|
|
|
November 24, 2010
Out In Force
I get all kinds of e-mails and comments. One constant theme among my social "conservative" friends runs something like this: "If we don't keep all the laws we have and especially the ones targeting rope smokers civilization will break down and the child molesters will be out in force." Uh. Wouldn't that be "Law worship"? And doesn't that violate the First Commandment of the sacred text? For those of you unfamiliar with the text I could post it in the original Hebrew. But few read that language anymore (pity). So let me give you the short version translation: You shall have no other gods before me. There was some Jewish guy around 2,000 years ago who complained about law worship I think. What was his name? Give me some time. I'm sure it will come to me. Cross Posted at Power and Control posted by Simon on 11.24.10 at 03:26 AM
Comments
The child molesters are already out in force. They're employed by the TSA. Funnily enough, I don't think we're at any risk from cleaning up the laws. Of course, that removes the key police state requirement: everyone breaks the laws, so anyone can be singled out for selective enforcement. Gee. I wonder why there's no interest in cleaning up the legal code? Kate · November 24, 2010 11:02 AM Clean up the legal code? Heck I wish. I am sooo looking forward: "War on Food" & Health by Fiat. /sarc Hey! Don't eat that Twinkie! It's against the law and I have to pay your medical bills**. It's gonna be great! /sarc again Ponderosa · November 24, 2010 05:24 PM It's possible to make a case that voting under the influence of drugs is not a victimless action. On the other hand, legalizing drugs is likely to mean fewer stoners will be voting. Joseph Hertzlinger · November 24, 2010 11:33 PM It's possible to make a case that voting under the influence of drugs is not a victimless action. Pity alcohol isn't banned on voting day at minimum. Alcohol is by far the BIGGEST drug problem in America. If we could get it banned year 'round even better. Hell will be forever for rent. So I've heard. M. Simon · November 25, 2010 02:08 AM Wouldn't that be "Law worship"? You might have the makings of an argument there. But frankly your supporting statements are, at best, weak and undefined. Accusing someone of violating there own religious tenets probably should include some clear definition of those tenets. Or at least something to display that you understand the potential intricacies involved. Are you approaching the law from a strict Old Covenant meaning, or are you including Rabbinical law? Your allusion Jesus would seem to indicate some awareness, if not acknowledgment of his role in forming a New Covenant. Said Covenant being a transformational redefinition of the relationship of God and the law. Do you not think that these intricacies have been substantially addressed by these religions? Frankly your assertion, offered without any caveat, or argumentation of the obvious underlying principles strikes me as either overly simplistic, or fundamentally dishonest. Either way it evinces an opinion of religious conservatives as uneducated and vulnerable to sophistry. I had thought you above it. ThomasD · November 25, 2010 01:51 PM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
December 2010
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
December 2010
November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSAAGOP Skepticism See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
• War Baby
• Remember Pearl Harbor, lest it become "outdated content" • Predictable, but not dull • Letting people in nursing homes suffer is a small price to pay... • Gratuitous and premature prognostication • Hating Democrats • Practice Run • moral lessons from the war on drugs • Is that a cucumber in your underwear or are you just happy to be pickled? • Frozen in denial
Links
Site Credits
|
|
Once, children were sacrificed to Moloch. Now, they are sacrificed to the DEA.