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

Once, children were sacrificed to Moloch. Now, they are sacrificed to the DEA.

Robert H   ·  November 24, 2010 9:39 AM

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.
HCR laws and regulations will make us long for the days of a simple drug war.

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


----
**Disclaimers: 1. Where 'pay' = a personal burden of less than 1/1000th of a penny (not adjusting for inflation). 2. If HC is available (to subject). 3. An illness may not occur for thirty years or more, if ever. 4. Assumes Twinkies remain classified as 'non-food'.

Ponderosa   ·  November 24, 2010 5:24 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 2:08 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 1:51 PM

Post a comment


April 2011
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30

ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR


Search the Site


E-mail



Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link



Archives



Recent Entries



Links



Site Credits