Subject:
|
Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 29 Dec 1998 03:46:04 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
beaker@pobox.%avoidspam%com
|
Viewed:
|
1040 times
|
| |
|
|
Also sprach Matt Hanson:
: Divorce, in my opinion, ought to entail some sort of punishment on both
: sides, to discourage the practice, or to make people think harder about
: marriage. (another abused institution)
Yeek. What you are asking for has a name. It's called a theocracy.
Thankfully that sort of thing is specifically forseen and forbidden by
our constitution. I think we are just going to have to disagree on this
point, Matt. If you think the above is a good idea, you don't truly
believe in our system of government, or don't understand it if you think
you do.
: That's one of the liberal spins that has been put on promises in other
: cases... implied, or word of mouth contracts... so why not uphold them
: all by law?
This level of government has *never* existed .... anywhere. It's
impractical for a start. The potential for human rights abuses is the
most scary part, though.
: I dont' like to think of it as regulating morality. To me, trying to
: regulate morality is telling someone how to think, not actually
: punishing them for breaking promises.
Freedom of thought is meaningless without reasonable freedom of action.
: It doesn't have to be a felony that carries the death sentence. (which
: interestingly enough, it use to, in some cultures) But it should be at
: least a minor criminal offense. It is considered bad enough to warrant
: civil action, so I really don't see why it shouldn't be illegal... It
: *is* a violation of a contract...
The civil action relates, again, to a change-in-status under various tax
and shared-asset laws. It is not, and should not, be a criminal
proceeding.
The point, Matt, is that just because a system of belief works for you,
or even works for millions of people, does not mean it works for
everyone. For every happy, fulfilled Christian you point to, I can
point to four or five happy, fulfilled non-Christians. With such a
diverse variety of belief systems, picking one and trying to enforce it
is unrealistic, abusive and unworkable.
Furthermore, morality must be voluntary or it's meaningless. We
regulate a bare minimum of things we can all agree on; rape, murder,
theft, etc, and leave additional moral choices to individual choice,
where they belong.
Your Bible counsels you to judge not, lest you be judged. It also says
that laws of man are secondary to laws of God, and that after death the
soul recieves a final reckoning. If you truly love that god, why can
you not trust his wisdom and judgement, surely greater than your own,
and follow the admonition not to judge?
/ _ _ / _ _ Sooner or later, EVERYONE stops smoking.
()(-(//((-/
============= Jim Baker -- Weather Weasel Extraordinaire ==============
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this
|
| (...) I have no faith in our system of government... It serves those who serve themselves. I would much rather live under Hammurabi's code of Laws. (...) It's not a level of government. It's one of the flaws of our constitution. One that has been (...) (26 years ago, 29-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this
|
| (...) Divorce, in my opinion, ought to entail some sort of punishment on both sides, to discourage the practice, or to make people think harder about marriage. (another abused institution) (...) Well, you seem to have overlooked the part I wrote (...) (26 years ago, 29-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
118 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
