Libertarian Party: Your Thoughts?

[Duke]

As I said before, if the party can't take a stance on an issue like capital punishment and abortion, then in my mind, it's simple not a viable party.

Why? A large part of what stagnates the American political system is, in fact, partisan politics and the inability to accept part of a party's platform without accepting all of that party's platform.

Not having a party-wide, mandatory opinion on a given question does not mean the party cannot be involved in legislation concerning that issue.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

I thought we have. The rule is don't infringe on other people's rights; everyone's responsibility is to (surprise!) not infringe on other people's rights. There's not much more to it than that, unless I misunderstand what you're asking…?

Who defines what is considered "an infringement of people's rights"? What might be an infringement to me, may not necessarily be an infringement to you. What then? Majority rules?

Erm, so you're saying that Swift and I have the same perception of "rights"? 'Cuz I don't think we do…

When I said "mutually exclusive" I was saying that both situations can occur at the same time. I wanted an answer from BOTH perspectives. And yes, I am aware that people's perceptions of rights will differ -- which is one reason why Libertarianism cannot work -- unless we lived in a perfect society.

Many of our punishments are ridiculous. There are people who go to jail for 5 or 6 years for murder – that's death sentence material, not a few piddly years in jail.

So, yes, if our punishments were up to snuff, I think it would be a reasonable deterrent. But many punishments these days are a joke. (Also a joke in the other direction – For example, Martha Stewart shouldn't have had to serve jail time for an act that hurt nobody.)

You bring up valid points about punishment. However, why wait until punishment has to be used? Libertarianism CANNOT answer this question.

Let me turn the tables on you: Would you rather have all the reckless drivers off of the roads, or just all of the drunks?

Do you see where I'm going with this now?

Obviously all of the reckless drivers -- but now you're just making generalizations. By doing that, you take the focus away from a single issue. Which another reason why Libertarianism cannot work -- as I said before.

This is where the fundamental disconnect keeps occurring in your understanding. The restriction is that you are not allowed to interfere with another individual's rights. Somehow you keep failing to recognize this.

I recoginize that that is the a restriction. However, it is too broad and because everyone in a Libertarian society defines "their own rights".

so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.

What happens when a person excercises there right, yet at the same time it interferes with the right of others to live in a manner that they choose?

we support the prohibition of the initiation of physical force against others

Doesn't that already exist? If not, then can you elaborate on how you think this should/would/could be interpreted?

support the prohibition of robbery, trespass, fraud, and misrepresentation.

Apart from anarchy, I don't know of any political ideology that would disagree with the above. So basically it's not saying anything different than what already exists.

Sage has covered it pretty well with his point about driving recklessly for any reason at all.

He hasn't. He's just making generalizations in order to avoid more complex issues.

No one has said it's OK to drive drunk.

What your telling me here is that there is a difference between allowing behavior and encouraging behavior. According to the Libertarian philosophy even though it's not OK to drive drunk, you have every right to if want, and you will be forced to accept the responsibilities of your actions. Fine.

It doesn't work.

There should be stiff enough penalties for reckless driving that people don't do it. That's proactive. End of story.

Is that reality? No. It's REACTIVE because it does absolutely NOTHING until AFTER a crime has been committed.

Do you think we should stop every car every trip to check for impaired drivers? Do you think I should have to submit a blood sample that tests clear of alcohol or drugs before my car will start? I'm not sure what you're getting at.

To answer your questions: That's plainly ridiculous.
Ain response to the last sentence: Because Libertarianism does not offer an answer.

So this is what you're saying: you don't believe in the responsibility part and you are blaming Libertarianism for that failure.

Yes and no and I'll explain why. Yes, the "responsibility" part is useless, and no I'm not blaming Libertarianism for any failures. I'm pointing out that Libertarianism CANNOT address issues such as these.

It's crystal clear: right is anything that does not interefere with another persons rights to physical health, well being, and property. Wrong is the opposite of that.

That's a crystal clear contradiction. Smoking interferes with my physical health, yet everyone has the right to smoke whereever, and whenever they want (assuming we lived in a Libertarian society). So the only option for me would be to live in isolation because so many people smoke? Technically I would have no right to tell them to get rid of the cigarette or don't smoke around me... so in the end, my RIGHT to physical health and well being is smashed to pieces. Which is why Libertarianism cannot work. Even though the general rule "you are not allowed to interfere with the rights of others" sounds like a great idea, it does not address individual issues.

WHO SETS THE STANDARD? It's instantly muddy and subjective. My morality is very different from yours, just as yours is very different from an orthodox fundamentalists. Instead, the answers are crystal clear as soon as you remove the restrictions. Does it cause hurt to anybody not invloved, or their property? Did everybody invloved agree to it in advance? These questions are easy to answer.

In a Libertarian society there are no set standards. So morality becomes EVEN MORE muddy and subjective than it already is. Just because your morality is different than my morality does NOT mean that WE cannot reach a GENERAL CONSENSUS.

So it's OK for someone else to feel jacked up, so long as it's not you.

The could be said in reverse, though too. It's OK for someone else to feel jacked up, so long as it's not the gay couple trying to get married.

You've just used legislated morality to push your upset off onto someone else, without regard to their upset.

The same thing could be said in reverse as well.

The beauty of this system is that once you accept the fundamental right of each individual - not to be directly harmed by the actions of others - as sacrosanct, it's up to each person to decide from where he draws his own morals.

Where/How does one draw their own morals without having a foundation or any reference points?

You're free to lead the upstanding, pious, temperate life you wish. You're free to raise your kids as you wish, and explain to them your values so they understand your decisions.

More idealism... anyway, where do think values come from?

But that "ONLY thing" is a fundamental difference that you keep glossing over.

I'm not glossing over it -- I'm pointing out its flaws.

So you define basic, inalienable actions as totally unacceptable, and you set stiff penalties for criminals who perpetrate them. Make it simple, make it powerful, make it consistent. Your chances of people understanding it and abiding by it just went up dramatically.

Really? And thanks to the simplicity, you now have a bunch of people trying to INTERPRET these actions for their own benefits.

The responsibilites and boundaries are clear: you will not cause physical harm to others or their property. If you make the choice to do so, you should be required to pay resititution to the victims, and you should be punished for that transgression by having a similar removal of your rights.

Generalizations do not address specific issues.

Libertarians feel that each individual needs to make that decision for themselves.

Abortion is not a party issue with libertarians. We disagree within the party.

Like I said before, divergence of opinion. I saw this coming from a mile away.

that people who have infringed on no one else’s rights will not be punished.

If morality were up to the individual, the interpretation of "someone else's rights" are also up to the individual.

No, monopolies will not spring into being just because the market is free – rather the opposite – the freer the market, the more choice we have.

So LESS government intervention in the market would result in a greater amount of companies. If there are no antitrust laws, what is there to stop a company from being anti-competitive?

As I said before, if the party can't take a stance on an issue like capital punishment and abortion, then in my mind, it's simply not a viable party.

I think you misread my thought about drugs. I was saying that according to the Libertarian site, almost all crimes a linked to drugs. Even if that is the case, it doesn't justify the horror that would insue should drugs be legal.

The End.

 

[Swift]

I disaree. I think that man's mind is the only thing that can spark criminal intent.


The money argument won't win your side here. Trust me, I've argued IN FAVOR of the death penalty plenty of times. I'm pretty sure it has been shown that it costs MORE to execute criminals than it does to incarcerate them for life.


.

I think you misread my thought about drugs. I was saying that according to the Libertarian site, almost all crimes a linked to drugs. Even if that is the case, it doesn't justify the horror that would insue should drugs be legal.

as far as the money thing goes. Yes with our current system of appeal after appeal it probably is cheaper. However, if the Libertarian party has there way, then the judicial system would be significantly altered and that would alleviate the financial burdern from this side of things.

 

[Duke]

Who defines what is considered "an infringement of people's rights"? What might be an infringement to me, may not necessarily be an infringement to you. What then? Majority rules?

When I said "mutually exclusive" I was saying that both situations can occur at the same time. I wanted an answer from BOTH perspectives. And yes, I am aware that people's perceptions of rights will differ -- which is one reason why Libertarianism cannot work -- unless we lived in a perfect society.

I think we've answered this question explicitly. You cannot define it as your right to never see anything of which you dissaprove. If so, anything of which you disapprove can instantly be mirrored back onto you. For everything you say offends you, someone who enjoys that thing can say you offend them. Who is to prove who's offense is more important? So your rights are defined as direct, physical [material is a good word] harm to yourself or your property. See above.

I'm assuming you did not read through the rest of the replies before you made this one. If you did, you're simply refusing to see because you don't want to know. In which case, I'm done with this thread.

You bring up valid points about punishment. However, why wait until punishment has to be used? Libertarianism CANNOT answer this question.

Because otherwise, you have 'guilty until proven innocent'.

Obviously all of the reckless drivers -- but now you're just making generalizations. By doing that, you take the focus away from a single issue. Which another reason why Libertarianism cannot work -- as I said before.

But we're not just generalizing. We're not saying "drunk driving should be penalized as weakly as any other reckless driving", we're saying "all reckless driving should be strictly monitored, enforced against, and punished heavily, regardless of the cause of the recklessness."

 

[Danoff]

Who defines what is considered "an infringement of people's rights"? What might be an infringement to me, may not necessarily be an infringement to you. What then? Majority rules?

That's a tough question. What defines criminal. Well it's different in lots of circumstances and we've had years and years of law attempting to answer that very question. I think it's a somewhat unfair question since it's really not possible for anyone (libertarian or otherwise) to answer it completely. I'll give you a partial answer.

An infringement of people's rights is any time that one of their rights has been materially violated. What does materially mean - nontrivial. What does nontrivial mean, judges will have to decide (now you understand why nobody can give you a complete answer to this question).

The key to answering this question is what rights do we have? I do not have a right to violate someone else's rights. So right there, you have limitations on what rights exist. You may think you have a right to kill someone, and that if the government removes your right to kill someone, your rights have been violated. But you cannot have a right that violates someone else's - so you cannot claim the right to kill someone. Understand?

You bring up valid points about punishment. However, why wait until punishment has to be used? Libertarianism CANNOT answer this question.

Sure it can. It is morally wrong to not wait until punishment has to be used. It is morally wrong to penalize someone because you think they might have been dangerous to others. The reason why to wait until the punishment has to be used is because that allows for the maximum personal freedom, and it is possible for society to function that way. The penalties just have to be severe enough.

 

[Swift]

Ok, here's my big point. You're getting your morals from God and the bible. Period. You can say they came from the Constitution, but they got them from the bible. Pure and simple.

 

[Duke]

Ok, here's my big point. You're getting your morals from God and the bible. Period. You can say they came from the Constitution, but they got them from the bible. Pure and simple.

I'm sorry, but that's 100%, totally, completely, absolutely, entirely, and utterly wrong. I will go to my deathbed fighting you on that point.

 

[Danoff]

Ok, here's my big point. You're getting your morals from God and the bible. Period. You can say they came from the Constitution, but they got them from the bible. Pure and simple.

I'm not religious at all. Where did I get MY morals from? Morals do not have to be defined by religion. Your judgement is so clouded by your beliefs that you cannot see life any other way.

I'm with Duke. You're completely, totally incorrect.

 

[Swift]

I'm sorry, but that's 100%, totally, completely, absolutely, entirely, and utterly wrong. I will go to my deathbed fighting you on that point.

You can fight it all you would like my friend, I do consider you a friend BTW .

But morals just don't appear. People are born selfish. They only care about themselves and must be taught differently. Where did these ideals come from, the word of God. Look at the ten commandments and look at our constitutional rules. Aside from only worshiping God, they are fairly congruent.

Check out this site If you don't believe that most of the founding fathers and prominent members of our government didn't believe in the bible.

I'm not religious at all. Where did I get MY morals from? Morals do not have to be defined by religion. Your judgement is so clouded by your beliefs that you cannot see life any other way.

I'm with Duke. You're completely, totally incorrect.

I'm not talking religion. I'm talking spiritual morality. If I was taling religion, I'd be spouting of doctrine against the Trinity and other things like that. But I'm not. My goal here is not to convert you gentlemen. But to get you to understand that the morals of our country are based in bibilical beliefs. That's it. And of course that's a good thing.

As I previously stated, there are some points that the Libertarian party has that are extremely valid, like guns and taxes. However, the whole life, liberty and pursuit of happiness is a biblical principle. So, don't be upset over it. Just acknowlege it, it's true.

 

[Danoff]

People are born selfish. They only care about themselves and must be taught differently.

They cannot be taught differently. You cannot remove selfishness from man, it is biologically ingrained in our species. All you can do is embrace it, see it for what it is - nature - and design your society accordingly.

Since when is liberty a biblical principle? Since when does the bible tout freedom? And since when was the concept of liberty younger than the concept of christiantiy?

Your argument has almost too many holes to count.

 

[Pupik]

Just here to throw another dollar-for-dollar, tax-deductible two cents in (and please excuse some of the generalizations I make in this post):

I got quite a few weird comments at work and in my family for voting Libertarian this time around. I don't really agree much with giving people a hand-out for everything, and complicating government with a program for everything. I also don't think different races, creeds, or personal differences need to be given any special advantages (*cough* Affirmative Action *cough*) in a workplace, or any other competitive arena.

I do agree with a general slackening of laws once created with the ultimate end of upholding religious morality, or cutting out special interests, to allow personal freedoms, whether relating to marriage, religion (or lack thereof), equal (not meaning "more equal") rights, and free speech and communication (or lack of speech) with a relative dose of privacy, to boot.

I also think that Republican Party's current platform of non-intrusiveness of a human being's daily affairs is one of the biggest lies ever foisted upon the American People. Most everything relating to morality and freedom that spews from a Republican's mouth is nothing that I can agree with. Maybe it's because I'm not a Christian, and/or maybe it's because I don't agree with trading freedom for security.

I do agree with the being financially conservative, which was a back-bone of Republican Party for many years, which has, alas, disappeared into a miasma of fear-mongering. I also believe that one should be allowed to make as much money or profit as much as possible, without fear of injury, libel, slander, or death. I also think a flat-tax rate is somewhat fair, that everyone should pay their fair share, unless they donate to just causes (serving and improving the well-being of the public, not personal interests) that would normally be paid for by government.

However, I don't agree much with either party. Each of our two major parties have an agenda that's very dualistic, with not much gray area. If you agree with one thing, fine, you now automatically agree with something else too by default. This is completely nuts to me. I really don't stand to gain nor lose much either by flipping a coin, in all honesty. It's almost as if you must have a brand identity in this country.

After reading a lot about the Libertarian Party, I have to say I agree with just about its entire platform. Personal responsibility and personal freedoms could live together if people thought about it for moment. (Or maybe kept that thought with them each day.)

Why give when you get nothing in return? There's no reason to give aid to other countries until we improve our nation first. As long as there is underground violent crime, white-collar crime, street violence, there's no reason to throw money away with no gain in return.

Whatever the case, the LP seems to make more sence to me, because it was thought up from the ground up, the the so-called evolution of the two party system that we have today. In any case, I voted for Badnarik and the LP back in November, for those playing the home version of the game called "my life".

 

[Danoff]

Whatever the case, the LP seems to make more sence to me, because it was thought up from the ground up, the the so-called evolution of the two party system that we have today. In any case, I voted for Badnarik and the LP back in November, for those playing the home version of the game called "my life".

Welcome aboard. Have you read Atlas Shrugged? It's somewhat required reading for libertarians.

 

[Swift]

They cannot be taught differently. You cannot remove selfishness from man, it is biologically ingrained in our species. All you can do is embrace it, see it for what it is - nature - and design your society accordingly.

Since when is liberty a biblical principle? Since when does the bible tout freedom? And since when was the concept of liberty younger than the concept of christiantiy?

Your argument has almost too many holes to count.

You keep mentioning christianity and I'm talking about biblical principles. The bible is all about FREE WILL. That is the essense of liberty is it not?

And yes, you can be taught differently. Do you have to teach a child to say no? To Lie, to take what isn't there's from someone else? Nope, you have to TEACH them the opposite. Duke has children, I'm sure he went through and is going through this right now. I'm not saying he has "bad" children. All children are like this, they need to be taught differently then what they always "want" to do.

 

[Pupik]

Welcome aboard. Have you read Atlas Shrugged? It's somewhat required reading for libertarians.

No, but I read the Fountainhead several years ago. I can't say it changed by outlook on life, but later on, I realized it paralled it a tad. Wasn't Ann Rand an Objectivist, sort of a splinter of Libertarianism?

As to the Constitution being based on religion, one must realize that Judeo-Christian traditions of not killing one another was pre-dated by about 1500 years, with the Hammurabi Code. Now, even though the HC sided with the master, as opposed to the rights of a slave, it still "layed down the law in stone" because it meant do X and Y will occur to you (if caught).

It's very easy to date things to biblical times because to most Westerners, that's pretty much the beginning of Civilization as we know it. Since anything before it was pretty much covered-up, destroyed, killed...our traditional beliefs about mankind before Abraham and God is thought to be that of utter primordial chaos. (And of course, if it happed in China or the Far East, it doesn't count!)

The bible is all about FREE WILL. That is the essense of liberty is it not?

Isn't the biblical notion of free will a paradox? God knows all, sees all, does all; yet, his most masterful creation has free will. Could it be that we are God?

All your peoples are belong to us, said God.

 

[Swift]

Isn't the biblical notion of free will a paradox? God knows all, sees all, does all; yet, his most masterful creation has free will. Could it be that we are God?

All your peoples are belong to us, said God.

Wow, that was really funny.

Yes God is omnipresent, Omnimpotent, and soverign(sp). God gave us free will because he wants us to choose him because we love him, not because we HAVE to. It's the same with children and parents. Parents love their children unconditionally when they are born and that child cannot return that love(in any way that we would understand) until they are much older. But the parent loves the baby anyway. But when that child becomes older, the parent wants the child to choose them because of love, not because of obligation.

Ok, I'm going to end that right here. I'm really not trying to turn this into a religous style debate.

Oh, I'd just like to say that it's cool to be able to talk with people and disagree and not hve immature flaming going on. Good stuff! 👍

 

[MrktMkr1986]

I'm assuming you did not read through the rest of the replies before you made this one. If you did, you're simply refusing to see because you don't want to know. In which case, I'm done with this thread.

Hang on just a second there. If I was in the middle of either editing/posting how could I possible read through the rest of the replies? I would NEVER "refuse to see [something] because I don't want to know." More assumptions?!

But we're not just generalizing. We're not saying "drunk driving should be penalized as weakly as any other reckless driving", we're saying "all reckless driving should be strictly monitored, enforced against, and punished heavily, regardless of the cause of the recklessness."

Now that THAT's cleared up -- on to something else.

Be back in a few.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

They cannot be taught differently. You cannot remove selfishness from man, it is biologically ingrained in our species. All you can do is embrace it, see it for what it is - nature - and design your society accordingly.

And THAT is the beginning of the end of Libertarianism.

EDIT 2:

MrktMkr1986 ... you really should edit your posts instead of making double posts.

OK.

I'll be back later.

 

[Swift]

MrktMkr1986, I hate to be a jerk here. But you really should edit your posts instead of making double posts.

 

[Duke]

Ok, here's my big point. You're getting your morals from God and the bible. Period. You can say they came from the Constitution, but they got them from the bible. Pure and simple.

This is funny. I had already started this post immediately after reading your quote here. Only after I came back to it did I see your later comment about comparing the Commandments to the Constitution.

I. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

Why? I can have as many gods - or as few - as I wish. The First Amendment gives me that right, which the Bible denies.

II. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.

Again, the First Amendment clearly grants me the right to make any images I want, graven or otherwise. This is open to debate on the subject of obscenity versus pornography, but not on the subject of graven or, errr, ungraven images.

III. Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain.

Sorry, I have to refer to that First Amendment thing, particularly this part: "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech...".

IV. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

Not covered. I can honor and keep holy any days I wish, or do not wish, based on my First Amendment freedom of religion.

V. Honour thy father and thy mother.

Still not covered. My parents are due the respect of their rights granted to any individual, true, and are afforded Constitutional rights that derive from that. But I'm not required to honor them beyond that.

VI. Thou shalt not kill.

Now we're getting somewhere. The Preamble calls out two chief functions of the Constitution as "...establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility..." which does in fact include protecting citizens from harm by either other citizens or the government itself.

But this is hardly Biblical. Killing people has largely been considered a bad idea since recorded history began. Wars notwithstanding, you cannot say that the idea that killing people is wrong was invented less than 3000 years ago by the writers of the Old Testament.

VII. Thou shalt not commit adultery.

Another bit of morality not covered by the Constitution. It clearly causes harm when one partner is not aware of the adultery and has not approved of it in advance; that partner's rights are protected by divorce laws, which give restitution to the wronged partner. But there's nothing prohibiting 'open' marriages in any way, provided both partners agree to the terms in advance. But this is covered by the 'Breech of contract' clauses rather than direct prhibition of adultery itself. Individual states may well have laws against adultery - as is their right - but it is not a Constitutional issue.

Besides, Canada geese, among numerous other species, practice monogamous lifelong mate pairing. Are they following Biblical principles? Again, something in line with Christian tenets that is not at all derived from Christian tenets. Just because Constitutional rights don't contradict Scripture, as in the first three points, or ignore them, as in the next two, doesn't mean that the Constitutional moral authority is based upon Scripture.

VIII. Thou shalt not steal.

See reply to 'Kill' and 'Adultery' above.

IX. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

This is fairly closely supported by the Constitution. Yet again you cannot presume that Scripture invented morality. Once again, lying was generally seen as bad behaviour well before Scripture appeared.

X. Thou shalt not covet any thing that is thy neighbour's.

Why not? Covet away. Just don't steal it, be it his wife or his ass. More 'morality' unsupported by the Constitution.

Note also that homosexuality - which certainly existed at the time - gets no mention. In fact, sexuality doesn't get mentioned at all. Nor do intoxicants except in the 18th and 21st Amendments.

 

[Swift]

Why? I can have as many gods - or as few - as I wish. The First Amendment gives me that right, which the Bible denies.

Again, the First Amendment clearly grants me the right to make any images I want, graven or otherwise. This is open to debate on the subject of obscenity versus pornography, but not on the subject of graven or, errr, ungraven images.

Sorry, I have to refer to that First Amendment thing, particularly this part: "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech...".

Not covered. I can honor and keep holy any days I wish, or do not wish, based on my First Amendment freedom of religion.

Still not covered. My parents are due the respect of their rights granted to any individual, true, and are afforded Constitutional rights that derive from that. But I'm not required to honor them beyond that.

Now we're getting somewhere. The Preamble calls out two chief functions of the Constitution as "...establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility..." which does in fact include protecting citizens from harm by either other citizens or the government itself.

But this is hardly Biblical. Killing people has largely been considered a bad idea since recorded history began. Wars notwithstanding, you cannot say that the idea that killing people is wrong was invented less than 3000 years ago by the writers of the Old Testament.

Another bit of morality not covered by the Constitution. It clearly causes harm when one partner is not aware of the adultery and has not approved of it in advance; that partner's rights are protected by divorce laws, which give restitution to the wronged partner. But there's nothing prohibiting 'open' marriages in any way, provided both partners agree to the terms in advance. But this is covered by the 'Breech of contract' clauses rather than direct prhibition of adultery itself. Individual states may well have laws against adultery - as is their right - but it is not a Constitutional issue.

Besides, Canada geese, among numerous other species, practice monogamous lifelong mate pairing. Are they following Biblical principles? Again, something in line with Christian tenets that is not at all derived from Christian tenets. Just because Constitutional rights don't contradict Scripture, as in the first three points, or ignore them, as in the next two, doesn't mean that the Constitutional moral authority is based upon Scripture.

See reply to 'Kill' and 'Adultery' above.


This is fairly closely supported by the Constitution. Yet again you cannot presume that Scripture invented morality. Once again, lying was generally seen as bad behaviour well before Scripture appeared.

Why not? Covet away. Just don't steal it, be it his wife or his ass. More 'morality' unsupported by the Constitution.

Note also that homosexuality - which certainly existed at the time - gets no mention. In fact, sexuality doesn't get mentioned at all. Nor do intoxicants except in the 18th and 21st Amendments.

Let me put it to you another way. All of the principles that are in our constitution can be found in the bible. Obviously the 10 commandments are not the end all be all of the word of God.

And why would you covet anything that is someone elses? Especially their spouse.
Covet means:
1) To feel blameworthy desire for (that which is another's).
2) To wish for longingly.

Why would you long after someone ELSE'S wife? Whether you're married or not, that's just not cool.

" You do well to wish to learn our arts and our ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. Congress will do everything they can to assist you in this wise intention."- George Washington

Well if Washington was a major part of the creation of the constitiution, and he was, why would he say something like this if he believed it to be unconstitutional?

Also....this is the first sentence in the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence:

" 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. "

Hmm...Looks like to me that they believed that God gave them the unalienable rights(that we all agree on) that we have. So, how again is our constitution and very form of gov't not based on biblical beliefs?

 

[Duke]

Again, the Constitution doesn't have to directly contradict Scripture in order to avoid being based upon it.

And I never said coveting was a good idea; I just said it is yet another morality prohibited by Christian morality that is NOT covered by Constitutional law.

[edit] And, actually, Washington was a Federalist who strongly believed in a powerful centralized government. Jefferson fought heavily against that and won on many points.

[edit 2]

Also....this is the first sentence in the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence:

" 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. "

Hmm...Looks like to me that they believed that God gave them the unalienable rights(that we all agree on) that we have. So, how again is our constitution and very form of gov't not based on biblical beliefs?

BECAUSE, it is crucial to remember that Jefferson was a Deist and believed in Nature as a deity, not the Judeo-Christian concept of God as Jehovah, an entity. Jefferson in fact struck the word "God" from the drafts and substituted "Creator" for that very reason. Besides, there is no reference even with the word "God" retained that specifies the Christian Bible...

 

[///M-Spec]

Holy Paul Rosche on an M10 engine block this thread is massive.

No need for me to step in and continue where I left off yestarday afternoon, since it would be very repetative of what's already been written. Duke, danoff and Sage are all doing a fine job with their responses.

I notice someone of you are dwelling on details and debating sub-strands in detriment of the core issues.... but that will always be danger when a topic this large and complex is at issue. I encourage everyone not to allow develing into the minutiae and distract themselves from the real issues at hand.


M

 

[Swift]

Again, the Constitution doesn't have to directly contradict Scripture in order to avoid being based upon it.

And I never said coveting was a good idea; I just said it is yet another morality prohibited by Christian morality that is NOT covered by Constitutional law.

[edit] And, actually, Washington was a Federalist who strongly believed in a powerful centralized government. Jefferson fought heavily against that and won on many points.

[edit 2]

BECAUSE, it is crucial to remember that Jefferson was a Deist and believed in Nature as a deity, not the Judeo-Christian concept of God as Jehovah, an entity. Jefferson in fact struck the word "God" from the drafts and substituted "Creator" for that very reason. Besides, there is no reference even with the word "God" retained that specifies the Christian Bible...

That's my point exactly! Jefferson was in the minority of people there as far as faith goes. He had God taken out and replaced with creator. That actually makes sense and goes along perfectly with the first amendment. That still doesn't mean that the actual people that created the constitution did not use biblical principles within it. In fact, it proves it that much more.

 

[Duke]

But the framers of the Constituion, Jefferson in particular, went to great pains to remove religion from the equation... great pains. They were extremely careful to recognize that whatever their personal faiths, those faiths were not and should not be universal.

All biblical principles are not horrible simply because they're biblical. In civilized society a certain number of features are going to line up. But that in no way proves that the Constitution is founded upon biblical principles. If it was, the framers would have put the 10 Commandments and whatever other scripture they deemed appropriate right into it. Some align, some do not; I've clearly outlined that above.

The fact remains that no matter what the framers believed individually, they recognized the importance of keeping religion out of the national system.

And I still reject your earlier assertion that my morality is based on Christian principles and I just don't know it yet.

 

[Swift]

But the framers of the Constituion, Jefferson in particular, went to great pains to remove religion from the equation... great pains. They were extremely careful to recognize that whatever their personal faiths, those faiths were not and should not be universal.

All biblical principles are not horrible simply because they're biblical. In civilized society a certain number of features are going to line up. But that in no way proves that the Constitution is founded upon biblical principles. If it was, the framers would have put the 10 Commandments and whatever other scripture they deemed appropriate right into it. Some align, some do not; I've clearly outlined that above.

The fact remains that no matter what the framers believed individually, they recognized the importance of keeping religion out of the national system.

And I still reject your earlier assertion that my morality is based on Christian principles and I just don't know it yet.

Well, man. It sounds like you're getting angry and that's not my intention.

You're right, they went through great pains to make sure it didn't point to any specific religion. But you can't deny that the basic principles for morality of our gov't are spiritual.

But if not, then tell me exactly WHERE they got the ideas? They didn't just come up with them because they were bored. So, where then?

 

[Duke]

I'm not getting angry! If I seem touchy it's only because I hate seeing a great document - probably the single greatest document ever written, in the history of man - get coopted.

The Founders absorbed all the principles they saw and held throughout their lives, and they put a lot of rational thought into framing a Constitution that allowed for a maximum of freedom - religious and otherwise - while protecting the rights of all citizens to determine their own lives. They took what was good from everywhere they saw it and they universalized it to a huge degree.

They were not 'spiritual' at all. There's nothing 'spiritual' required to say that it is a violation of an individual's human rights to kill him or steal his property, and to extend protection of those rights to all citizens.

It is no coincidence at all that the United States was formed at the pinnacle of the Age of Enlightenment.

[edit] Read the Preamble:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

We the People... secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.

 

[Swift]

I'm not getting angry! If I seem touchy it's only because I hate seeing a great document - probably the single greatest document ever written, in the history of man - get coopted.

The Founders absorbed all the principles they saw and held throughout their lives, and they put a lot of rational thought into framing a Constitution that allowed for a maximum of freedom - religious and otherwise - while protecting the rights of all citizens to determine their own lives. They took what was good from everywhere they saw it and they universalized it to a huge degree.

They were not 'spiritual' at all. There's nothing 'spiritual' required to say that it is a violation of an individual's human rights to kill him or steal his property, and to extend protection of those rights to all citizens.

It is no coincidence at all that the United States was formed at the pinnacle of the Age of Enlightenment.

And they just did all that themselves? Well, I guess as far as this goes we'll have to agree to disagree.

I think we both are equal patriots to our country and love it very much. We simply have different views as to the development of it. And since neither of us were there, we can't give an eye-witness account. I have proof for my views and you have proof for yours. Though in a way you are actually agreeing with me, I'll just let this aspect of the conversation off now. No point in us fighting when we are very much on the same side

 

[Duke]

And they just did all that themselves? Well, I guess as far as this goes we'll have to agree to disagree.

Read the Preamble:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

We the People... secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.
👍

 

[Danoff]

But if not, then tell me exactly WHERE they got the ideas? They didn't just come up with them because they were bored. So, where then?

Same place I get my morals, logic.

 

[Swift]

Read the Preamble:

We the People... secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.
👍

Fantastic! So, what was the point again? That there is not mention of God or a higher power in that. Hmm, well of course they wanted to secure the blessings of liberty for themselves. Who else could they possibly secure it for? I still see it as being an extremely Godly way to govern the people.

You can disagree all you would like, the fact is most of them were christians and their faith DID influence the creation of the constitution. How could it not?