt that the earliest recorded laws were written in relation to some form of religion.
But that's just my belief, so I guess it's a matter of faith. :biggrin:

OldSwabbie

11 November 2009, 17:14

The founding fathers were strong supporters of separation of church and state as laid out in the First Amendment and countless writings and speeches given in the years that followed that further explained the meaning and intent of the Amendment.

There is no such thing as separation between church and state. That was never uttered in any Government writing. It was only a phrase coined by Jefferson in a letter.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ."

This gives some of the best all around information on how important Religion was to the founding fathers.. By the way, ALL of which except 3 were active members of their churches.

Copied from "Allabouthistory"

The "Separation of Church and State" metaphor blurs the distinction between a doctrinal religion and a denominational religion. This places the doctrinal religion we have embraced in the same basket as an organized denominational religion with potential to merge with the state. The documentary evidence of the doctrinal Christian religion origin of this nation is voluminous. The Supreme Court thoroughly studied this issue, and in 1892 gave what is known as the Trinity Decision. In that decision the Supreme Court declared, "this is a Christian nation." John Quincy Adams said, "The highest glory of the American Revolution was, it connected in one indissoluble bond, the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity."

The founders were definitely Christian for the most part. At least 90 to 95 percentage of them were practicing, Trinitarian Christians. This and the additional supporting evidence below show conclusively that the concern that motivated the framers to include the establishment clause in the constitution was definitely not fear of the doctrinal religion of Christian Theism. It was understood that Christian Theism was the default state doctrinal religion. As opposed to being something to fear, it was something believed to be vital to the success of our government. Consequently, the framers feared a state denominational religion not a state doctrinal religion!

Some additional evidences that indicate Christian Theism was the national doctrinal religion are listed below:
1. Emblazoned over the Speaker of the House in the US Capitol are the words "In God We Trust."
2. The Supreme Court building built in the 1930's has carvings of Moses and the Ten Commandments.
3. God is mentioned in stone all over Washington D.C., on its monuments and buildings.
4. As a nation, we have celebrated Christmas to commemorate the Savior's birth for centuries.
5. Oaths in courtrooms have invoked God from the beginning.
6. The founding fathers often quoted the Bible in their writings.
7. Every president that has given an inaugural address has mentioned God in that speech.
8. Prayers have been said at the swearing in of each president.
9. Each president was sworn in on the Bible, saying the words, "So help me God."
10. Our national anthem mentions God.
11. The liberty bell has a Bible verse engraved on it.
12. The original constitution of all 50 states mentions God.
13. Chaplains have been in the public payroll from the very beginning.
14. Our nations birth certificate, the Declaration of Independence, mentions God four times.
15. The Bible was used as a textbook in the schools.

George Washington
While just government protects all in their religious rights, true religion affords to government its surest support.

John Adams:
[I]t is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue.

Thomas Jefferson:
Give up money, give up fame, give up science, give the earth itself and all it contains rather than do an immoral act. And never suppose that in any possible situation, or under any circumstances, it is best for you to do a dishonorable thing, however slightly so it may appear to you. Whenever you are to do a thing, though it can never be known but to yourself, ask yourself how you would act were all the world looking at you, and act accordingly. Encourage all your virtuous dispositions, and exercise them whenever an opportunity arises, being assured that they will gain strength by exercise, as a limb of the body does, and that exercise will make them habitual. From the practice of the purest virtue, you may be assured you will derive the most sublime comforts in every moment of life, and in the moment of death.

The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend all to the happiness of mankind.

KidA

11 November 2009, 17:21

Signing off – I will return after the weekend.

Oh do hurry. :rolleyes:

sfmedicw9

11 November 2009, 17:32

MoonDog

11 November 2009, 17:54

Posted by Greenhat
Teddy Roosevelt was never able to define "American". Which kind of shot a big hole in that particular statement.

Teddy Roosevelt was a "Progressive". Among other things, he believed that Universal Health Care should be in place and the responsibilty of the government. Still so sure he was "the man"?

Greenhat,

Yes, I still think he was “The Man.”
We are still searching to define what comprises a “True” American, and I hope the debate continues robustly for a long time. Hitler was convinced he knew what comprised a true German, and I don’t want us to ever go down that path.

As far as universal health care, remember T-Rex was a big time trust buster and was adamant about making sure the common man didn’t get screwed in the Big Companies pursuit of excessive profits. (In regard to health care, the debate is still ongoing. I’m not for socialized medicine, but as an experienced care provider, I know that the little people are getting screwed.)
He also initiated the National Park system, began America’s ability to project worldwide power, and generally believed America shouldn’t take any shit off anyone.
Present politicians should be so squared away.

But, back to the thread. And by the way, on Veteran's Day, thanks for your service as a Patriot to our country.

mdb23

11 November 2009, 18:00

and MDB23 i am not talking about Nohide or Mosaic nor Levitical law. I am talking about Biblical principles of right and wrong that has been codified through the years and IS a basis for western law and can be traced back to 1280 BC, Other influences have contributed to modern law such as the ancient Greek laws but to say Religious Influences were not part of our current legal framework is not correct

Those principles of right and wrong predated Christianity, and even the Bible, by centuries. Seems kinda wrong to give the Bible credit for ideals that it incorporated. Regardless, your intitial statement was that "western law traced its lineage to religion." This is what I disagreed with, and still do.

But it's one of those things that you either see or you don't. Pointless to argue....religion and politics, religion and politics.:biggrin:

Oldpogue

11 November 2009, 18:09

Yes, I still think he was “The Man.”
We are still searching to define what comprises a “True” American, and I hope the debate continues robustly for a long time. Hitler was convinced he knew what comprised a true German, and I don’t want us to ever go down that path.

As far as universal health care, remember T-Rex was a big time trust buster and was adamant about making sure the common man didn’t get screwed in the Big Companies pursuit of excessive profits. (In regard to health care, the debate is still ongoing. I’m not for socialized medicine, but as an experienced care provider, I know that the little people are getting screwed.)
He also initiated the National Park system, began America’s ability to project worldwide power, and generally believed America shouldn’t take any shit off anyone.
Present politicians should be so squared away.

x2 - Bulley for you.

Bravo Five Romeo

11 November 2009, 18:23

B5R - tell your mother to go ahead and spend the money she was saving for your law school

To discount all of American history and the writings of our founding Fathers and make such silly arguments confirms once again that liberalism is a mental disease.Discounting all of American history?
...and the writings of our founding fathers?
I don't think you actually understood any of what i wrote if that's what you took from it.

Hot Mess

11 November 2009, 18:45

We are still searching to define what comprises a “True” American

No, actually Sociologist have narrowed down the traits that make an American an America.

Bravo Five Romeo

11 November 2009, 18:49

There is no such thing as separation between church and state. That was never uttered in any Government writing. It was only a phrase coined by Jefferson in a letter. And that is an incredibly misleading point that has been echoed multiple times.
The term "separation of church and state" did not appear in the Constitution because it did not exist yet.
Years later, Jefferson first coined the term "separation of church and state" to explain

Instead of presuming that the founding fathers did not believe i nseparation of church and state because they were religious, maybe you should check some of their actual writings on religion and government.

Here's a few quotes on the matter from James Madison, the man who wrote the First Amendment, so there is no confusing what he believed: The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State
(Letter to Robert Walsh, Mar. 2, 1819).

(here, this next one is particularly good. Here he refers to separation of church and state in the Constitution)
Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and & Gov't in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history
(Detached Memoranda, circa 1820).

Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together
(Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822).

I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency to a usurpation on one side or the other or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them will be best guarded against by entire abstinence of the government from interference in any way whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order and protecting each sect against trespasses on its legal rights by others.
(Letter Rev. Jasper Adams, Spring 1832).

(Another clear expansion on his meaning in writing the First Amendment)
To the Baptist Churches on Neal's Greek on Black Creek, North Carolina I have received, fellow-citizens, your address, approving my objection to the Bill containing a grant of public land to the Baptist Church at Salem Meeting House, Mississippi Territory. Having always regarded the practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government as essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, I could not have otherwise discharged my duty on the occasion which presented itself
(Letter to Baptist Churches in North Carolina, June 3, 1811).
it appears that your assessment of the intent differs from James Madison's.

You go on to cite the mention of God in multiple government documents and that many of the founding fathers were Christians.

But that they were religious is not proof that they wanted religion to interfere with law.
They clearly saw the danger of mixing church and state and had no desire to impose their religious beliefs on others.

MoonDog

11 November 2009, 19:15

Posted by Rangers Snaplink
No, actually Sociologist have narrowed down the traits that make an American an America.

I wanted to shoot back a smart ass comment about sociologists, psychologists, etc., but I think the thread deserves better.
Would you please post what that definition is? IMO, we are a country of people from different backgrounds united in a common cause. That cause being the continued success of our great Republic.
What is the definition you are referring too?

Greenhat

11 November 2009, 20:42

No, actually Sociologist have narrowed down the traits that make an American an America.

Please point me to this.

Wootnik

11 November 2009, 21:06

Why do people take such insight on the writings of founders that aren't in the constitution. The constitution was an agreement that the states at the time agreed to be a part of (Like any other contract). If Thomas Jefferson thought and wrote about thinking about jerking off in church, and wrote about it doesn't mean that it is part of the constitution and should be taken into the meaning of the constitution.

Sames goes for separation of church and state. If the founders wanted it in there they would of put it in there. I think a lot of the stuff wasn't put in it because a lot of the states wouldn't of joined. But now some say screw the constitution, Thomas Jefferson said this 10 years later.

Bravo Five Romeo

11 November 2009, 21:24

Sames goes for separation of church and state. If the founders wanted it in there they would of put it in there.They did.
The specific phrase "separation of church and state" did not yet exist.
Why did I bring up Madison's later writings?
Simple.
Many people (including a few here) have suggested that the founding fathers did not mean separation of church and state when the Bill of Rights was written.
many have tried to suggest that since they were religious, surely they weren't as strict in their meaning.
I brought up Madison's writings to completely clear up that his meaning was, in fact, separation of church and state.

there are many historical documents that scholars can debate the specific intent of the person who wrote them.
but in this case, regarding the First Amendment, we have the author himself explaining the meaning.

Greenhat

11 November 2009, 21:34

Many people forget that the government that the Colonists had just finished fighting a revolution from had a state church (the Church of England) as well as being very aware of the influence of Catholicism in France, Italy, etc. The founding fathers may not have wanted an elimination of spiritual concerns from how the United States worked, and pretty much all agreed on the concept of a creator (but how involved that creator was with day to day life they didn't agree), but they also clearly did not want any church to have influence on government, nor the government to have anything to do with supporting any single church.

Longrifle

11 November 2009, 22:42

NWPTrainer

11 November 2009, 23:12

It seems to me that, in our zeal to promote a phrase NOT in the Constitution - "separation of church and state," we all too readily ignore one that IS - "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

When a valedictorian is forbidden from referring to God in a public arena we have clearly gone from "Freedom of Religion" to censorship that violates both First AND Second Amendments.

I'll agree with this. I had this very conversation today.

One issue that I have had is actions by other atheists. I don't have to believe in God to believe in good manners. What does it hurt, when someone chooses, or a group of people choose, to pray, for me to just bow my head? If I am comfortable in my lack of faith, then it shouldn't bother me if others DO have face. It doesn't matter if you are an atheist, Jew, Muslim, or a Zorasterist...if the majority of people in a given location are a different religion, and choose to pray publicly, why should it bother you? Just get over it already.

(This is not meant to imply that ANYONE should stand by silently while the majority religion chooses to IGNORE the existance of their faith, nor should they stand by silently when anyone tries to INTERFERE or DESTROY or denigrate their faith.)

Hot Mess

12 November 2009, 00:20

What is the definition you are referring too?

I'm referring to our culture because that is what makes an American an American. This is what a couple Sociologist have to say,

American sociologist Robert K. Merton suggested that the most important values in American society are wealth, success, power, and prestige, but that everyone does not have an equal opportunity to attain these values. Functional sociologist Talcott Parsons noted that Americans share the common value of the “American work ethic,” which encourages hard work. Other sociologists have proposed a common core of American values, including accomplishment, material success, problem-solving, reliance on science and technology, democracy, patriotism, charity, freedom, equality and justice, individualism, responsibility, and accountability.

So while varied, these could be called America's core cultural belief's, thus what makes an American an American.

Scratchy

12 November 2009, 00:23

I'm referring to our culture because that is what makes an American an American. This is what a couple Sociologist have to say,

So while varied, these could be called America's core cultural belief's, thus what makes an American an American.

I"m just curious as to where you got those quotes from?

Hot Mess

12 November 2009, 00:48

I"m just curious as to where you got those quotes from?

Where people get all good sources from, Cliff's Notes:biggrin: CliffsNotes.com. Cultural Values. I was thinking of Persons from a book I've read, but I'll be damned if I could find it, or the quote. So I did a little interweb searching, as I remembered generally what he discussed.

Greenhat

12 November 2009, 03:48

It seems to me that, in our zeal to promote a phrase NOT in the Constitution - "separation of church and state," we all too readily ignore one that IS - "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

I agree entirely. And I believe that our founding fathers fundamental belief in liberty has been completely lost. Patrick Henry's words "Give me liberty or give me death" have been forgotten in terms of what they meant.

Greenhat

12 November 2009, 03:53

I'm referring to our culture because that is what makes an American an American. This is what a couple Sociologist have to say,

American sociologist Robert K. Merton suggested that the most important values in American society are wealth, success, power, and prestige, but that everyone does not have an equal opportunity to attain these values. Functional sociologist Talcott Parsons noted that Americans share the common value of the “American work ethic,” which encourages hard work. Other sociologists have proposed a common core of American values, including accomplishment, material success, problem-solving, reliance on science and technology, democracy, patriotism, charity, freedom, equality and justice, individualism, responsibility, and accountability.

So while varied, these could be called America's core cultural belief's, thus what makes an American an American.

Let's see... first, it's fairly obvious that the sociologists don't agree on what makes an American an American. Second, I can point to quite a few great Americans who don't match some or all of those characteristics. I can also point to drug dealers and gangsters who do.

Given those points, I'd say the sociologists were full of shit (not a great surprise there).

Hot Mess

12 November 2009, 09:34

Let's see... first, it's fairly obvious that the sociologists don't agree on what makes an American an American. Second, I can point to quite a few great Americans who don't match some or all of those characteristics. I can also point to drug dealers and gangsters who do.

Given those points, I'd say the sociologists were full of shit (not a great surprise there).

Sociologist who don't agree and are full of it, I'll never hear of it!:biggrin:

Sociology, like psychology, has different lenses to which interpret the world, so it's a matter of how one would like to look at it.

MandMmom

12 November 2009, 16:43

As someone who had the bizarre pleasure of trying to "help" my 18 month old daughter hang onto her Elmo in the Denver airport while they super-searched our jogging stroller, diaper bag, etc. -- and had to have her walk through the metal detector alone (when she is freaked out enough by the people trying to steal her Elmo :smile:), with hubby carrying federal LEO ID, I find the PC thing annoying when it dictates policy. I believe that true PC applies to how we interact with one another--and that manners should prevail. PC applies to how I talk with others. PC applies to how I talk about others (especially in front of my child).

And when people who do lots of crime look like me, I expect to be targeted. When middle-aged white women are responsible for/tied to/implicated in things, then I will gladly (and patiently) submit to random searches. I now accept that some veterans may be a little unsettled about interacting with mental health providers after the fu&*#*@ did what he did at Fort Hood. While I obviously didn't do that, I respect that some folks will feel a little edgy about us in the field--thinking we all might be nuts or dangerous. The more obvious targets of more discomfort are the umpteen physicians in my hospital who are obviously of middleeastern descent. And I would be lying if I didn't say that I stepped closer to the elevator control panel when one got on with me Monday--not proud of that, but rather feel slightly bad about my "stereotype" than not be able to hit the call button if needed.

So I think that we interact nicely with each other, but quit trying to pretend that there are not correlations of appearance to crimes. I'm all for the police stopping all Hispanic male drivers between 18 and 65 on I-85 who have no women or children in the car and who are driving rentals. Sounds like a huge percentage of drug mules fit that description. The idea that he should mix in bogus stops of families, old folks, teenage girls, rednecks (and I can use that term, because some folks would say I am one), etc. I think there is a saying about extend the olive branch of peace, but have a plan to kill everyone in the car . . . makes sense to me.

The reality is we categorize to simplify how we view the world. And our appearance is nothing but luck -- I didn't chose to be a girl, white, or anything else. So my sympathy goes out to the folks who look like the folks that do bad stuff--my response would be "Sorry. Be polite. Understand that others who look like you do have done bad stuff. Don't whine. Cowboy up and keep your self respect." And law enforcement folks should be professional with everyone.

PS: Correlation doesn't mean causation--but it's worth checking out, and some would argue it is stupid to ignore. If we know rape and ice cream sales positively correlate (hot weather, people outside more at night, etc.), does it make sense to not patrol isolated (i.e., potential sites of assault) more when it is summer than the dead of winter? If more home burglaries happen around Christmas, does it make sense to deny that and not patrol residential neighborhoods more around the holidays?

SOTB

12 November 2009, 16:57

Those principles of right and wrong predated Christianity, and even the Bible, by centuries. Seems kinda wrong to give the Bible credit for ideals that it incorporated....Bah. Even if this were true -- and of course it cannot possibly be, sheesh -- next you'll be stating that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago -- those principles without attribution to a deity are worthless.

Because everyone knows that without religious guidance, man has no concept of morals and ethics....

MoonDog

12 November 2009, 17:49

MandMmon,

I will fight a terrorist clinching a knife in his teeth, shooting an AK and with Symtex strapped to his butt, I am trembling, wetting my panties and in a postion of total subserviance to your dominance in regard to your situation in the airport. Pleeese don't ever mistake me for a TSA person. :eek:

KidA

12 November 2009, 18:21

your post?

Far fetched, sure, but what if that stroller were packed with an explosive or bio/chem agent because someone tapped your computer, saw where you were travelling, and wanted to blow up that plane or airport?

MandMmom

12 November 2009, 19:19

We were very nice and tried to joke about it--though it put us in a pinch making our flight (good thing it was a jogging stroller :rolleyes:).

Statistics don't predict behavior -- however, they can direct my attention. Maybe its because if I accept that any and every person at the airport could be the next "home grown" that my brain would explode and I would be toting my husband's new assault rifle (he is so excited, it's the S&W one), but the way my brain looks at risk is by base rate. I'm a diagnostician, as was my wise old, junior high drop out, smart grandpa who taught me (among other things) that when you grow up in Missouri, and hear hoofbeats, think horses--not zebras. I guess if you grew up in Africa, you should think zebras, or antelopes, or . . . .

Anyway, you look at those who have done what you are trying to stop and you look for commonalities. Well, Y chromosome is a place to start. Other than a few suicide bombers in the Iraq, we haven't had a lot of trouble with women. So, that narrows it down. Haven't had a lot of a trouble with old guys--they either don't live long enough, or mellow with age, or something. So far the Catholics haven't done much in the way of attacks on America/Amerians--or if they have, it hasn't been attributed to them. Neither have the Jewish folks... you get the picture.

Statistics do not predict the behavior of any one individual (hence, common courtesy and good manners); however, members in certain groups (gender, race, religious, marital status, birth order, height, weight, whatever) are responsible for a disproportionate amount of harm. Sooooo, how many times do you reach down to pet a pit bull/rottweiler/doberman/chow/cocker spaniel/chihuahua before showing some caution?

I think its all about respect. Acknowledge the beast and respect it. When PC causes people to try to deny the presence of evil, and what it has looked like in the past, that is when it is dangerous. But your point is well taken--focusing on certain groups could blind us to someone trying to do harm but doesn't look the part.

I can't imagine the survivor guilt of the psychiatrists who supervised whatshisname. If one of my trainees did something like that, I would be racking my brain about what I had missed. Because I can promise you, if one of my trainees showed signs of being a freak, that is a hill I'm willing to die on--career be damned--I have to look in the mirror in the morning, and I have to look into the eyes of my children, and I would have to look into the eyes of the family members of the fallen. **shivers**

Can I tell you that I got an application to join the major "association" of my field, and when I got to the question on gender and my options were (1) male, (2) female, and (3) transgender, that I thought "Wow--really trying not to offend anyone and include everybody. I am soooo getting old . . . ". There is a great example of PC :biggrin:

MandMmom

12 November 2009, 19:28

If someone had tampered with my stuff, I would be glad they checked it and caught it. Though we do watch our stuff and don't leave it unattended, and the dogs keep the house secure (I think, unless they are being bribed by meat peddling burglars :rolleyes:).

But when they skip the single male, travelling alone, who is between 18-40 and has a tan, who has been attending a certain mosque, and emailing certain folks because they don't want to "profile" and focus on us and Grandma Moses-- that is when it is stupid. Plain stupid. It seems more reasonable to do profiling or check everyone than random. Has anything ever come of a random search? I don't think they have ever stumbled onto anything . . . but I honestly don't get to follow the news like I did pre-mommyhood :redface:

grog18b

12 November 2009, 21:20

Far fetched, sure, but what if that stroller were packed with an explosive or bio/chem agent because someone tapped your computer, saw where you were traveling, and wanted to blow up that plane or airport?

In our response to suicide bombing class, we were tasked with coming up with a way terrorists could infiltrate a political rally between high profile politicians, with explosive devices, to eliminate target(s), and cause a large amount of collateral damage.

One of my favorite things during my military time was being assigned to be OPFOR... So I accepted the challenge for my group.

To make a long story short, my plan involved using a couple sets of handicapped people, in wheelchairs, equipped with modified O2 cylinders containing high explosives and shrapnel and each team would also have a nurse/handler. Also, an ambulance modified into a large VBIED with a white female driver and white passenger wearing EMT clothing.

The plan being, when the target arrived on location, the handicapped people would be placed right up front, close to the target. (As there is always room up front for handicapped people.) When the rally began, one of those people would pretend to have, or actually have a medical emergency requiring an ambulance. The signal to detonate being the arrival of the VBIED ambulance, or the closeness of the actual target. The terrorists could use real handicapped people, with nurses as handlers/initiators.

If I could come up with this plan at a moments notice, what makes you think terrorists couldn't come up with something much better with all the time in the world to think it up? The best attack plans always involve some type of deception. Profiling has a place, but never, ever, rely on it 100%.

Never assume terrorists will conform to the norm. They have already shown outside the box thinking capability.

So... Hopefully this answers the question of why screeners are searching white folk's strollers and diaper bags. :smile:

Lannister

12 November 2009, 22:20

...[brevity edit]...
So... Hopefully this answers the question of why screeners are searching white folk's strollers and diaper bags. :smile:

And the reason why simply searching all hispanic males traveling alone on I-85 in rental cars won't work because they will simply adapt and start getting their white girlfriends in non-rentals to mule it on up the road...;)

Mean-while the SP are busy on the side of the road stopping a bunch of drug-free decoy rental cars driven by hispanic men belligerent JUST Enough to keep them occupied... while their white gurl-friends with the 500lbs of product in the trunk drive right on by...

Yeah... another win for racial profiling...:rolleyes:

ThisChick

13 November 2009, 14:04

So the religious argument then. So do you believe the government should make law based on a religious belief?

Let me be clear - I don’t believe that government is to be advocating any religious system. I believe that government should advocate and uphold truth. Now, if that truth happens to coincide with a particular belief system, then so be it.

Religious ideology offers moral argument. For instance, only the Judeo-Christian religion fosters the belief “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”. And, law is reflective of moral judgment. Our values of right and wrong are based on some kind of worldview and also happen to be the centerpiece of religion. In other words, from the two we derive our beliefs of how life works and direct our actions accordingly.

And we know that truth exists. The belief that there is no such thing as absolute truth is false and such claims are crushed under their own weight. For instance, if you make the statement, “I cannot construct a sentence that is more than 3 words long”, then you’ve just contradicted yourself and proven an absolute truth because you did in fact construct a statement that was more than 3 words long.

Political Correctness at best is an obfuscation of truth. I will defer to my original position that “PC is a direct threat to truth” because of the above and also because I believe it is censoring free speech. If I’m reading you correctly, I believe we are at least in agreement on the free speech position. =)

Bottom line - truth should always be the final authority. The reason for my asking the above questions were because I believe you are marginalizing me for subscribing to a religious belief that you do not. Discussing the differences in our religious beliefs was not my intention there. I hope that clears things up. Peace. :smile:

Signing off -

TC

KidA

13 November 2009, 14:15

For instance, only the Judeo-Christian religion fosters the belief “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”.

You may want to re-read the New Testament about how women should be treated and subjugated before stating that argument with fact.

Unless by "men" you mean "dudes"

We won't even touch the slavery issue and the bible.

67 Fastback

13 November 2009, 14:23

Religious ideology offers moral argument. For instance, only the Judeo-Christian religion fosters the belief “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”.

Uh...no.

That would be John Locke - Second Treatise on Civil Government.

Both the old testament and the new testament go to great lengths to draw a distinction between god's chosen people, or those who are "saved" in the later book, and those who aren't. This dichotomy is not what we would call egalitarianism.

Edit: I will point out that Locke relies on "nature" rather than "creator." Jefferson added the latter term. It is, nonetheless, borrowed or subsumed philosophy

smp52

13 November 2009, 14:42

Religious ideology offers moral argument. For instance, only the Judeo-Christian religion fosters the belief “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”. And, law is reflective of moral judgment. Our values of right and wrong are based on some kind of worldview and also happen to be the centerpiece of religion. In other words, from the two we derive our beliefs of how life works and direct our actions accordingly.

What is right and wrong has been evolving as long as man has existed. From cavemen to today, it has been a process that includes several inputs. Religion is only one of them. Practical reasons, logic, disease, fall/rise of empires, etc. has contributed to the universal set of morality. In some cases, the factors have contributed positively, in other cases, quite negatively.

IF we're talking about religions that foster the individual, vs. society, actually eastern religions take the cake on that one. Despite that, both eastern and western religions face similar issues - good and bad.

Circling back to political correctness - there is an attempt to be polite and civil, which is fair game. However, when being polite and civil interferes with being honest, IMO PC is the result. One should be able to point out an issue, while being civil and polite. Some of the best orators and politicians do so. Mandating political correctness as law is subversive to the individual.

Greenhat

13 November 2009, 14:50

Uh...no.

That would be John Locke - Second Treatise on Civil Government.

Both the old testament and the new testament go to great lengths to draw a distinction between god's chosen people, or those who are "saved" in the later book, and those who aren't. This dichotomy is not what we would call egalitarianism.

Edit: I will point out that Locke relies on "nature" rather than "creator." Jefferson added the latter term. It is, nonetheless, borrowed or subsumed philosophy

Dang it, there you go and insert facts into the argument. Nicely played. ;)

BOFH

13 November 2009, 15:05

Your post...

In reference to your post, let me say this:

I have my own religious beliefs, which are often contrary to my political beliefs. I believe, for instance, that abortion is wrong. I still vote pro-choice. Why is this, you ask? Simple. I don't believe the government should try to legislate morality. Same reason I push for the legalization of drugs. I also believe any public servant should put aside his or her own beliefs, whether they are based in religion or not, and support the constitution.

Think about it...if "devout," Christians ran this country, I might be forced to avoid dancing with my wife. (Southern Baptist) Or I might be forced to avoid eating meat during lent (Catholic). Or my wife might be forced to have long hair and avoid wearing pants (pentecostal).

What about Jews? What if government functioned based on Levitical law? Should I be banned from eating pork, or shellfish? Should I be stoned to death for working on the Sabbath?

Every religion has their own version of "sharia," and I think it has no place in government. Religious beliefs/religious-based laws are a personal responsibility. Government shouldn't bear the "responsibility," of making sure I stick to my religious convictions, plain and simple.

I DO dance with my wife, who has only moderately long hair, and seldom wears dresses. I also eat meat on fridays during lent. Deal with it, Church.

As an aside, when pushing for the view that religion has a place in law, remember that Paul said "All things are lawful to me." Should THAT be somewhere in the US Code? "Hey, officer, it's all good...Paul said all things are lawful..." Or, how about the whole "let him who is without sin cast the first stone," thing? Never understood how any Christian could advocate religious law, AND the death-penalty. You absolutely CANNOT reconcile the two.

$0.02 from someone who, at one time, read the Bible quite a lot.

NWPTrainer

13 November 2009, 16:15

Well said Irishsquid! Thank you.

random

13 November 2009, 16:48

In reference to your post, let me say this:

I have my own religious beliefs, which are often contrary to my political beliefs. I believe, for instance, that abortion is wrong. I still vote pro-choice. Why is this, you ask? Simple. I don't believe the government should try to legislate morality. Same reason I push for the legalization of drugs.

I'm not about to get into a debate on abortion or not, but I would like to point out that the two issues are not necessarily both issues of morality. I believe abortion is wrong because it violates an individual's right to life without due process of law. Nothing religious about it. Same reason I don't have a problem with the legalization of drugs. So yes, while some people do believe the government should legislate morality and therefore ban abortion, that is not the only pro-life stance out there.

SOTB

13 November 2009, 16:58

$0.02 from someone who, at one time, read the Bible quite a lot.Well written, dude. Fucking well written....

BOFH

13 November 2009, 17:38

So yes, while some people do believe the government should legislate morality and therefore ban abortion, that is not the only pro-life stance out there.

I can understand that, and do have other arguments, but as you said, this is neither the time nor place for a pro-life/pro-choice argument...I'll humbly suggest that that discussion should wait until beer can be consumed to dull the pain of the fistfight that usually erupts when abortion is discussed.

random

13 November 2009, 18:03

I can understand that, and do have other arguments, but as you said, this is neither the time nor place for a pro-life/pro-choice argument...I'll humbly suggest that that discussion should wait until beer can be consumed to dull the pain of the fistfight that usually erupts when abortion is discussed.

As I'm neither a fan of beer or fistfights, I'm very much okay with a rain check. Especially since I don't think legislation is really the issue, it's why a woman finds herself in the situation where she needs/contemplates one. So rather than debate the issue on an internet forum, I'd prefer to take the time to offer someone an alternative if it's in my power to do so.

But enjoy the beer anyways.

KidA

13 November 2009, 18:11

As I'm neither a fan of beer or fistfights,

Damn seems every day I am discovering some poster I thought was a dude is really a chick :biggrin:

BOFH

13 November 2009, 18:46

Damn seems every day I am discovering some poster I thought was a dude is really a chick :biggrin:

Well said. And on that note, I'm off work in 14 minutes, and going home to have a beer. You all have fun now.

random

13 November 2009, 22:27

Damn seems every day I am discovering some poster I thought was a dude is really a chick :biggrin:

Lol, I really can't decide if that's an insult or a compliment. Probably both. :rolleyes:

TPD1280

13 November 2009, 23:30

When I first started reading this thread I thought it was about Political Correctness, i.e. stuff like "differently abled" instead of handicapped or crippled, or "person of color" vice "racial minority".

All that garbage is feel good revisionism crammed down the throats of the majority by a very loud minority.

Interestingly enough, it is largely the same group of people who refuse to eat meat, chain themselves to trees, and demand inclusion and acceptance while refusing to include or accept anyone whose viewpoint differs from their own.

A bunch of emasculated men with long hair and purses accompanied by females with longer hair in their armpits than they have on their heads.

As for the racial profiling aspect, if the driver of the car has comitted no violation of the Motor Vehicle Laws of the State in which he is driving, then the stop is no good. Period. It doesn't matter how many tons of cocaine he has crammed into his car. Probable cause is still required.

If the arresting officer can articulate a legal reason for stopping the car, and does not detain the vehicle and it's occupants for longer than "a reasonable amount of time" as granted by the SCOTUS, then people can whine all they want. The stop is good.

Criminal profiling is good and it does work, but Law Enforcement is still held to obeying the rules of the game.

I had an FTO whose favorite stop was DWC, or "Driving While Camaro". Camaro's (or Firebirds) are the preferred car of the Mulleted Meth Maggot. Friday or Saturday night, any time after 2200, the piece of shit Camaro will have a driver who is suspended, or has a warrant, or no insurance, and there will be at least one roach in the ashtray, and a small amount of meth in the drivers pocket. The peroxided blonde in the passengers seat will either be a typical skeletal tweaker, or she will be 30 lbs overweight, crammed into pants that are two sizes too small and she will be wearing a either a concert t-shirt or one with the call letters of the local rock station. The stereo will be playing Journey, Foreigner, Zeppelin, ZZ Top, or Skynard.

The key was waiting for the inevitable operating or equipment violation.

He was never wrong.

The only exception was if the car was a pristine '60's vintage Camaro and the driver was a middle aged dude who only drives it on sunny days.

BTW:

Btw, do you happen to know the proper way to dispose of a damaged or soiled US flag?

Step one is to separate the Union (blue part with stars) from the stripes. The two remaining parts are no longer considered a U.S. Flag, and are THEN to be burned.

Bravo Five Romeo

13 November 2009, 23:33

Let me be clear - I don’t believe that government is to be advocating any religious system. I believe that government should advocate and uphold truth. Now, if that truth happens to coincide with a particular belief system, then so be it.

Religious ideology offers moral argument. For instance, only the Judeo-Christian religion fosters the belief “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”. And, law is reflective of moral judgment. Our values of right and wrong are based on some kind of worldview and also happen to be the centerpiece of religion. In other words, from the two we derive our beliefs of how life works and direct our actions accordingly.

And we know that truth exists. The belief that there is no such thing as absolute truth is false and such claims are crushed under their own weight. For instance, if you make the statement, “I cannot construct a sentence that is more than 3 words long”, then you’ve just contradicted yourself and proven an absolute truth because you did in fact construct a statement that was more than 3 words long. (the second part of this paragraph has nothing to do with the first)

Political Correctness at best is an obfuscation of truth. I will defer to my original position that “PC is a direct threat to truth” because of the above and also because I believe it is censoring free speech. If I’m reading you correctly, I believe we are at least in agreement on the free speech position. =)

Bottom line - truth should always be the final authority. The reason for my asking the above questions were because I believe you are marginalizing me for subscribing to a religious belief that you do not. Discussing the differences in our religious beliefs was not my intention there. I hope that clears things up. Peace. :smile:

Signing off -

TCYou seem to confuse faith with truth.
You keep referring to your religious beliefs as truth or absolute truth as though they are unquestioned facts that all have accepted.
Please take no offense because I mean none.

I admire your conviction in your religious beliefs.

If, for example, I were a devout Muslim, could I make law that you would have to live under based on my religious beliefs since, after all, I know my religious beliefs to be absolute truth?

This is why the First Amendment was written... to prevent well intentioned men of faith (acting on what they know to be true) from forcing their beliefs on others.

BTW, I'm not Muslim, I'm just illustrating a point.

ThisChick

14 November 2009, 00:11

Uh...no.That would be John Locke - Second Treatise on Civil Government...Both the old testament and the new testament go to great lengths to draw a distinction between god's chosen people, or those who are "saved" in the later book, and those who aren't. This dichotomy is not what we would call egalitarianism...Edit: I will point out that Locke relies on "nature" rather than "creator." Jefferson added the latter term. It is, nonetheless, borrowed or subsumed philosophy

Are you referring to the same John Locke who wrote a letter to the Right Rev. Edward, Lord Bishop of Worcester stating:

"The holy scripture is to me, and always will be, the constant guide of my assent; and I shall always hearken to it, as containing infallible truth, relating to things of the highest concernment. And I wish I could say, there were no mysteries in it: I acknowledge there are to me, and I fear always will be. But where I want the evidence of things, there yet is ground enough for me to believe, because God has said it: and I shall presently condemn and quit any opinion of mine, as soon as I am shown that it is contrary to any revelation in the holy scripture. But I must confess to your lordship, that I do not perceive any such contrariety in any thing in my Essay of Human Understanding."http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=1724&chapter=80695&layout=html

Or the John Locke who, in the Two Treatises on Government you referenced, stated:

“The Law of Nature stands as an eternal rule to all men, legislators as well as others. The rules that they make for other men’s actions must…be conformable to the Law of Nature, i.e., to the will of God.” (Locke, Book II, p. 285, Chapter XI, §135.)

“Laws human must be made according to the general laws of Nature, and without contradiction to any positive law of Scripture, otherwise they are ill made.” (Locke, Book II, p. 285, Chapter XI, §135, n., quoting Hooker's Eccl. Pol. 1. iii, sect. 9.)

Or the John Locke who wrote a verse-by-verse commentary on Paul’s Epistles, a topical Bible, titled A Common Place-Book to the Holy Bible, that listed the verses in the Bible, subject by subject, the John Locke who repeatedly defended Christianity in his books, The Reasonableness of Christianity as Delivered in the Scriptures, A Vindication of the Reasonableness of Christianity and A Second Vindication of the Reasonableness of Christianity. Who was also considered a Theologian in his time? Who in the first treatise on government invoked the Bible in 1,349 places and in the second treatise, in 157 places?

I guess I’m trying to see your point…? If Locke’s influence is to be considered, we should also consider that he was influenced by a Judeo-Christian worldview thus supporting my belief that the statement ‘all men were created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights’ is rooted in a Judeo-Christian worldview.

And regarding the reference to equality in the Bible vs. the statement "all men were created equal...", I could be missing it, but I don’t believe you can apply the Egalitarian argument here simply because when we talk about the inherent worth/value of a human being, and I stress inherent, the concepts of saved vs. lost, chosen vs. not, don’t come into play. Human beings are valuable simply because they are humans.

I welcome your thoughts. :smile:

Greenhat

14 November 2009, 00:40

Human beings are valuable simply because they are humans.

Are you claiming that as a universal truth?

If so, I have some suggestions for your next vacation.

As for your comments regarding my ancestor, his faith and his reasoning are clearly seperate items, especially when you consider the religious doctrine of the day. John Locke's comments regarding the Lord, etc. were effectively mandatory in his day and age to avoid being called a heretic. That is not to say that he didn't believe in a creator. However, he was not a fool, either. And his writings clearly stirred up concerns in the church (after all, John Locke wrote that the power of those who govern was derived from the people, not from God), and his letter to the Lord Bishop makes a lot more sense in that context.

Consider how Isaac Newton was treated by the church. John Locke being diplomatic was a smart thing.

HighDragLowSpeed

14 November 2009, 03:11

This is why the First Amendment was written... to prevent well intentioned men of faith (acting on what they know to be true) from forcing their beliefs on others.

Here's the kicker though - for all of the mumbo-jumbo around the founding fathers and free speech, it wasn't until around the time of WW1 when the road to free speech started to be anywhere near as protected as it is now. Ironically, you can thank the Socialists (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0249_0047_ZS.html) (weakened with Whitney_v._California (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitney_v._California)), Communists (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0268_0652_ZS.html) (overturned in Brandenburg_v._Ohio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio)), and Suffragettes for today's protections around free speech to a large degree.

The Sedition Act (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_States_Statutes_at_Large/Volume_1/5th_Congress/2nd_Session/Chapter_74)is a prime example. Sections 1 and 2 are pretty telling in terms of just how "free" back then free speech really was when held against today's standards. Keep in mind that this Act passed just a few years after our Constitution was written and ratified.

This is why we tend to talk about things like sedition and treason in the past tense. They really only applied during a period of a much lower standard around free speech.

Greenhat

14 November 2009, 06:56

Keep in mind that this Act passed just a few years after our Constitution was written and ratified.

The Alien and Sedition Acts didn't pass easily and were under constant attack by Jefferson and those of his ilk from the very start. Many, many people at that time considered them unconstitutional (and Thomas Jefferson released and pardoned everyone who had been convicted under the Sedition Act). Virginia and Kentucky passed resolutions openly condemning the Acts. The Acts had a significant impact on John Adams legacy and how he was seen for many, many years. It should also be noted that the Supreme Court had not yet established themselves as the authority on Constitutionality (Marbury v. Madison isn't until 1803, by which time the Acts had expired or been repealed).

It should be noted that later rulings by the Supreme Court have clearly indicated that the Sedition Act would have been ruled Unconstitutional had it been heard by the Supreme Court (it wasn't. Thomas Jefferson believed that the test of a law's constitutionality rested with the States and the people, not SCOTUS).

ThisChick

14 November 2009, 11:04

Are you claiming that as a universal truth?

As in, do I believe all people uphold that belief? No. One does not need to travel far to learn this. There are plenty of people within the borders of our own nation who do not value human life.

It doesn’t change the fact that human beings are valuable because they are human and have the unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. In that respect, yes, I believe it is as universally true as the laws of nature and the laws that govern the universe.

As for your comments regarding my ancestor, his faith and his reasoning are clearly seperate items, especially when you consider the religious doctrine of the day. John Locke's comments regarding the Lord, etc. were effectively mandatory in his day and age to avoid being called a heretic.

Alright, if the threat was that great, why write them at all - especially if he were just faking it? That would be a greater offense, would it not? Why would a man spend the greater portion of his life defending a faith he didn’t believe in? Why not just be silent? When was the last time you sat down and wrote even one essay/book on something you had no interest in, or didn’t believe in, let alone many?

With all due respect, I fail to see the logic here. The evidence is overwhelming that Locke was not only influenced by a Judeo-Christian worldview, but he was passionate about his beliefs to the point he defended them fervently. He did more than risk dying for them - he lived for them. I don’t see a way around it other than to deny the evidence that supports this truth.

But, you might see it differently, so as always, I welcome your thoughts.:smile:

BOFH

14 November 2009, 11:38

67 Fastback

14 November 2009, 13:35

Are you referring to the same John Locke who wrote a letter to the Right Rev. Edward, Lord Bishop of Worcester stating:

"The holy scripture is to me, and always will be, the constant guide of my assent; and I shall always hearken to it, as containing infallible truth, relating to things of the highest concernment. And I wish I could say, there were no mysteries in it: I acknowledge there are to me, and I fear always will be. But where I want the evidence of things, there yet is ground enough for me to believe, because God has said it: and I shall presently condemn and quit any opinion of mine, as soon as I am shown that it is contrary to any revelation in the holy scripture. But I must confess to your lordship, that I do not perceive any such contrariety in any thing in my Essay of Human Understanding."http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=1724&chapter=80695&layout=html

Or the John Locke who, in the Two Treatises on Government you referenced, stated:

“The Law of Nature stands as an eternal rule to all men, legislators as well as others. The rules that they make for other men’s actions must…be conformable to the Law of Nature, i.e., to the will of God.” (Locke, Book II, p. 285, Chapter XI, §135.)

“Laws human must be made according to the general laws of Nature, and without contradiction to any positive law of Scripture, otherwise they are ill made.” (Locke, Book II, p. 285, Chapter XI, §135, n., quoting Hooker's Eccl. Pol. 1. iii, sect. 9.)

Or the John Locke who wrote a verse-by-verse commentary on Paul’s Epistles, a topical Bible, titled A Common Place-Book to the Holy Bible, that listed the verses in the Bible, subject by subject, the John Locke who repeatedly defended Christianity in his books, The Reasonableness of Christianity as Delivered in the Scriptures, A Vindication of the Reasonableness of Christianity and A Second Vindication of the Reasonableness of Christianity. Who was also considered a Theologian in his time? Who in the first treatise on government invoked the Bible in 1,349 places and in the second treatise, in 157 places?

I guess I’m trying to see your point…? If Locke’s influence is to be considered, we should also consider that he was influenced by a Judeo-Christian worldview thus supporting my belief that the statement ‘all men were created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights’ is rooted in a Judeo-Christian worldview.

And regarding the reference to equality in the Bible vs. the statement "all men were created equal...", I could be missing it, but I don’t believe you can apply the Egalitarian argument here simply because when we talk about the inherent worth/value of a human being, and I stress inherent, the concepts of saved vs. lost, chosen vs. not, don’t come into play. Human beings are valuable simply because they are humans.

I welcome your thoughts. :smile:

I have not made a claim that John Locke was not a man of faith. I responded to a claim that the notion of natural law is purely derived from the Judeo-Christian tradition.

In fact, I do not have a problem with the assertion that the new testament espouses a fraternity of men based on the notion that human beings have inherent value. I have a problem with the idea that value equates to social equality in the context of the rest of the scripture and in practice. We may see this idea that you shouldn't kill your neighbor because he is, like you, a human being, but an inalienable equality in the bible is subordinated to the demands of a religious community that has a precedent to operate outside of the boundaries of what is, to be fair, a nascent natural law. It is not, therefore, an inalienable and complete natural law; though it is getting at it.

This speaks to another problem. Judeo-Christian thought is inextricably linked to the whole of its evolution and its history. Augustine, in the city of god, may offer that man is universally prostrate on the altar of human wretchedness in the doctrine of original sin, but he certainly does not construct a state or society where man possesses equality. In fact, he has only a spiritual emancipation to offer the serfs.

Citing the history and philosophy of the Catholic church would almost be so easy it's cheating...

Moreover, to make a simplistic and myopic claim that Locke's social and political philosophy is born of the Judeo-Christian tradition is to neglect the influence of enlightenment era rationalism and the reality that both Thomas Hobbes and John Locke developed their social contract theory as a response to the events of the English Civil War. The latter event defines social contract theory in ways wholly contrary to your stance. If ANYTHING – the absurdly complicated in-fighting between religious sects speaks to the idea that Locke’s natural law is one that must be defined in secular terms for the purposes of political science. This further speaks to a practical justification for Locke’s usage of “god” in his language – he was, after all, writing a political treatise that could not have been as influential had he not appealed to the religious sensibilities of those reading it.

AJG

14 November 2009, 21:32

But the government shouldn't tell them that they can't have a civil union so that if they stay together 50+ years their partner has the right to bury them, and to be left property, and to be able to handle their affairs - or if one of them gets cancer the other is considered next of kin because, you know, they fucking love each other and live together and share their lives.

That's wrong and government shouldn't have anything to do with it.
I've actually taken the positions many times that the government should not be in the business of approving or disapproving marriages. But I do want to point out that there is absolutely nothing that I am aware of any laws in any state that prevents a gay couple from accomplishing all of the things you mention through a power of attorney or a will.

Greenhat

14 November 2009, 21:36

I don't think GH is trying to say that Mr. Locke didn't believe in the Christian faith. Simply that without paying at least lip-service to the Church, not much was possible at that time. Man of faith or not, if I wanted to get something done at that time, politically, I would have to appear to be a devout Christian...and if I truly was a devout Christian, I'd still have to pay lip-service to the Church, even when advocating something like...say...a secular government.

I could be wrong, and not trying to speak for GH. That's just how I interpreted his post.

You read it correctly.

John Locke wrote that the power to govern was derived from the people. Where is that found in Judeo-Christian writings? Nowhere. Nor is the idea of equality, or a value of all human life. As a matter of fact, if we went strictly by the values demonstrated and discussed in the Bible, equality is clearly NOT a value (after all, the Jews are the chosen people), nor is value for life (God destroyed entire cities, including every soul inside - and turned to salt someone who simply turned to look back). Those ideas don't come from Judeo-Christianity. They come from philosophers like John Locke, Rousseau, Hobbes, etc.

Judeo-Christianity is much more brutal.

AJG

14 November 2009, 21:40

Interesting. What other individual freedoms do you think the government should restrict?

What freedoms has the Supreme Court ever found to be without limit? What freedoms can't the government restrict if there is an overriding public interest? We can certainly argue that they should not restrict any, but the question of whether they can was resolved long ago.

Greenhat

14 November 2009, 21:57

What freedoms has the Supreme Court ever found to be without limit? What freedoms can't the government restrict if there is an overriding public interest? We can certainly argue that they should not restrict any, but the question of whether they can was resolved long ago.

They can. However, nowhere in the Constitution is such power allowed the government. And it was just such "they can" that caused a group of people to take up arms against a government a few hundred years ago.

AJG

14 November 2009, 22:04

I believe, for instance, that abortion is wrong. I still vote pro-choice. Why is this, you ask? Simple. I don't believe the government should try to legislate morality.

What exactly are we doing when we make murder or armed robbery unlawful if not legislating morality?

Greenhat

14 November 2009, 22:06

What exactly are we doing when we make murder or armed robbery unlawful if not legislating morality?

How about protecting the rights of third parties?

Right to life. Right to property.

AJG

14 November 2009, 22:23

They can. However, nowhere in the Constitution is such power allowed the government. And it was just such "they can" that caused a group of people to take up arms against a government a few hundred years ago.

As Justice Jackson stated in his dissent in Terminiello v. Chicago, "The choice is not between order and liberty. It is between liberty with order and anarchy without either. There is danger that, if the court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact."

I happen to agree with the majority decision in Terminiello (striking down Chicago's breach of peace ordinance on First Amendment grounds) and while my visceral reaction to any infringement to liberty is to oppose it, I cannot for a minute believe that the drafters of the Constitution believed for a minute that we should be allowed to yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater, or that a free people would want anyone to be permitted to do so.

The issue really cannot be whether certain liberties can or should be limited, but how we ensure that only those restrictions which are absolutely necessary become law.

AJG

14 November 2009, 22:28

How about protecting the rights of third parties?

Right to life. Right to property.

That is a moral judgment. An equally valid argument can be made for protecting the rights of the unborn. Are laws against gambling legislating morality or protecting society ("third parties") from the economic costs of having to care for those who cannot control their gambling?

Greenhat

14 November 2009, 22:29

As Justice Jackson stated in his dissent in Terminiello v. Chicago, "The choice is not between order and liberty. It is between liberty with order and anarchy without either. There is danger that, if the court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact."

I happen to agree with the majority decision in Terminiello (striking down Chicago's breach of peace ordinance on First Amendment grounds) and while my visceral reaction to any infringement to liberty is to oppose it, I cannot for a minute believe that the drafters of the Constitution believed for a minute that we should be allowed to yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater, or that a free people would want anyone to be permitted to do so.

The issue really cannot be whether certain liberties can or should be limited, but how we ensure that only those restrictions which are absolutely necessary become law.

I don't agree with Justice Jackson - anarchy by definition includes liberty. As for the "yell fire in a theatre" question, I have to ask... what if there is a fire? What if I see smoke and think there is a fire?

Instead of restricting liberties, how about we make people responsible for their actions? I believe THAT is what the founding fathers would have agreed with, not the path that Justice Jackson and company set us on.

Greenhat

14 November 2009, 22:34

That is a moral judgment. An equally valid argument can be made for protecting the rights of the unborn. Are laws against gambling legislating morality or protecting society ("third parties") from the economic costs of having to care for those who cannot control their gambling?

No, it's not a moral judgement. Not in the sense of right or wrong. It's a judgement based on the concepts of equality and power emanating from the people. If we believe in those two concepts (and our Constitution is based on those two concepts), then each person has a right to have their rights protected from infringement by others (one's rights don't trump another's). We don't have to say "this is right", but simply "these are the concepts our society/government is based on".

Laws against gambling are legislating morality. So are laws against drug use. Alcohol use. Seat belt laws. Laws requiring ERs to treat everyone regardless of their ability to pay. Lots of others. All of which I am opposed to.

But laws against theft, laws against murder, laws against rape... those are laws that can be supported on the basis of protecting the rights of life, liberty and property.

bobofthedesert

16 November 2009, 07:40

Laws against gambling are legislating morality. So are laws against drug use. Alcohol use. Seat belt laws. Laws requiring ERs to treat everyone regardless of their ability to pay. Lots of others. All of which I am opposed to.

But laws against theft, laws against murder, laws against rape... those are laws that can be supported on the basis of protecting the rights of life, liberty and property.

Yup.

ThisChick

16 November 2009, 17:10

I have my own religious beliefs, which are often contrary to my political beliefs. I believe, for instance, that abortion is wrong. I still vote pro-choice. Why is this, you ask? Simple. I don't believe the government should try to legislate morality.

First, law is reflective of moral judgment. You might think you’re being neutral by “preventing” the government from legislating morality, but whether you vote or not, or whether you vote pro or against, your citizenship alone gives the government power to legislate morality. Government is powerless without a people to govern. By voting pro-choice you’ve sent a message to those who look to the government to define morality that abortion is acceptable.

Second, if truth is absolute, then we know that truth about morality is also absolute. If truth about morality is absolute, then we know that it does not change from one person to the next. In that case, we are all obligated to the same moral code. Regardless of your political, religious beliefs or even conscience, it is never right to deviate from that moral code because you will be deviating from truth. Let me be clear - your conscience can agree with a moral code, but that is not a legitimate reason for coinciding with it. We coincide with truth because it is true. And voting pro-abortion when you don’t believe in it isn’t just wrong because you don’t want government to legislate morality, it’s wrong because:

1. You’re not voting according to a moral code, and
2. You are actually allowing government to legislate a moral belief you do not believe in.

Again, truth should be the final authority - not the government, not religion, but truth. We all know we can’t just rule or act according to our feelings, we have to act according to what is right. Truth defines that.

What makes abortion wrong? Is it murder? What’s wrong with murder? Where do we get this idea? How do we know what is right and wrong? Why do these questions even matter?

These questions matter because Human Life is on the line and moreso because if truth is relative, then government is pointless. If truth is relative, anyone can do anything they want and be right. Who is the government to say otherwise?

I’m not trying to force my beliefs on anyone here, even though I believe they’re grounded in truth and can be defended. God gave mankind the freedom to choose Him when He gave man Free Will. WHO am I to take that away? I’m really trying to point out the flaws in our thinking because this is how PC got a foothold in our nation to begin with. It’s confusing, it’s subtle and it’s dangerous.

As for all the other stuff, the Apostle Paul admonished us to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling. The best I can tell you is that if you are a Christian, you are FREE in Christ, meaning you are also free to discover God and establish your convictions through studying His Word. Who is anybody to tell you that you can’t dance with your wife when dancing is accepted in the Bible? Don’t let your anger, or disappointment in Christians cloud your ability to seek and find truth. It’s your life – live it to the best of your ability because in the end, you will have to give an account of it.

I don’t say these things to offend you, my hope is that they will help. =)

I welcome your thoughts. :smile:

Husker19D30

16 November 2009, 17:23

First, law is reflective of moral judgment.

Second, if truth is absolute, then we know that truth about morality is also absolute.

Again, truth should be the final authority - not the government, not religion, but truth. We all know we can’t just rule or act according to our feelings, we have to act according to what is right. Truth defines that.

You make these sweeping, almost absolute statements without offering any proof. In what way is law reflective of moral judgment? I'm not the sharpest tool in the drawer, but that statement makes zero sense to me.

Second, the only truths which are absolutes are those that can be proven mathematically. And even then that event can only be said to have been true that one time.

Truth HAS no authority. You're just spouting off liberal arts psycho-babble.

Lagnaippe

16 November 2009, 17:41

Bravo Five Romeo

16 November 2009, 17:48

First, law is reflective of moral judgment. You might think you’re being neutral by “preventing” the government from legislating morality, but whether you vote or not, or whether you vote pro or against, your citizenship alone gives the government power to legislate morality. Government is powerless without a people to govern. By voting pro-choice you’ve sent a message to those who look to the government to define morality that abortion is acceptable.

Second, if truth is absolute, then we know that truth about morality is also absolute. If truth about morality is absolute, then we know that it does not change from one person to the next. In that case, we are all obligated to the same moral code. Regardless of your political, religious beliefs or even conscience, it is never right to deviate from that moral code because you will be deviating from truth. Let me be clear - your conscience can agree with a moral code, but that is not a legitimate reason for coinciding with it. We coincide with truth because it is true. And voting pro-abortion when you don’t believe in it isn’t just wrong because you don’t want government to legislate morality, it’s wrong because:

1. You’re not voting according to a moral code, and
2. You are actually allowing government to legislate a moral belief you do not believe in.

Again, truth should be the final authority - not the government, not religion, but truth. We all know we can’t just rule or act according to our feelings, we have to act according to what is right. Truth defines that.

What makes abortion wrong? Is it murder? What’s wrong with murder? Where do we get this idea? How do we know what is right and wrong? Why do these questions even matter?

These questions matter because Human Life is on the line and moreso because if truth is relative, then government is pointless. If truth is relative, anyone can do anything they want and be right. Who is the government to say otherwise?

I’m not trying to force my beliefs on anyone here, even though I believe they’re grounded in truth and can be defended. God gave mankind the freedom to choose Him when He gave man Free Will. WHO am I to take that away? I’m really trying to point out the flaws in our thinking because this is how PC got a foothold in our nation to begin with. It’s confusing, it’s subtle and it’s dangerous.

As for all the other stuff, the Apostle Paul admonished us to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling. The best I can tell you is that if you are a Christian, you are FREE in Christ, meaning you are also free to discover God and establish your convictions through studying His Word. Who is anybody to tell you that you can’t dance with your wife when dancing is accepted in the Bible? Don’t let your anger, or disappointment in Christians cloud your ability to seek and find truth. It’s your life – live it to the best of your ability because in the end, you will have to give an account of it.

I don’t say these things to offend you, my hope is that they will help. =)

I welcome your thoughts. :smile:Congratulations on being so sure in your religious beliefs.
I wish I had your absolute certainty in faith.
But please stop arguing that your religious belief is an absolute truth that we all share and should base our laws on.

You state your religious belief as truth and then try to say that the truth you speak of is separate from religion.
When life begins, the existence of conciousness or a soul from the moment of fertilization or at some later stage in development is a matter of faith.
If you wish to argue that all abortion at any stage is morally wrong because of your religious belief, I can respect that.
But to say that it is because of an absolute truth that is not related to religion is disingenuous because your version of truth is based soley on your religious faith.

KidA

16 November 2009, 17:51

God gave mankind the freedom to choose Him when He gave man Free Will. WHO am I to take that away?

Really? And what about the hundreds of thousands he ordered the Israelites to slaughter who didn't know of the Hebrew god?

What about the millions who have died without ever having known who your version of God is?

MoonDog

16 November 2009, 17:55

Originally Posted by ThisChick
First, law is reflective of moral judgment. You might think you’re being neutral by “preventing” the government from legislating morality, but whether you vote or not, or whether you vote pro or against, your citizenship alone gives the government power to legislate morality.

My being an Americam by birth does not give the "Government" any rights...Period.

SOTB

16 November 2009, 18:07

Really? And what about the hundreds of thousands he ordered the Israelites to slaughter who didn't know of the Hebrew god?

What about the millions who have died without ever having known who your version of God is?They had the freedom to find out who the true god was and failed to make wise use of it -- dummies....

NWPTrainer

16 November 2009, 18:32

First, law is reflective of moral judgment. You might think you’re being neutral by “preventing” the government from legislating morality, but whether you vote or not, or whether you vote pro or against, your citizenship alone gives the government power to legislate morality. Government is powerless without a people to govern. By voting pro-choice you’ve sent a message to those who look to the government to define morality that abortion is acceptable.

Second, if truth is absolute, then we know that truth about morality is also absolute. If truth about morality is absolute, then we know that it does not change from one person to the next. In that case, we are all obligated to the same moral code. Regardless of your political, religious beliefs or even conscience, it is never right to deviate from that moral code because you will be deviating from truth. Let me be clear - your conscience can agree with a moral code, but that is not a legitimate reason for coinciding with it. We coincide with truth because it is true. And voting pro-abortion when you don’t believe in it isn’t just wrong because you don’t want government to legislate morality, it’s wrong because:

1. You’re not voting according to a moral code, and
2. You are actually allowing government to legislate a moral belief you do not believe in.

Again, truth should be the final authority - not the government, not religion, but truth. We all know we can’t just rule or act according to our feelings, we have to act according to what is right. Truth defines that.

What makes abortion wrong? Is it murder? What’s wrong with murder? Where do we get this idea? How do we know what is right and wrong? Why do these questions even matter?

These questions matter because Human Life is on the line and moreso because if truth is relative, then government is pointless. If truth is relative, anyone can do anything they want and be right. Who is the government to say otherwise?

I’m not trying to force my beliefs on anyone here, even though I believe they’re grounded in truth and can be defended. God gave mankind the freedom to choose Him when He gave man Free Will. WHO am I to take that away? I’m really trying to point out the flaws in our thinking because this is how PC got a foothold in our nation to begin with. It’s confusing, it’s subtle and it’s dangerous.

As for all the other stuff, the Apostle Paul admonished us to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling. The best I can tell you is that if you are a Christian, you are FREE in Christ, meaning you are also free to discover God and establish your convictions through studying His Word. Who is anybody to tell you that you can’t dance with your wife when dancing is accepted in the Bible? Don’t let your anger, or disappointment in Christians cloud your ability to seek and find truth. It’s your life – live it to the best of your ability because in the end, you will have to give an account of it.

I don’t say these things to offend you, my hope is that they will help. =)

I welcome your thoughts. :smile:

This is fucking stupid. That's my thoughts on it.

If the "law is reflective of moral judgement..." then what Truth was there in the anti-Semitism of Nazi Germany? The law was that Jews were filth. By your definition of law as reflective of moral judgement, are you saying that you believe Jews are filth?

The Levitical laws were developed and codified because they were the laws that made sense when you consider the goal of THAT society was to keep a tribal society alive in the desert. Don't eat pork? Of course not, it'll fucking poison you if you eat it in the desert without refrigeration. I wonder how many generations it took them to figure that one out.

Don't fuck your neighbors wife. Why not? Cause it'll piss him off and he'll fucking smite you. Then, the tribe is short a fighter, leading to weakness in future battles.

Don't have any other Gods before Me. Of course not, if someone believed in another god, then they wouldn't feel constrained by the rules of "The One True God," and might break the rules of society that protects our tribes.

I'm not a militant atheist by anyone's definition, so I won't tell anyone what they should or should not have faith in. Use some fucking deductive reasoning, logic, rational thought, and historical perspective for fuck's sake though lady!

The "laws," even the Levitical Laws, were "Truth" only in their time and place, because they protected a society. Quit trying to cram your faith down the rest of the free world's throat as 'absolute Truth' though. It's not.

Granted, you COULD point out that adhering to some of the Levitical Laws would help assure the survival of OUR society. I'd even agree with you. Murder is generally bad, because it leads to anarchy (even my staunch libertarian ass isn't THAT libertarian!:biggrin:) and wanton violence.

Fornication is still a generally bad idea (unless you're bigger than him and she's REALLY hot!), because it leads to anger and jealousy between neighbors.

That doesn't mean it's an absolute sin though. It's just stupid. Stupid does not=sinful.

Rant off.

ThisChick

16 November 2009, 18:35

You seem to confuse faith with truth.
You keep referring to your religious beliefs as truth or absolute truth as though they are unquestioned facts that all have accepted. Please take no offense because I mean none. I admire your conviction in your religious beliefs.

I believe my Worldview and Belief System is founded in truth. I’m not so arrogant to believe all people agree with or believe like me, or that my Worldview is unquestioned, but I am confident that I can defend my beliefs by the use of logic, reasoning, deduction, applying historical, biblical, scientific and natural evidence whereas needed.

Your statement does not offend me and I am not trying to force my beliefs on anyone. What I am trying to do is to expose the dangers of Political Correctness. If discussing and defining truth helps to solve this problem on some small scale, then I am committed to do that.

If, for example, I were a devout Muslim, could I make law that you would have to live under based on my religious beliefs since, after all, I know my religious beliefs to be absolute truth?...BTW, I'm not Muslim, I'm just illustrating a point.

I think here there are three things to be said:

1. Absolute truth is something that is fixed, immovable. It implies that whatever is true at one time, in one place is true at all times and in all places, and whatever is true for one person is true for all people.
2. Recognizing these absolute truths - religious ideology offers moral argument and law is reflective of moral judgment, we can certainly acknowledge a legal system or laws already influenced by the Muslim faith. An example of this would be Sharia Law.
3. Let me defer to my original statement:

‘I don’t believe that government is to be advocating any religious system. I believe that government should advocate and uphold truth. Now, if that truth happens to coincide with a particular belief system, then so be it.’

“That truth”, meaning and not limited to moral code, etc... The key here is to remember that religious ideology offers moral argument. It does not tell us where to put traffic lights, or sewer systems, etc… But, I don’t think that’s where you were going, I just threw that in for logic’s sake.

This is why the First Amendment was written... to prevent well intentioned men of faith (acting on what they know to be true) from forcing their beliefs on others.

True. If a Muslim wanted to enforce Sharia law in this country, he’d have serious opposition from the founding documents and frankly, I’m relieved.

I’d also like to add that the founding fathers left the establishment of religion to the states.

"Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise or to assume authority in any religious discipline has been delegated to the General [federal] Government. It must then rest with the States.” - Thomas Jefferson (Washington: Gales and Seaton, 1852, Eighth Congress, Second Session, p. 78, March 4, 1805)

For instance, the Constitutions for North Carolina (1776), Tennessee (1776) and Maryland (1796) all required their citizens worship, and/or not deny God. I do not agree with this, although I believe in God. My primary reasoning is because no one can be forced to believe in God. They either choose Him for themselves or not. Now, certain aspects of moral code, on the other hand, can be and should be enforced – i.e., murder, theft, rape, etc…

I welcome your thoughts. :smile:

KidA

16 November 2009, 18:44

This is fucking stupid. That's my thoughts on it.

Seconded.

HighDragLowSpeed

16 November 2009, 19:01

First, law is reflective of moral judgment.

Law is not always equally reflective even given the same fundamental moral judgment. The moral judgment around abortion is that a fertilized egg/fetus is being killed. Yet, fertility clinics are legal and as far as i can tell in no danger of having laws passed against them.

If every fertilized egg is a life...well...see the problem when there are multiple eggs fertilized with the hope of only saving one? Same moral judgments yet the law treats each differently.

Abortion is pitched emotional battle reflective of moral judgement in every state and clinics are burned/bombed while from a legal and moral perspective fertility clinics are a big yawn.

Sigaba

16 November 2009, 19:35

Again, truth should be the final authority - not the government, not religion, but truth. We all know we can’t just rule or act according to our feelings, we have to act according to what is right. Truth defines that.
Your comments about "the truth" raise at least two questions.

Is the truth knowable to humankind?
If the truth is knowable, can all people understand it?
I am skeptical that "yes" is the answer to question one. I am certain that the answer to the second question is "no," especially in regards to a specific participant in the current discussion.I welcome your thoughts. :smile:Candidly, this tag line does not inspire confidence in your commitment to civil discourse. You are receiving critical feedback from a diverse group intelligent, articulate people who would teach you something (if you let them) but your views and tone go unchanged.

This is not to say that your views should alter fundamentally overnight. But at the least, you might benefit from asking yourself why guys who disagree with each other on many different topics are in agreement when it comes to your views about "truth" and its role in shaping the rules of conduct in everyday life?

random

16 November 2009, 19:38

Abortion is pitched emotional battle reflective of moral judgement in every state and clinics are burned/bombed while from a legal and moral perspective fertility clinics are a big yawn.

I'm very convinced this is because of the "children are a gift from the Lord" argument that is constantly tossed about. Hence, killing not okay, but trying to create is allowed. Even if you kill some in the process.

MoonDog

16 November 2009, 20:09

Posted by ThisChick
1. Absolute truth is something that is fixed, immovable. It implies that whatever is true at one time, in one place is true at all times and in all places, and whatever is true for one person is true for all people.

Yeah, like the earth is flat type of shit? Get a grip.

SOTB

16 November 2009, 20:24

Yeah, like the earth is flat type of shit? Get a grip.Heretic!!!!

MoonDog

16 November 2009, 20:28

Am I headed for the time out corner again?? :redface:

SOTB

16 November 2009, 20:34

Am I headed for the time out corner again??Dude, I was being sarcastic -- but agreeing with your post. I should have put a smiley -- sorry....:redface:

ThisChick

16 November 2009, 20:36

If the "law is reflective of moral judgement..." then what Truth was there in the anti-Semitism of Nazi Germany? The law was that Jews were filth. By your definition of law as reflective of moral judgement, are you saying that you believe Jews are filth?

In simple terms, an absolute truth we know about the anti-Semitism of Nazi Germany is that it was anti-Semite. The law that as you put it “Jews were filth” was reflective of bad moral judgment. Why? Because it advocated murder.

The "laws," even the Levitical Laws, were "Truth" only in their time and place, because they protected a society.

Can you explain what would make this statement true?

Granted, you COULD point out that adhering to some of the Levitical Laws would help assure the survival of OUR society. I'd even agree with you.

How would adhering to some of the Levitical Laws help assure the survival of OUR society? How can you justify this position? And how would you not be forcing a “religion down society’s throat”?

Murder is generally bad, because it leads to anarchy...and wanton violence.

What’s wrong with anarchy and wanton violence?

Fornication is still a generally bad idea...because it leads to anger and jealousy between neighbors.

What’s wrong with anger and jealousy between neighbors?

ThisChick

16 November 2009, 20:46

You make these sweeping, almost absolute statements without offering any proof. In what way is law reflective of moral judgment?

If we legislate it is wrong to murder, how is that not a moral judgment? Is it wrong because we all agree upon it, or is it wrong because there is a moral code? What makes it a moral problem and not simply a legal problem?

Second, the only truths which are absolutes are those that can be proven mathematically. And even then that event can only be said to have been true that one time.

Hmmm... Are you a human being? If so, how do you know that?

Truth HAS no authority.

Does Math have authority?

MoonDog

16 November 2009, 20:51

Can we go back to the intent of the thread and stop the (not yet) law school BS?

Greenhat

16 November 2009, 20:53

This Chick, SOCNET is not a place to play games sharpening your arguments for debate class. That is what I clearly get the impression you are doing.

ThisChick

16 November 2009, 20:59

This Chick, SOCNET is not a place to play games sharpening your arguments for debate class. That is what I clearly get the impression you are doing.

I'm not playing games. I'm defending my position on PC.

NWPTrainer

16 November 2009, 21:04

In simple terms, an absolute truth we know about the anti-Semitism of Nazi Germany is that it was anti-Semite. The law that as you put it “Jews were filth” was reflective of bad moral judgment. Why? Because it advocated murder.

But, it was "the law," which by YOUR definition, means it was "reflective of moral judgement." Or, are only the laws you agree with reflective of "moral Truth?"

Can you explain what would make this statement true? Sure. The "Levitical Laws" are only found, complete, in the Judeo-Christian mythos (Islam being a descendent of that mythos.). I've never heard of, say, A pagan Gaul being morally opposed to eating pork, to just point to a relatively minor example...Or the modern Christian view on it. According to the Gospel, the old laws cannot be met in totality, so acceptance of the Salvation is the only way to Heaven, right? Yet, the "Levitical Laws" are certainly, according to your worldview, moral Truth. Since they're inconvenient though, you no longer have to follow them (apologies for gross simplification.)

How would adhering to some of the Levitical Laws help assure the survival of OUR society? How can you justify this position? And how would you not be forcing a “religion down society’s throat”?

Gee, let's see..."Thou shalt not murder," seems like one hell of a good start. How about the one about fornication? If everyone starts fucking the other guy's wife, the other guy is gonna get pissed. Pretty soon, you've got the aforementioned wanton violence and anarchy. Generally bad for the survival of a society, in my mind at least.

What’s wrong with anarchy and wanton violence? Nothing to me. I can shoot, move, and communicate far better than the 99% of our society that never served in the military or law enforcement. My mother however cannot. I'd just as soon she survived to a ripe old age, despite her flaws, rather than dying in the chaos of robbery, rape, and plunder.

What’s wrong with anger and jealousy between neighbors?

See Greenhat's and MoonDog's posts below.

NWPTrainer

16 November 2009, 21:06

I'm not playing games. I'm defending my position on PC.

And recreating, with amazing accuracy, the French stand at Dien Bien Phu, in my far-from humble opinion.:biggrin:

Greenhat

16 November 2009, 21:07

I'm not playing games. I'm defending my position on PC.

Are you?

How does your argument have anything to do with political correctness?

You're discussing the morality of law. Since political correctness is not about law, but about social pressure to say things in certain ways, I fail to see the linkage.

Hot Mess

16 November 2009, 21:11

I'm not playing games. I'm defending my position on PC.

Pretty much I'm tired of reading about it and I agree with GH. IMHO you're becoming trifling at best:rolleyes:

Simply put, PC has run a muck. End of story.

ThisChick

16 November 2009, 21:16

How does your argument have anything to do with political correctness?

I am defending my position that "PC is a direct threat to truth". I am not posting new positions, but answering responses to my original posts.

You're discussing the morality of law. Since political correctness is not about law, but about social pressure to say things in certain ways, I fail to see the linkage.

Not intentionally. I'm defending truth. The questions relate to the existence of truth, and whether or not "law is reflective of moral judgment" is a true statement. I'm simply trying to prove that truth exists and that my statements are true.

Have I been disrespectful? Is disagreeing with someone disrespectful? Am I being pressured socially now to say things in certain ways? :confused:

SOTB

16 November 2009, 21:17

Since political correctness is not about law, but about social pressure to say things in certain ways....To TC -- An example of this MIGHT be -- shouldn't you be working on your class assignment instead of trying to play the role of "So-Cal troll doing the attention-whore thing on a predominantly man's site, thereby giving rise to the question of whether you are either a mil groupie or hippie mole."

Just an example (I think mine is more of the non-PC type, though)....

Hot Mess

16 November 2009, 21:21

To TC -- An example of this MIGHT be -- shouldn't you be working on your class assignment instead of trying to play the role of "So-Cal troll doing the attention-whore thing on a predominantly man's site, thereby giving rise to the question of whether you are either a mil groupie or hippie mole."

Just an example (I think mine is more of the non-PC type, though)....

Interesting, I think that was very PC. Well more PC than the route I would have went:biggrin:

Husker19D30

16 November 2009, 21:26

If we legislate it is wrong to murder, how is that not a moral judgment? Is it wrong because we all agree upon it, or is it wrong because there is a moral code? What makes it a moral problem and not simply a legal problem?

Hmmm... Are you a human being? If so, how do you know that?

Does Math have authority?

You're making intellectual leaps without looking at the underpinnings of your arguments. Or, as my geometry, trig, and calc teachers would always say "You don't get any points if you don't show your work."

I don't think you'll last long in law school.

8Ball

16 November 2009, 21:34

To TC -- An example of this MIGHT be -- shouldn't you be working on your class assignment instead of trying to play the role of "So-Cal troll doing the attention-whore thing on a predominantly man's site, thereby giving rise to the question of whether you are either a mil groupie or hippie mole."

Just an example (I think mine is more of the non-PC type, though)....

I stopped looking at this thread due to the fact it was making my damn head hurt.
SOTB, my friend, you have either mellowed or you are drinking.
I too thought that was a little PC/nicer then I wanted to be...:biggrin:

MoonDog

16 November 2009, 21:36

Orignally posted by Irish...as the thread start.
Gentlemen (and ladies,) I'd like to open a discussion on political correctness. Not another bitch session like I could have at work, but an intelligent, educated discussion on the effects of political correctness on modern society in general, and the military specifically.

PC is the CDR not doing something because he won't be seen as "Going along to get along."
The opposite side of the coin is the response of, "...Fuck him, he's a (N*****, jew, honkey, wop, etc.)

How do we as (semi) intelligent people hit the right level?

Husker19D30

16 November 2009, 21:41

PC is the CDR not doing something because he won't be seen as "Going along to get along."
The opposite side of the coin is the response of, "...Fuck him, he's a (N*****, jew, honkey, wop, etc.)

How do we as (semi) intelligent people hit the right level?

I like the golden rule. Treat other folks the way you'd want them to treat you.

Corollary, if you're being a dumbass you'd want someone to tell you, right?

MoonDog

16 November 2009, 21:43

In here they tell me loudly and often.. :biggrin:

Titleist

16 November 2009, 21:45

Are you?

How does your argument have anything to do with political correctness?

You're discussing the morality of law. Since political correctness is not about law, but about social pressure to say things in certain ways, I fail to see the linkage.

It creeps into law. That's where hate crime legislation squirms in.

ThisChick

16 November 2009, 21:54

To TC -- An example of this MIGHT be -- shouldn't you be working on your class assignment instead of

Assignment's are completed, thank you for the concern.

trying to play the role of "So-Cal troll doing the attention-whore thing on a predominantly man's site, thereby giving rise to the question of whether you are either a mil groupie or hippie mole."

My apologies. I seem to recall being invited to this thread and I thought there was a legitimate interest in the subject. :confused:

If I really were an attention-whore, it would be evident by my million other posts in the thousand other threads on this site.

As for being a mil-groupie, I would not have posted had I not seen that there were also women on this site.

As for being a hippie mole... I guess I can't see how you'd reach that conclusion from my posts, but I think this accusation is more about intimidation, so I'll not lose sleep over it. :smile:

mdb23

16 November 2009, 22:27

Truth HAS no authority. You're just spouting off liberal arts psycho-babble.

Actually, it's more like conservative psycho babble......... any good liberal arts major knows that "truth" is subjective.:biggrin:

J2S

16 November 2009, 22:36

Have I been disrespectful? Is disagreeing with someone disrespectful? Am I being pressured socially now to say things in certain ways?

Come on. Snap out of it. You are being asked very nicely to stay on topic and not hijack the thread.

Assignment's are completed, thank you for the concern.

Do you mean assignments from your "private study" law school? How is your focus on business law going, any way? rolleyes:

Greenhat

16 November 2009, 23:41

I'm defending truth.

And you are arrogant enough to think you actually know the truth...

67 Fastback

17 November 2009, 00:07

NWPTrainer

17 November 2009, 00:13

So, on the topic of PC - A quandary:

We, as a society, aptly and vehemently discourage the use of racial slurs.

However, racist sentiment, deeply socialized into the minds of a generation or a group survives; perhaps without their realizing it. This sentiment manifests itself in very subtle ways. This manifestation, through classical conditioning, passes these sentiments on to the children of this group.

Thus, our attempt to artificially manipulate the situation fails. It turns out you can censor people, but that doesn't mean that the sentiments that underlie expression will vanish into thin air.

So we have a problem. On the one hand we should not tolerate this behavior and thinking, on the other, we can't necessarily solve the problem through enforced notions of politically-correct speech.

Does the process just slowly weed out the racism? Is the answer outside of the concept - as in, we don't need "PC," we just need better education.

Just a thought

+1000

I've seen this alot being raised in the South, and then cowboying throughout the West. As a caveat, the VAST majority of people I've met in my life have been good, honest, upstanding people.

That having been said however, I've known a lot of people who, if PC concerns didn't forbid it would use every racial epithet that exists in the English language.

The fact that they don't has nothing to do with an intrinsic belief in the equality of man, but more with a desire to succeed in society.

Acting PC doesn't make you PC. Hell, I act PC and I'm sure as fuck not PC! So, in a society that CLAIMS to venerate honesty and integrity, what is the cost of the dishonesty created by telling some jackass white-trash peckerwood that saying, "N*****" or "s**c" is bad. He still believes they are. Is it better that he act PC and never utter them? Or, would it be better if he did utter them and the rest of us knew where he stood?

Wha about the implications of a WW2 vet using "Nip" or a Chosin survivor using the term "zipperhead?"

What about guys returning CONUS today (to hit a more personal note around here) who use the term "Hajji" as a derogatory term? What is PC-bullshit and what is simply good judgement that is critical to the social order?

KidA

17 November 2009, 10:32

I'm still waiting for her to tell me what God does with all the people who never heard of him.

Lagnaippe

17 November 2009, 10:47

I'm still waiting for her to tell me what God does with all the people who never heard of him.

So you don't have to wait... http://www.comparativereligion.com/neverheard.html

"The Bible states that God is holy and will judge humans with justice (Acts 17,31), according to the available measure of revelation they had and their response to it, expressed through their deeds (Romans 2,6), words (Matthew 12,36-37) and thoughts (Hebrews 4,12). The amount of revelation one has determines a consequent measure of responsibility on his behalf (Luke 12,47-48)."

Nope, I didn't come up with that myself, but I was interested as well.

KidA

17 November 2009, 10:54

So you don't have to wait... http://www.comparativereligion.com/neverheard.html

"The Bible states that God is holy and will judge humans with justice (Acts 17,31), according to the available measure of revelation they had and their response to it, expressed through their deeds (Romans 2,6), words (Matthew 12,36-37) and thoughts (Hebrews 4,12). The amount of revelation one has determines a consequent measure of responsibility on his behalf (Luke 12,47-48)."

Nope, I didn't come up with that myself, but I was interested as well.

Even all those hittites and shittites and dolomites that had never heard of YHWH before he told the Israelites to wipe them off the face of the earth?

But wait a second - if I never hear of JC I can just be a pretty ok dude and God will be fine with me, but if I hear of him I have to drink his blood and eat his flesh and pray for him to save my soul?

What a gyp.

Joe33

17 November 2009, 11:13

Second, if truth is absolute, then we know that truth about morality is also absolute. It is not absolute and neither is morality. These vary widely between individuals and they are influenced by a plethora of factors..

If truth about morality is absolute, then we know that it does not change from one person to the next. In that case, we are all obligated to the same moral code. Regardless of your political, religious beliefs or even conscience, it is never right to deviate from that moral code because you will be deviating from truth. Nonsense. There are consequences for one's actions, period. What you define as "TRUTH" is nothing more than your system of beliefs and opinions (i.e. your influences)

Again, truth should be the final authority - not the government, not religion, but truth. We all know we can’t just rule or act according to our feelings, we have to act according to what is right. Truth defines that. Man I'm glad the framers didn't think like that.

As for all the other stuff, the Apostle Paul admonished us to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling. The best I can tell you is that if you are a Christian, you are FREE in Christ, meaning you are also free to discover God and establish your convictions through studying His Word. Who is anybody to tell you that you can’t dance with your wife when dancing is accepted in the Bible? Don’t let your anger, or disappointment in Christians cloud your ability to seek and find truth. It’s your life – live it to the best of your ability because in the end, you will have to give an account of it. :smile:[/QUOTE] Your logic is circular AND you've commenced a Christian sermon. It appears that you have no pretense whatsoever that you believe in a separation between church and state. I say this as a man of faith who believes in the Abrahamic God- Again, I'm glad our founders thought differently.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Husker19D30
Second, the only truths which are absolutes are those that can be proven mathematically. And even then that event can only be said to have been true that one time.

Hmmm... Are you a human being? If so, how do you know that? "Hmmm. How do you know that he is wrong? You keep saying that you are defending "truth", this ethereal concept of yours that is "absolute", does not change regardless of time or the individual, and it is 110% infallible. So, we are supposed to accept this nugget, but then in the same breath, you ask how SOMEONE ELSE could know about "truth" and "absolutes" because alas, they are only human!" WTF?!

I think the major problem here is that (I assume) you are spending alot of time in the classroom, in study groups etc. These are environments where everyone's ideas are treated with the same level of reverance and consideration. And there is nothing wrong with that per se- I've been to college too. The problem though as I see it is that your view are spectacularly hypocritical and flawed, for the reasons already mentioned. And most of the challenges to your arguments have been put forth by people smarter than I. Disregard my comments if you will, but not theirs....for what it's worth...

Longrifle

17 November 2009, 11:28

(Maybe God doesn't want either of you to know. . . . yet.)

PC changes with time. Watch any cartoon from WWII era. Popeye and his spinach kicked some serious "N*p" butt!

Even in the mid-60s, McHale's Navy was still using the term.

PC, as goofy as it is, is nothing compared to the "I'M OFFENDED" crap accepted today. We spin in tiny circles to avoid the chance someone might take offense to a product, word, decision, or activity.:mad:

SOTB

17 November 2009, 11:29

But wait a second - if I never hear of JC I can just be a pretty ok dude and God will be fine with me, but if I hear of him I have to drink his blood and eat his flesh and pray for him to save my soul?

What a gyp.Isn't knowledge a bitch?

MoonDog

18 November 2009, 19:07

Originally posted by 67 Fastback

We, as a society, aptly and vehemently discourage the use of racial slurs.

However, racist sentiment, deeply socialized into the minds of a generation or a group survives; perhaps without their realizing it. This sentiment manifests itself in very subtle ways. This manifestation, through classical conditioning, passes these sentiments on to the children of this group.

Thus, our attempt to artificially manipulate the situation fails. It turns out you can censor people, but that doesn't mean that the sentiments that underlie expression will vanish into thin air.

So we have a problem. On the one hand we should not tolerate this behavior and thinking, on the other, we can't necessarily solve the problem through enforced notions of politically-correct speech.

IMO, Political Correctness is the adult equivalent of hiding your head under a blanket to not see the Boogeyman. (The boogeyman being prejudice)
The only way to end it, is to stop practicing it; in the overt form or reverse form.
Instead of highlighting the differences and attempting to offset, just ignore it all.
Don’t say, “We’re going to hire 15 women, blacks, etc. Just say you’re going to hire the fifteen BEST individuals for the job.
Act like they are little gray, sexless Martian type things. Make sure there are ABSOLUTELY no identifying items on the resumes, etc.
If there are five combat slots, fighter jet slots, Kool Guy school slots, let the five best go…period. Anything else is either prejudice or reverse prejudice.

Example; Hadji don’t shoot any less accurately, or denote less IEDs at female soldiers than he does at dudes, so why is there a false PT test standard?

ThisChick

8 December 2009, 05:44

And you are arrogant enough to think you actually know the truth...

No, Sir. If I’ve come across as arrogant, I apologize, that is not acceptable and was not my intention. I think it’s safe to say, Truth cannot be found without humility. What I am, is confident truth exists, there is sufficient evidence to prove it, and is under attack, as may or may not be evident in this thread. For the record, in no way am I claiming to be all knowing or perfect. In fact, my own failures and shortcomings (as demonstrated on this site) speak the loudest and compel me to search for truth of a higher nature and anchor myself to it.

As for certain others… attacking me personally doesn’t disprove my position. I’m not offended by our disagreements, nor am I uninterested in considering your point of view. On the contrary, I welcome your thoughts because they challenge me to find the holes in my own position. If I’ve not responded to posts, it is because of the general disadvantage of open forum discussions where dog piling and flooding are quite common (not to mention the lovely position of being called an Attention Whore for attempting to be courteous and respond to each post). I have questions I’d like to pursue, but for now, if my overall tone or closing statement has been perceived as less than cordial or inviting, I apologize, that was also not my intention, is not acceptable and I will definitely work on that. I’ve not forgotten that I’m a guest on this site, nor did I come here to pick a fight with, or disrespect those who’ve clearly earned the right to be respected. If you find my tone defensive, I hope you’ll extend grace and understand it’s because I’ve been attacked since my arrival. Frankly, I find it a little comical that there are certain individuals who, while claiming to be annoyed with me, can’t seem to leave following me around this site, ha ha. (Could it be love?) :)

For those of you who need me to be credible in this virtual arena, all I can give you is this: A student can be defined simply as “one who makes a study of something”, and law school is not the only means to becoming an attorney in this country. At this time, and by the above definitions, I consider myself a law student, progressing towards the goal of becoming an attorney. As I stated earlier, law school may or may not be in my future – I’m just not at that crossroads yet. It wasn’t my intention to mislead you here and again, I apologize if that’s how my actions have been perceived.

By pressing me further on this issue, you’ll be placing my personal safety at risk, as well as taking the thread off topic – both situations I’d hope you’d all see fit to prevent. The way I see it, as everyone else on this site is privileged to anonymity to some extent, I should also be entitled to the same. As a woman, I’m sure you can understand my position. Having said that, please be respectful and drop the issue. If you don’t find me a worthy opponent or conversationalist, quit engaging. Otherwise, I’m liable to think you are irrational, have a personal agenda, or never outgrew your early childhood habit of hitting the girl you’re crushing on. =p

All else being equal, given that we are dealing with PC on so many levels and everyone is feeling the imposition, the responsibility falls equally on all of our shoulders to handle it with care. Moving past the anger and insults, avoiding the topic may not be a luxury America can afford anymore...? My hope is that we will find a way to break through and maybe even start building some bridges. While I’m a zealous advocate for truth, I believe the solution here lies in the Supremacy of Love, starting at ground zero, with me. :) Peace. TC.

Greenhat

8 December 2009, 08:01

What I am, is confident truth exists, there is sufficient evidence to prove it,

All areas of study (including the hard sciences) are based on faith at some point (faith in our senses giving us somewhat accurate and measurable data, faith that we can follow logical processes, etc.). I would say that faith is necessary to life. However, the very nature of faith means that it cannot be proven.

I think your confidence is misplaced.

As for the rest of your post, if you are actually concerned with your safety as a result of posts on SOCNET, you shouldn't be posting anywhere on the internet. You are not anonymous on the internet, and if you think you are, you are fooling yourself. Having said that, this is not the typical internet forum, and I seriously doubt that there is any reason for concern.

ThisChick

10 December 2009, 05:46

All areas of study (including the hard sciences) are based on faith at some point (faith in our senses giving us somewhat accurate and measurable data, faith that we can follow logical processes, etc.). I would say that faith is necessary to life.

I can agree with this (and have a few thoughts of my own that fall within that “etc”…), but for now, would you agree that faith is not limited to confidence in our perception and/or capabilities, but is adventurous in nature and lies at the heart of discovery and exploration? Please explain. :)

Greenhat

10 December 2009, 06:13

would you agree that faith is not limited to confidence in our perception and/or capabilities,

"etc."

grog18b

10 December 2009, 08:14

... so why is there a false PT test standard?

Because, the real PT test discriminates against weak people, and it's not fair to make sure a female officer candidate can remove a 150lb dummy from a car and drag him 100 feet (the first time) for the PT test, but disqualify a male officer candidate for not being able to do it, but then giving the female candidate 10 chances to do it, and extra training to be able to do it. (because we needed more female officers...)

It's also not fair to have a written test for a position, and disqualify a Caucasian officer candidate for failing it, while a "minority" passes with the SAME score. (because we need more minority officers)

Does not matter if you would make an excellent officer. What matters is how big of a rainbow your group photo makes. That way, the people in charge can strut around, bragging at how ethnically diverse their command is, and how "progressive" they are in their thinking.

It doesn't matter that you now have officers that are physically incapable of defending themselves in a fight. They will get promoted soon enough and removed from harms way.

It doesn't matter that you now have officers that cannot write a report, and are an embarrassment to your department in front of Judges, Lawyers, and the public.

What matters is that your group photo looks like a rainbow.

Get it?

Neither do I.

...but I have seen it done.

Affirmative action is political correctness run amok.

As was posted, during the selection process, EVERYONE should be a little gray alien to the person making the selection. No names, no identifying information of any sort. Assign everyone a number, and give the selector the raw test scores, and let the chips fall where they may. There is no reason why quality should be sacrificed for rainbow photos, and test standards should be lowered for anyone. If one race and/or sex is required to pass PT standards and tests in order to do the job, there is no excuse to lower those standards for someone of another race/sex.