Biggest threat to America?

Way to go, Wallew. I think this thread is indication enough. Even among people on this board, who tend to be much more like-minded about many things than the general population, we have vehement disagreements about religion, government, etc.

We have such political hatred in this country because so many people believe so many different things. In the past, this was true, but the government was not ingrained into our lives so much, so we could have arguments without getting so heated, because the other person couldn't go lobby in Washington to have their beliefs forced on us. Today, in many instances, they can do exactly that.

There is only one way for government to be "fair" to everyone. And that is, for all intents and purposes, to DISAPPEAR. Worry about defending the borders against hostile foreign attack and leave it at that. (Gee, just like the Constitution says). The only way for a government to not oppress anyone is to basically not do anything. Let each individual live their life and conduct their business according to their own beliefs, and let each individual be totally responsible for the consequences, good and bad.

The alternative is what we have now. Oppressive government, nosy activists, and bloated, out of control budgets, programs, and regulatory madness that result in 3/4 of all the wealth-production capacity of our nation being dumped down the black hole of government in one way or another.

How do you think this nation became a major economic power within 120 years of its inception, surpassing countries with 1000-year histories? Yes, natural resources helped, abundant land, the protection of our two best friends, the Atlantic and the Pacific. But that doesn't completely account for the US's world leadership in innovation, invention, and industry during the second half of the 19th century and the first half of the 20th. Liberty does account for it. Personal liberty yields creativity, innovation, and invention. I shudder to think how much further advanced our society might be if Wilson and later FDR had not sped up what Lincoln started, turning our Constitutional limited federal republic into the bloated, interfering, life-sucking "democracy" it is today.

What's the biggest threat to our country? The same thing it's always been. The same thing the Founders feared and tried to limit: Government with a capital G. Whether it expands with left-wing socialist or right-wing fascist tendencies makes no difference. Both result in slavery.
 
USP45usp, I missed your question yesterday asking for a reference for the 2 million dollars. I may have heard the same story twice and thought it was two different people that offered the money and that is why I said is was double, but here it is- www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1361145/posts
There is also an uncoraberated story from Shiavo's lawyer that he was offered as much as 10 million dollars by someone else that was not public. This guy had the money and made the offer publicly.

Have you ever had surgery before? When you woke up groggy did you feel hungry? When you were under the drugs and half of your brain was not working completly did you feel thirsty? If someone goes years without using their mouth to eat or drink do they lose the midbrain reaction of fear that we do when the mouth and throat are denied either for even a few hours?

Her doctors (even the ones that didn't testify in court) said that she was under opiates and did not feel the hunger and thirst even if her brain was working. The doctors that did testify in the court case (except for that right to life activist doctor) said that she didn't even have enough brain left to feel it. Many doctors in the media that had a neutral postition said that someone who has had a feeding tube removed in order to let them expire, that had that feeding tube for years and were concious till near the end, didn't feel hungry or thirsty.

I sympathise with your families plight and may act the same as you do, but we are talking about someone who the courts (plural) had found through the testimony of 4-5 witnesses that heard her say it that said that was her wish. Since you brought up family, I feel as if these right to lifers are calling me a murderer too because my family pulled the plug on my father even though he could have lived another month in a coma. I know you are not calling me a murderer but the people you heard the most on T.V. probably would. They were so radical and they used so many people to lie or "fudge" their observations that the judges (yes plural) discounted most of the new witnesses as lying or just plain imagining things. We have to draw the line somewhere and provide all possible safeguards within reason and that is why all of the polls (except the few taken by right to life affiliated organizations) found the super majority of Americans agreed with letting her go as she wished because all reasonable safeguards were provided by the courts. I assume she wanted to die with dignity (at least with the dignity she had left after her image was shown to billions of people). The argument that we should err on the side of life is the whole reason this went on for 8 years and the argument means little to me coming from those fanatics because I get a strong impression that even if she had a living will that they would still fight it and ask the court to "err on the side of life". They do not want any form of "right to die" to occur under any circumstances. And I mean any circumstances like the one my father was in, and the one that Tom DeLay's father was in.
 
Marko Kloos
If you're suggesting that the end of slavery came about because Christians worked against it, you are only partially right ... etc
Click to expand...
Someone brought up "my religious views" though, and there seems to be some level of acceptence by people that the case under discussion is somehow delineated by the "religious [right etc]" and sort of atheistic "pro-choicers".

It is an interesting parallel then that at the time of the War between the States religion was far more openly prominent in government circles, especially the Christian religion in the general context. And the undisputed national leader at the time, Abraham Lincoln, was the man at the helm.

There are a great many quotations attributed to him that can not be construed to come from any other sources than Christian scripture and doctrines, and the teachings of Jesus Christ Himself. He even declared a "national day of prayer and fasting".

Our laws have much more in common with Roman civil law than with Biblical law. English civil law, which was the basis for ours, was hugely influenced by Roman law.
Click to expand...
Roman civil law is certainly the basis for much civil law and Latin remains the legal language due to it's precision. While we derived ours somewhat directly from England - England, like much of Europe derived much of their criminal law and crimes against persons after it having been refined under Christian Rome.

There are very few provisions in the Constitution that have a basis in Biblical law, and a lot of our constitutional rights are in direct opposition to the Bible
Click to expand...
Well, that is almost like pointing out that there is very little nutritional value in a pair of leather shoes. It is a purely secular structure with some procedure - not strictly concerned with matters of "right" and "wrong". The amendments are for a large part afterthoughts - and argueably applying only to the Federal government and it's relationship with externals in the contexts of the BORs.

It is in opposition to the Bible in as much as there is no codified submission of the secular government to the Church - as for instance once was the case in Mexico, in Peru until recently and is currently the case in Columbia I believe.

But to deny the Christian roots of our current criminal laws including those concerning crimes against persons is to deny what is known about the history of every single pagan "civilization"; all manner of perverted and brutal practices, some of which continued in Rome until it's submission to the Church.

Even some civil law goes back to Old Testament law - like the release from debts after a seven year period for example.
 
Last edited:
The country is run by lawyers. I blame the fundamental problems on the bar. The FF would have hoped that we would abide by the Constitution or amend it. We do neither, allowing lawyers and their own judges to make stuff up.
 
Well, that is like almost like pointing out that there is very little nutritional value in a pair of leather shoes. It is a purely secular structure with some procedure - not strictly concerned with matters of "right" and "wrong". The amendments are for a large part afterthoughts - and argueably applying only to the Federal government and it's relationship with externals in the contexts of the BORs.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry if I missed your meaning but this statement confuses me on you position. First of all let me say that one of the reasons I believe that it was not "strictly concerned with [moral] matters of 'right' and 'wrong'" is because they may have thought that certain Chritsian beliefs on the issue of (moral) right and wrong is because of the different interpretations of certain denominations were conflicting. In order to get the constitution ratified, the constitution was a compromise on some issues that some Christian beliefs had such as the interpretation of the bible when it comes to slavery but the whole idea of the amendment was a continuation of the idea of keeping the government as secular as possible to avoid future religious moral conflicts.
Second, the part where you point out (and if this is what you meant then I dissagree, if not I apologise for misinterpreting) that the amendments were directed to the fed fov. and it's externals (interstate commerce, war etc.) then that scares me because it would mean that the second amendment doesn't apply to the citizens when the states ban guns, it means that the 4th amendment doesn't apply when the states pass a law that says they can search my home without a warrant. All this could be argued in the future because of that argument that the amendment was intended to apply only to the fed. gov. or congress. btw what is BOR? I don't know what it is and it may change the meaning of your complete statement as far as I know.

I don't know history very well when it comes to the 'decline and fall of the Roman empire' but I thought that Romans were still pagans when they conquered part of England and they still had a gov. that was Christian as well as pagan for most of the rest of their occupation.

NEVER assume that pro-choicers are atheists. I am an atheist and I know that I am in a huge minority in this country. There is no way that every single atheist in this country could be in the pro-choice movement. We only make up between 2-10% (if that) percent of this country and you would have to import millions of atheists from Europe to say that all of the people that are pro choice or in the pro choice movement are atheists. AND not all atheist are pro choice. (I am pro choice. But I would not participate in an abortion myself because atheists can have morals too no matter what the propaganda says)
 
Novus Collectus
First of all let me say that one of the reasons I believe that it was not "strictly concerned with [moral] matters of 'right' and 'wrong'" is because they may have thought that certain Chritsian beliefs on the issue of (moral) right and wrong is because of the different interpretations of certain denominations were conflicting
Click to expand...
I think it was more a case of they just took such things for granted. I think most of them either did not realize what a calculated progressive agenda would accomplish later on or that it would get anywhere unopposed. In addition to the fact that they probably did not anticipate what modern media for example would be able to do with such things.

But A good example is the overlapping (in this context) subject of explicit images and children. If the founders were hauled from the grave and crowded into a hall today and presented with what have been "legislated" by the SCOTUS and a complicit Congress - I think they would almost all without exception be absolutely appalled. Regardless of what denomination they belonged to. I think the same could be said of other moral issues as well.

Slavery was not an issue - the British didn't even abolish it until 1834.

Second, the part where you point out (and if this is what you meant then I dissagree, if not I apologise for misinterpreting) that the amendments were directed to the fed fov. and it's externals (interstate commerce, war etc.) then that scares me because it would mean that the second amendment doesn't apply to the citizens when the states ban guns ... ETC
Click to expand...
This was well covered in another thread so I do not want to rehash it all here.

I don't know history very well when it comes to the 'decline and fall of the Roman empire' but I thought that Romans were still pagans when they conquered part of England and they still had a gov. that was Christian as well as pagan for most of the rest of their occupation.
Click to expand...
Christian Rome no doubt took some time for the effects to permeate the other reaches of the empire. But It put an end to pagan Rome and related practices.

NEVER assume that pro-choicers are atheists .. ETC
Click to expand...
I don't. Some fall into other catagories; but many are, and I was merely citing what is a popularly accepted general dividing line in politics.
 
But A good example is the overlapping (in this context) subject of explicit images and children. If the founders were hauled from the grave and crowded into a hall today and presented with what have been "legislated" by the SCOTUS and a complicit Congress - I think they would almost all without exception be absolutely appalled. Regardless of what denomination they belonged to. I think the same could be said of other moral issues as well.
Click to expand...

They may not dissagre with the S.C.'s view with the applicatiion of the 1st amendment if they also looked at how we progressed with the interpretations of the laws they had written in the past 200 or so years. You may have a point though about protecting freedom of speech not covering all types of porn. They were thought to be protecting just the right to protest aaginst the government. If you say or do something (with the exception of yelling fire in a theatre and things related) while protesting then you are almost completly protected. Two examples. It is against the law to posses marijuanna on public property but every year they allowed a protest on the lawn behind the White House where people were possessing and smoking pot in protest against the law. If someone has a protest against public nudity they will probably be protected under thte first amendment if they are butt naked in front of congress while handing out political pamphlets. The worry that the founding fathrer may have a problem with, is that the government's willingness to define what is a poltical protest and what is not a reasonable protest. They may also support the ACLU's defense of the perverts to posses the child porn because they would feel that there are other ways to stop the propagation of child molestation without having the government define what is reasonable free speech.


I haven't seen a poll of right to choose movement members but I still disagree with the sentiment that they are even partially made up of atheists. Because it seems unnimaginable to many of the evangelicals and Catholics that another Christian would have a different view on when a baby becomes a life, they assume that they are not Chritians or religious and think (and say) that they must be athiests. The whole argument of abortion by 99% (99% is an expression and not a supported figure) of the right to choose people is that the abortions occur on fetuses and not babies and so it is not taking a life just removing tissue. The reason they have had to defend the terrible practice of abortions in the latter stages is because the right to life people try to whittle away at the right to choose by getting started with the 3rd trimester ban.
This is also why I believe that this is why Terry Shiavo had to be starved instead of assisted in other ways that would seem more humane is because the predecesssors of right to life froups argued that helping someone die is killing (decades ago). The compromise that was reached was to "let" people die by their own body whether it is removal of life support device that helps them breath or a life support device that feed them.


As far as the part where I asked you about something you already said earlier in the thread, I had just woken up and had no coffee. Sorry for asking you to rrepeat yourself. :o
 
Novus Collectus
They may also support the ACLU's defense of the perverts to posses the child porn because they would feel that there are other ways to stop the propagation of child molestation without having the government define what is reasonable free speech.
Click to expand...
This, like the "nude protest" theory, is what I am sure the founders would not agree to. Speech is speech. Imagery existed long before the Constitution was written; I can not fathom anyone even contemplating that they meant "expression". All the relevant words in the English language existed at the time, and neither would I accept that it was an accidental omission etc at the time.

I haven't seen a poll of right to choose movement members but I still disagree with the sentiment that they are even partially made up of atheists.
Click to expand...
Well, I was merely citing what is largely a media driven notion as to the general dividing line. But that aside, you will be hard pressed to find more atheist "pro-lifers" that athiest "pro-choicers" - and very hard pressed to find more non-atheist "pro-choicers" than atheists.

The reason being that most all the major religions that recognize God - albeit not necessarily Catholic - oppose the A-word absolutely, as well as putting to death people like Terri Shiavo.

Now I know that many people who see themselves as Christians (and other religions) present a sort of "Even though I wouldn't do it I recognize the right to choose .... etc". But most Christians I know see this as absurd; like saying "Even though I wouldn't commit murder, I recognize the right to do so .."

You are correct of course that some have introduced various arguements into the issue, that "life does not begin until ..." etc. Also in the relationship to the Shiavo case with the A-word.
 
I haven't seen a poll of right to choose movement members but I still disagree with the sentiment that they are even partially made up of atheists.
Click to expand...

"Right to choose movement" is kind of an oxymoron, because a pro-choice philosophy includes minding ones own business. The only movement would be to defend a position against rabid attacks and mob decrees by way of legislation. You might find some form of "movement" as a secondary agenda within a liberty and freedom group.
 
This, like the "nude protest" theory, is what I am sure the founders would not agree to. Speech is speech. Imagery existed long before the Constitution was written; I can not fathom anyone even contemplating that they meant "expression". All the relevant words in the English language existed at the time, and neither would I accept that it was an accidental omission etc at the time.
Click to expand...
The right to assembly. Freedom of expression (in a hurry don't have time to see if expression is specifically mentioned on the cons. right now).

If they recognised the right to assemble then wouldn't it be reasonable to assume (myself not being a cons. scholar I HAVE to assume :) ) that they would'nt want rectrictions on "how" people assembled? (of course the "fire in a crowded theatre" case applies, like riots and mobs). This would lead to how they don't want to ammend anyone's protest against the government in any form (once again I assume using my version of logic and vague recall on legal interpretations).

Yes I believe you are right that there probably would be more atheists in the pro choice movement than the pro life movement and I think finally see what you meant.

The "life does not begin until birth or conception, or 2nd trimester" part goes back to (have to research to cite) Christian (and other) beliefs in history when they had a basic guidline of how to approach a woman who aborted her fetus (or even her baby) and they decided on a few occasions that the baby did not have a sould until it was born.

I used Catholics and evangelicals as examples of the greater grouping and was not excluding others. But Catholics may be good example for the argument. If you use`condoms then you are preventing a life (IIRC the catholics believe) and this goes to the argument about how different Christians have different views on abortion. Where is the line drawn when it comes to the definition of when human tissue is life? Is someone commiting a type of abortion if they masterbate into a tissue? Or if a woman doesn't live a poerfectly clean life and goes to a OB doct. the day after conceiving to prevent a natural abortion?(miscarage) This is what the pro choicers really are fighting for and that is the right to not have "certain" beliefs that others have oppressing their right to their own definitions of when life starts and what they can do with their bodies. After all if you take the extremist Moslems into this argument then the part where I used the "clean living" after sex argument then you might see where I'm coming from. One of the things that the E.moslems would do is to use the law against causing a pregnacy to not comong to term for "anY" reason then they may make their wifes prisoners in the home for 9 months to assure a "clean healthy" pregnancy.


(Darn it. I was trying to make this quick and now I'm late.)
 
Novus Collectus
The right to assembly. Freedom of expression (in a hurry don't have time to see if expression is specifically mentioned on the cons. right now).
Click to expand...

AFAIK the would "expression" does not appear. The right to peaceably assemble would not include elements of indecency. Again, I could theorize what the founders would have had to say about such a "protest" say, outside the WH, in their day.

Protestant Christians are, among the different denominations, rather fragmented in their specific "codes" on the A-word. But then, they are often quite fragmented on their teachings for particular scriptures and doctrine. But aside from those slipping into the deeper end of the liberal trough, most are pretty steady on the A issue.

Outside of established theology - from a "scientific" standpoint - it can of course be tossed around as a subjective issue. Like a number of painful subjects, it boils down to who you believe - or want to believe.
 
The federal interest in indecency should be viewed as an interstate commerce issue, something a single State cannot control on its own. I believe States should regulate their own social standards, so I wouldn't allow applying the First Amendment to standards of decency. It was clearly intended to allow criticism of the government and religious (or anti religious) expression, period. Beyond that is activist judging and a matter for which Congress should have provided guidance and jurisdiction. Having the executive branch as the regulator of decency standards seems entirely appropriate to me, lacking a better idea.

My only real criticism of current regulation is allowing cable companies to bundle channels in basic packages, forcing a subscriber to indirectly fund channels they refuse to watch as a matter of principle. An example would would be E! Network that runs Howard Stern. The E! Network is part of the basic package. I don't have to watch it, but I am funding Howard Stern without option.
 
I can see how that would upset you, but on the other hand I don't want to see the government further interfering in the business practices of the cable company or any other company.

If you wish their practices to be changed, get the word out, find a lot of people who agree with you, get them together, go to the cable company, and demand to be allowed to pick individual channels.

Your complaint is something I have never even thought of before. I'm willing to bet a lot of other people have never thought of it, but if you were to prod them to consider it by getting their attention, a lot of people might realize they agree with you, and then you'd have your influence with the cable company.

That's the way to change things in a free economy. Leave the government out of it. If you go and push them to regulate this industry and that industry, sooner or later someone will push them to regulate your industry, in a way you may not like.
 
Biggest threat to America? Dependence. Dependence on the government to save you when you're in trouble. Dependence on the supermarket to mop up the spill when you should be watching where you're going anyway. Kids depending on their parents to put them through college and then continue to care for them until they are thirty. I could go on for hours.

It's sad that we have such a dependent society when this country was born from the Declaration of Independence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top