There is an interesting fight in Minnesota where State Senator Ellen Anderson made the modest suggestion that the state repeal laws making it illegal for a married woman to cheat on her husband and another statute that makes it a crime for single women to have sex at all. The response of the powerful Minnesota Family Council is to call for the law not to be repealed but strengthened to make it a crime for men to have sex outside of marriage.
An adulterous woman today can charged with a gross misdemeanor with a prison sentence of one year, plus a possible fine of up to $3,000. This was once a standard “morality law” in the states. For a prior column criticizing such laws and questioning their constitutionality, click here.
Tom Prichard of the Minnesota Family Council insists that “they’re important. They send a message . . . When you are dealing with a marriage, it’s not just a private activity or a private institution. It’s a very public institution. It has enormous consequences for the rest of society.”
These laws are presumptively unconstitutional. However, it is the continued use of criminal law to force people to comply with religious values that is troubling. This is precisely the view of the law enforced by religious extremists throughout the world. This is, as Mr. Prichard suggests, a matter of great symbolism even if the laws are not enforced. It stands for the proposition that consenting adults can be jailed in the United States for failing to maintain the moral principles of their neighbors.
For the full story, click here.
“This is, as Mr. Prichard suggests, a matter of great symbolism even if the laws are not enforced. It stands for the proposition that consenting adults can be jailed in the United States for failing to maintain the moral principles of their neighbors.”
************
It’s a great symbol of hypopcrisy too. It stands for the proposition that consenting adults can be jailed in the US for failing to maintain the moral principles some of their neighbors and many members of Congress and other politicians pretend to live by. Let’s not forget some of these “family values” folks who say one thing and do another.
There are many a laws regulating sex. The problem is the chief defenders of the same are usually the ones to blame. To wit Mike Cox’s a Michigan Attorney General. Never prosecuted for the offense but at the same time was going after Geoffrey Fieger for some trumped election charges.
If the Elected were selected for Office were not so pompous then we’d have something to worry about. Only when the law is enforced equally will it ever hold. Hell even the ones espousing family values, Jim Baker, Jimmy Swaggert, Sanford, the Ga Politician etc are the Bully Puppeteers.
Just remember that the origins of the last name has it roots in heredity purposes for Taxation, conscription and inheritance. the Chinese and Romans have used it extensively. The decline in the Roman use was about the 3rd or 4th century when the Roman Empire was waning. It was not until the 15th Century for fixing of who owes the king the fee so that the army’s could be paid was it use resurrected in Europe. It was common to have 3 or 4 names. The First was to identify you as the person, the second was the clan or area where you were from and the third was your family name. The Latins have more monikers to describe both sides. The Chinese are still very basic.
I have no direct proof but I am sure that the clover that St. Patrick uses to describe the trinity has its origins in this usage.
I see Hester Prynne has awakened. Cast the Scarlett “A” around will ya….. Nathaniel awaits your calling Miss M.
Nothing says “freedom” like allowing big government into your bedroom.
This is all a build up to a one child policy to protect us from Global Warming. This will ensure that couples remain together giving no chance to children being born out of wedlock. Can anyone see forced abortions and sterilization thru the water supply as the current science advisor once wrote? At least with the stance the school safety czar has taken we won’t have to worry about over population from his vantage point.
bdaman,
You must be correct because the first thing that I thought of when I read this thread was global warming and forced abortions and sterilization! Are you kidding me? How much do you get paid to spread this nonsense? Are you sure your name really isn’t Michelle Bachmann?
rafflaw
Sometimes the things that sound the most ridiculous turn out to be true, and although on a different subject matter,
Buddha Is Laughing
1, December 11, 2009 at 2:04 pm
bdaman,
I am about to shock you.
You’re right in what you see and you’re right it’s a shell game.
Where you are wrong is thinking it would be terribly controversial.
_______________________________________________________________
Changing the hearts and minds one person at a time Rafflaw
Now lets look at the factual parts of my statement
China has a one child policy. China, in Dopenhagen says this must be addressed and a few in Canada now agree. China has been doing it for along time so they feel as they’ve already doing their part to save the planet and they deserve credit, as in carbon.
John Holdren WROTE in a book that away to enforce population control was thru forced abortions and sterilization thru the water supply. I did’nt make that up, it’s fact. Of course this was to save us from GLOBAL COOLING.
The School Safety Czar is a practicing homosexual and promotes, well, we won’t go there, but homosexuals do not produce.
The fact of the matter is that people are so concerned that we are gonna burn up that people come up with some really cockamammy ideas over their belief. I have a friend who believes so deeply, well, here, here is a copy of an e-mail exchange I had with him notice his reply. I have redacted my name and just deleted letters out of his. Can show you more of our exchanges if you like, let me know, he has a VERY RADICAL WAY in which he would deal with saving the planet.
From: bobce.com
To: ME, NAME REDACTED
Subject: Re: Global Norming
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 11:08:29 -0500
YES
Bob’s Tel Sice
http://www.bobsice.com
—– Original Message —–
From: ME, MY NAME REDACTED
To: bob@bobst.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 10:54 AM
Subject: RE: Global Norming
Oh so maybe we should refuse to allow couples to have more than one child.
Ban Christmas because people who believe in that cut down tress and use up to much electricity.
Have the Government pay for abortions, it’s in the bill
Ration care for the ederly so they can die sooner, It’s in the bill and they just tested the waters with thier new Mamogram program.
I could go on, but lets do it based on junk science. Common sense as you say
Should be, doing their part and do not reproduce
Bdaman,
Your argument that I was referring to was suggesting that the Minnesota law “… is all a build up to a one child policy to protect us from Global Warming.” Now you are suggesting that since China has a one child policy that is evidence that your statement has merit. I a sorry to tell you that claim is unsupported in relation to this statute which is the basis for Professor Turley’s thread.
Just because some author claims forced abortions is a way to control global warming has no bearing on the subject at hand and has absolutely no sane connection to it. As to your penpal, “bob”, his and your claims about “the bill” are unfounded. The Hyde amendment is still in force. Finally, “bobs” claim that “the bill” includes rationing and the right’s favorite and untrue talking point of death panels because of one government panel’s suggestion on mammograms is ridiculous and false. Have you or “bob” been paying attention to the rationing that is done everyday by the insurance industry and to the vast numbers of people who are refused coverage due to false and made up pre-existing conditions every day? Are you and “bob” cognizant of the 45,000 people who die every year because they have no insurance coverage, according to a Harvard study?
By the way, I am sure that Buddah would be pleased that you are using his agreement with you on one issue from another thread to bolster your credibility here. Your our of luck.
This will ensure that couples remain together giving no chance to children being born out of wedlock.
Just my opinion Rafflaw, I’m entitled to it.
By the way I’m stll waiting on proof that 45,000 people die every year because they don’t have health care. What are the stats on that, are they counting people who got hit by a car and did’nt have insurance and died of head trauma.
How many die that do have health care?
Health Care is full of special interest such as Bill Nelsons from Florida to exclude seniors in South Florida from any Medicare Advantage Cuts, oh wait they’re not cuting benefit’s, are they?
“It’s a great symbol of hypopcrisy too. It stands for the proposition that consenting adults can be jailed in the US for failing to maintain the moral principles some of their neighbors and many members of Congress and other politicians pretend to live by. Let’s not forget some of these “family values” folks who say one thing and do another.”
Here here. Evidently Senator Anderson is not fully cognizant of the likes of every pervert holding office who has ever been caught with his pants down and on top of his mistress. Or, in the case of Larry Craig, a Senator and married man arrested for lewd conduct in the men’s room of the Minneapolis-St. Paul International airport. But then I suppose soliciting gay sex doesn’t factor into Senator Anderson’s master plan to bring back burning at the stake and the scarlet letter.
bdaman,
You are entitled to your opinion, of course. You are not entitled to claim opinions as fact as you are wont to do. Here is the Harvard study that you seem surprised at: http://www.harvardscience.harvard.edu/medicine-health/articles/new-study-finds-45000-deaths-annually-linked-lack-health-coverage. You can read iit for yourself. Once again,you are suggesting that “the bill” includes cuts to Seniors care under Medicare, when the cuts are related to payments to the doctors and hospitals and cleaning out waste in the system. Don’t let the facts get in the way of your opinions.
Our Forest Green Buddha IS Laughing is morphing into a Irridescent Multi-colored Green Peyton Farquhar!
From Post: “Tom Prichard of the Minnesota Family Council insists that “they’re important. They send a message . . . When you are dealing with a marriage, it’s not just a private activity or a private institution. It’s a very public institution. It has enormous consequences for the rest of society.”
———-
How come it is when the loonies are arguing about denying Gays the (civil) right to marry they argue that it’s a sacred covenant between a man, a woman, and God and the government should butt out except to protect that covenant but when it comes to imposing their religious will on a State they feel free to make a diametrically opposed argument.
A (virtual) Poll:
Hypocrisy?
Stupidity?
Arrogance?
Short attention span?
All of the above?
Worth noting: the misogyny of many of these laws. They generally apply only to women, either as written or as applied.
Not that I believe such laws should exist at all … but if they do, then surely they must apply equally to both genders. It would be interesting watching fundamentalist heads explode as they try to counter such arguments. They know how many of their leaders (and hate-meisters) would then be criminalized.
OT:
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7568
It’s useful on occasion to remind yourself just how many flavors of loony there are and that they’re semi-organized and dangerous.
Peyton Farquhar — the way I read the blog post, Sen. Anderson is the sane one, arguing for these laws to be repealed. The family council, in arguing that they be strengthened, is *opposing* sen. anderson. Or maybe I read that wrong…?
Sen Anderson is the sane one. I know her personally. Minnesota has a progressive female speaker of the house and a female asst majority leader who is running against Michelle Bachmann. The family council will not be able to pass strenthening legislation.
HAH! The State of Minnesota is a bunch of pikers. Here in Michigan, adultery is a felony (MCL 750.30). Oh, and blasphemy also is illegal here (MCL 750.102-750.103).
Our sodomy statute (MCL 750.158-750.159) remains on the books, although if you read the damned thing I think a case could be made that a reasonable person would be unclear exactly what is being made illegal (similar statutes I’ve read went into, mmm, graphic detail, but not here in Michigan).
Then there’s a section (MCL 750.335-750.347), titled “Indecency and Immorality”, that covers indecent exposure, fair enough, but also “Lewd and lascivious cohabitation” (shacking up, I guess), “gross lewdness” (probably intended to cover public sex, but it’s written broadly enough that a zealous prosecutor in a conservative county probably could get a conviction for two guys kissing in public), and “gross indecency” (again not defined, but it’s illegal whether performed in public or private. MCL 750.337 makes it illegal to use “any indecent, immoral, obscene, vulgar or insulting language in the presence or hearing of any woman or child”. Insulting? Really? This last section, by the way, was upheld by the Michigan courts in the case of a man who overturned his canoe and let loose with what probably would be considered normal expletives in such a case, within hearing of a woman and her children at a time when a Sheriff’s deputy was present (sorry, no cites, IANAL and don’t have access to the case law).
I’m of the opinion that any criminal statute that hasn’t had a successful prosecution in, say, five years, should fall off the books unless re-enacted. Let a prosecutor bring a blasphemy case, or let the Legislature and Governor re-enact the law (well, given our Legislature, I’m sure they’d love the chance to prove their God-fearing bona fides from time to time).
Mr Turley writes:
“These laws are presumptively unconstitutional. However, it is the continued use of criminal law to force people to comply with religious values that is troubling.”
The issue of religion is a red herring. Promiscuity becomes an issue about violating the rights–particularly the property rights (the wallet)–of others.
It violates my rights that countless trillions of dollars have been unnecessarily charged to the account of the American taxpayer (including me) since the sexual revolution of the 1960s began.
Isn’t it clear, along with other destructive consequences, that unwed motherhood is a key factor in our crime rate? Why should we(I) have to pay for more jails, more lawyers, more judges, more prisons, and more cops, when, if it were unlawful to be promiscuous (like it once was), those costs (and many other types of costs) would be lower?
I can understand why lawyers might like to convince the public that it is unconstitutional to make promiscuity illegal, and use religious people as a boogieman to scare the public away from such laws, as such law would cut into the handsome profits of lawyers.
Rampant promiscuity is job security for lawyers via the high crime rate it produces!
It is not necessary to demonize religious people to secure the stability of government workers and their allied professionals. Unquestionably religious people can and do hit on a good idea even the nonreligious agree with, and we don’t complain about it just because religious people happen to agree with it.
For example, religious and nonreligious people think bank robbers have done something immoral to property. All have thus created laws to handle it and work in the same direction to see to it that is punished.
I would like to make a case promiscuity could be considered a crime.
J.D. Unwin (anthropologist) admired his contemporary, Sigmund Freud. He thought that Freud was right about what caused “social” pathology in humans/civilizations: crime, violence, psychosis. He thought sexual repression brought people and civilizations down.
So, marshaling his knowledge and skills, Unwin did a survey of every major and medium size civilization in the history of the world. I think he surveyed about 80 of them (then wrote a book about it).
Unwin was very surprised with what he discovered because he really thought that Freud was right. Unwin concluded that Freude was wrong, and oppositely wrong.
Those civilizations which Freud would think were repressed were the better civilizations.
Unwin wrote
“In human records, there is no instance of a society retaining its energy after a complete new generation has inherited a tradition which does not insist on pre-nuptial and post-nuptial continence.”
And
“The evidence is that in the past a class has risen to a position of political dominance because of its great energy and that at the period of its rising, its sexual regulations have always been strict. It has retained its energy and dominated the society so long as its sexual regulations have demanded both pre-nuptial and post-nuptial continence. … I know of no exceptions to these rules.”
He further stated that the decline began in earnest when the third generation had bought into the sexual corruption of the whole culture. (This is according to others who have read Unwin, since the book costs nearly a thousand dollars, I’m going by memory of someone else saying so.)
Most people jump up at this point and shout out–remember the Greeks! They had a lot of homosexuality, blah blah blah. Yes they did. But in Greece, it was consider worse for a woman to have an adulterous affair than for her to be raped. Women had strict rules imposed on them regarding chastity. Eventually those rules were weakened and according to Unwin, the decline (from their greatness) began.
An atmosphere of sexual free for all has existed on the continent of Africa for centuries. I think Africa’s condition reflects that. No, I’m not saying that that is why Africa has so many problems, but I’m saying that it doesn’t make sense that sexual anarchy would lead to a bustling civilization.
Go north, to the Netherlands. Decades of loosening the sexual codes has done what? Marriage is nearly kaput and the government is destroying its own culture (and genetic vitality) through immigration. In other words, before the decline of the Netherlands, came the loosening of sexual mores.
Toynbee suggests something similar to Unwin. Neither of these men had a state in the Christian viewpoint. Unwin wound up advocating sexual repression, AND equality and independence for women!
I think we can even say that a civilization can be destroyed through sexual immorality resulting in crime, disease, diverted resources, etc. If we can prevent our houses from burglary because the loss will harm us, why can we not protect our neighborhoods and country from being robbed of those things which allow us to establish a stable environment in which to live?
I think a case based, on historical evidence (an not religion), can be made for our taking seriously, the injury caused to us all by promiscuity.
Having sex can cause unintended consequences.
So can leaving the house.
Taking a shower.
Eating a peach.
Blowing your nose.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc is the error of false cause. Correlation is not causation. Sex, a natural phenomena that almost all life experiences, is causative of reproduction. Anything else is a byproduct of man’s design. Like prudishness, which is a personal choice and directly causal to your constant bitter ranting about the evils of sex. Project much?
If you don’t approve of sex? Simple. Don’t have it.
The world will thank you.
rafflaw:
“You must be correct because the first thing that I thought of when I read this thread was global warming and forced abortions and sterilization!”
they do it in China. That is why I am against making abortion illegal, what the state gives it can also take away. I am personally anti-abortion but the state has no business one way or the other in that issue. Bdaman makes a valid point about the possibility of forced abortions for the good of the state. And good is defined by those in power.
Buddha:
who doesnt approve of sex? You know people like that? In all my years I have never met someone that didnt approve of sex. What the hell kind of crowd you hang out with?
Must be them liberals, we conservatives approve of sex, but only within the confines of a monogamous relationship. Other than that restraint all bets are off.
The sex message wasn’t meant for you, Byron. You randy rascal you.
DISCLAIMER:
PF and BiL are indeed two separate people.
Considering I’ve just had one of the unstable trolls (in an e-mail to my blind, roflmao) try to report me to the IRS, the DOJ and the Treasury Department for being guilty of having and expressing an opinion here, I’m thinking PF should take the advice that being mistaken for me is not a thing he should desire.
I’ll be glad to post the entire rambling nonsensical e-mail if any of you wish to see it. Fair warning. When I say rambling, I do mean exactly that. Long tortured examples and illogic.
Buddha:
are you serious? who the f . . . would do that?
What a scumbag punk. That is lower than having sex with cows.
BIL–
We’ll have to sic the Third Billy Goat Gruff on said troll.
From The Three Billy Goats Gruff by P. C. Asbjornsen & J. E. Moe–taken from the translation of G. W. Dasent:
“…and so he flew at the troll, and poked his eyes out with his horns, and crushed him to bits, body and bones, and tossed him into the river.”
Too severe a punishment???
Tootie,
Red Herring? Have you been to the Minnesota Family Council’s website?
From their Pastor/church Network link:
“The Minnesota Familiy Institute Pastor /Church Network is designed to partner with pastors and churches in sharing and finding successful ministries that deal with family issues. This network is designed to provide resources about successful ministries and assist in cooperation on issues facing families, everyday in every church and community in Minnesota. These can range from government interference in families and churches to individuals’ sins that harm and weaken families.”
From their Mission statement:
“The Judeo-Christian principles in which America’s founding is rooted, support strong and stable families.
Yeah, it sure looks like religion has nothing to do with this issue. Nobody trying to legislate their religious ideals here.
What specific programs do you think it violates your rights for the Government to spend “countless trillions of dollars” on “since the sexual revolution of the 1960s began?” Please give me an explanation of how that law is unconstitutional. Further more, what does that have to do with a law regulating someone’s sex life?
Byron,
I cannot answer your questions with conclusory certainty. But considering the range of suspects it two, I think the following facts may be indicative.
1) They used a female identity. One of those in question is a female and the other would claim to be that “inferior” sex just about when Hell froze solid based on his past (and current) actions.
2) The focus was disjointed. In the extreme. Somehow Phil Spector, thinking Scientology is a fraud, calling the DOJ “jackasses” – which I will continue to do until they prosecute Yoo, thinking Tibet should have its sovereignty recognized and not doing as some citizen approves somehow means I’m a criminal for expressing my opinion. Riiiiiigggghht. Who else had a problem with my opinions but couldn’t string cogent facts together? Just disjointed insults and whine? Did I mention she copied a bunch of Buddhist monks on this mail too? Yeah. She’s not happy with trying to just cause me Earthy problems but spiritual as well. Who have we run into that’s just that nuts? (Insert mocking puzzled look here.)
3) BTW, welcome back from your former exile.
But that is all I can suppose on that topic. I’ll let you connect the dots.
Gyges:
come on man, dont you know that what is good for the “Family” is good for America?:-)
Buddha:
I think I can “guess”.
I actually cant believe they would stoop that low. I mean that is bad form to the nth degree.
I wonder what the uppercrust ancestors would think of that? I bet Biff and Tripp are rolling over in their graves.
Gyges:
Do you think those same people at the website you told me to visit oppose murder? If so, does that make murder a religious issue which you would then oppose on a constitutional bases simply because it is motivated by their religious beliefs?
I doubt it.
Whatever is their motivation, it is irrelevant to you and I. It is only relevant to them. Either a case can be made for or against the proposed law or it cannot. Either they persuade the public and the public acts, or they do not. Whatever happens in the court after that is up for grabs because there is so much widespread corruption throughout our civilization, espeically among those at the highest levels and those from the Ivy League schools.
I suggest to the religious folks who propose criminalization of some sexual conduct, that a case ought to be made by them without religious references, they are unnecessary.
What the godless often think (and I’m not saying you are) is that religious people don’t have the right to lobby for their ideas BECAUSE they are religiously based. It doesn’t matter why a person (religious or not) supports a law, all that matters is if it is allowed.
The picture at the top of this post showed Carrie Nation who lobbied and won a constitutional amendment against selling and making booze. I believe it was unconstitutional. That power to regulate only belongs to the states at the most, and certainly to the people to regulate in their own homes.
It will get tricky if the democrats succeed with their Marxist proposal to seize the health care industry. It is a set-up for totalitarianism.
Already, there is talk about taxing folks for sugary drinks and fast foods (because it will cost the tax payer more when bad foods lead to bad diseases and big medical bills). How is it then possible that those who are promiscuous and get pregnant will get their irresponsible act covered by government provided abortion (if they are allowed? Isn’t it just as irresponsible to be promiscuous as it is to eat french fries, if not more so?
I can just imagine the political debate about that: well abortion saves money because we won’t incur the additional costs of bringing another human being into the worl….uh…I mean by getting rid of the fetus….um……(cough)….oh just shut up you stupid Christians. We insist on freedom of sluttery for both sexes and making the tax payer foot the bill for it.
Yeah, right.
“What the godless often think……..”
So sad how many people who consider themselves Christian are themselves Godless in that they don’t even follow the dicta of their own savior. Some even think Jesus would be a Republican.
Tootie,
Let’s save you a little trouble. I’m an atheist. Before I was an atheist I was a Fundamentalist Christian, and a damn good one. I’d be willing to bet I could still run theological circles around you, with scriptural references and all. That’s not a challenge by the way, and on the off chance that I’m wrong, I’m glad you have an understanding of your faith.
The only thing that offends me about being called godless by you is that it’s symptomatic in your reliance on words that have long since ceased to have a meaning to you other than just being bad. While, throwing in a “leftist” here, a Marxist” and the occasional “godless” might make for a good cathartic rant, it makes for really lousy conversation.
So let’s establish what makes a good conversation: You say something, I listen to it, think about it and respond. Hopefully my response is rational and well thought out. You then listen to my response, and give it the same thoughtful consideration that I gave yours, leaving out any gratuitous insults, especially those who have become rote and meaningless. Deal?
You said that Religion was a Red Herring. A Red Herring is a deliberate attempt to change the subject. Since the subject is an attempt by an admittedly religiously motivated group to strengthen a law based on religious beliefs (see JTs prior post http://jonathanturley.org/2007/08/18/from-adultery-to-polygamy-the-dangers-of-moral-legislation/ ), I’d say that religion is included in the subject. Wouldn’t you? My favorite example of a Red herring is bringing up nationalized health care in a discussion about laws against adultery.
Further more the basis for a law DOES matter. That’s the first prong of the Lemon Test.
Also, I hope you’ll respond to my earlier questions regarding the trillions of unconstitutional taxes you’ve paid part of since the sexual revolution.
Gyges:
you are “godless”? But you make beer.
Byron,
Godless, not goddessless.
http://www.alabev.com/history.htm
Mike S:
“Some even think Jesus would be a Republican.”
unlikely, most Jews are democrats.
Gyges:
great link. But the final evolution was watching a pole dance while enjoying a good brew. As a pacification for Tootie, I will say while single.
Gynes,
Perhaps I didn’t make myself clear in the opening statement of my first post on the topic when I said the right being violated is the right of property (money). Promiscuity (the offspring created by it) leads to higher crime rates. That crime is costing us a bundle. It wasn’t always that way.
Let me save you some trouble too, I’ve been married to an atheist for decades. Said spouse is the best person in my fundamentalist Christian life. And I don’t know what you mean that you could run theological circles around me, but it seems that you have run them around yourself, since a true believer (or even a “damn good one”) does not leave the faith.
The only thing that offends me about your being godless and me saying so, is that I didn’t say you were godless. But, suit yourself.
If I need your permission to call a spade a spade, a leftist a leftist, or a Marxist a Marxist I’ll make sure to contact you.
Hell will be freezing over by then.
Believe it or not, the sun doesn’t revolve around you and just because something no longer has any meaning to you, whether it’s your religion or your understanding of political terms, that does not mean others have to abandon those things to satisfy your standards.
Most people seem understand the general meaning of the terms liberal, leftist, conservative, and right winger. I have a sneaking suspicion that people don’t want me to use these terms BECAUSE they go too far in accurately defining or characterizing what kind of people they are. And since the terms on the left have become practically swear words, I can understand there might be a great hullabaloo made up portraying these words as old fashioned, or too imprecise. These words are the best we can do.
The reason I called the original statement a red herring is because religion doesn’t have to have anything to do with reviving these old “sex” laws if the case can be made that widespread promiscuity ruins a civilization, or at a minimum leads to crime and undue burdens on the taxpayer.
I never learned formal logic, and I’m more of the rhetorical type appealing to the heart. So perhaps it wasn’t a red herring.
I am quoting from a book called “The Fallacy Detective” which is a book about logic written from (horrors!) a Christian viewpoint. It sits on a shelf next to me:
“A red herring is the introduction of an irrelevant point into an argument….”
In my view, the issue of religion is irrelevant in this discussion even though the religious people themselves are using religion to defend their position, and a distinguished lawyer is helping them along with it.
I love being on the internet and interacting with folks. I’m very rough around the edges and tend to get rowdy. But I don’t hate anyone, never threaten anyone, and relish the challenge of examining differing ideas and defending my own.
I look forward to talking with you again.
Tootie,
So let me get this straight: I’m pushing for not only keeping, but strengthening a law that may or may not be in conflict with the Establishment clause of the 1st Amendment. The law was enacted for religious reasons, and I’m doing this for admittedly religious reasons. The first thing that the Lemon test examines to determine if a law is Constitutional is if the law was enacted for a secular or religious purpose. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_v._Kurtzman (In case your copy of Wikipedia is broken). Yet somehow bringing up the religious aspect of the law is “the introduction of an irrelevant point ” to the discussion of if the law should be repealed? Just because YOU don’t want to talk about something doesn’t make it irrelevant.
Gyges:
be gentle with Tootie.
Byron,
This is gentle.
“I said the right being violated is the right of property (money). Promiscuity (the offspring created by it) leads to higher crime rates. That crime is costing us a bundle. It wasn’t always that way.”
First, what proof do you have that promiscurity leads to a higher crime rate? Poverty leads to high crime rates, for the obvious reasons that people need to eat.
“If I need your permission to call a spade a spade, a leftist a leftist, or a Marxist a Marxist I’ll make sure to contact you.”
The problem is that you somehow believe these terms have fixed meanings just as conservative, capitalist and right wing have fixed meanings. I’m not even sure if you could identify the various left wing philosophies, except in the broad terms of your own sneering condenscension. When you talk of conservatives are you discussing Barry Goldwater, Dwight Eisenhower, John McCain, Strom Thurmond, George W. Bush, Karl Rove, Glen Beck and/or David Vitter? All of these could be called conservative, but there is a huge difference between what each one believes. That is the trouble with your assumption that a word means what it means. You are big on calling people political names, but not so much on understanding that the names you call don’t represent monolithic viewpoints.
Even when you identify yourself as Christian, that takes in a lot of territory and a host of different beliefs. Your problem is that you think by using words to represent your short form of ideas, you are making a case, when all you are actually doing is expressing your own pre-judgments, which don’t necessarily represent anything close to the facts of the matter.
Badly need your help. The greatest thing in the world is to know how to belong to oneself. Help me! It has to find sites on the: Mephisto dress shoes. I found only this – mephisto battler. Camper rides are mentioned in the level with some innovative stones, mephisto. Mephisto, the reconciling ways know mystic people to kill enemies of necessary walk, operating powers of prospective water, and content works in powerful pact. With best wishes
, Peace from Equatorial.