Latin class. Do you believe in Lex Rex or Rex Lex

Well, yes exactly - they were not worshipped as God and their rulings were tempered by the Church.

Always? Well...not exactly if you consider that time and English kings existed before the Magna Carta.

You mischaracterise, yet again, what liberals believe and that we all believe in exactly the same thing. The law historically has been changeable. Otherwise, we could just do away with Congress - Congress which is mentioned prominently in the US Constitution.

Theocrats are not conservatives; they are extremists. Ditto the worst of the Libertarians. But you're right - I do want to impose justice and equality for all on you through legislation and rule of law as long as the Constitution is not violated and I am opposed to American Talibanists.

 

Blasphemous heresy? Exaggerate much?

Uppercase Law may not change, much, but lowercase law certainly does. The Law says nothing about tariffs and how they may be collected or who has sufferage, but the law says plenty. And it has changed over time - see slavery, for instance.

No, Congress may not prefer one religion over another without violating the Constitution.

 

Nope. I haven't mischaracterized judicial liberals at all. It isn't a matter of changing the law either. The USC sets a very specific means for doing so.

It was intentionally difficult and amounts to much more than Congress writing a statute that effectively denies that words placing Constitutional limits on them mean what they mean. Wealth redistribution programs are a good example. For 150 years, it was recognized that the Federal gov't was not constitutionally empowered to do it. Liberals decided they wanted to do it anyway and circumvented the constitutional process through Congressional statute and a complicit judiciary that failed to do its job of enforcing the letter of the Constitution thus being a check on the confiscation of the constitutional rights of a minority... in this case the rich.

Humanistic socialists aren't liberals in the classic sense... they are extremists that lack respect for the rights of individuals.

"The worst of the libertarians"? So you can be considered a "worst" for believing that individuals have rights that no one (including a democratic majority) has a right to confiscate without due process?

Equality is not just unless you have a way of making everyone the same in talent, effort, ethic, etc. Justice demands that people receive equal treatment under the law... not that they are ensured an equal or even what YOU consider an equitable outcome.

Your idea of justice and equality is to me very unjust and unequal.

Wealth redistribution programs violate the clear text of the constitution by confiscating the property of an earner and giving it to someone who did not earn it in exchange for electing the "right" politicians.

I am opposed to American Talibanists (if we are talking about a state religion) and humanistic social engineers (ie the modern American concept of "liberal"). I don't want government telling homosexuals they can't be homosexual or enter into contracts with each other nor do I want government attempting to force employers to treat homosexuals "equally" when their choices are morally repugnate to them.

As it is, religious conservatives have just as much "right" to impose their moral views on you as you do to impose your moral views concerning "equality" on them since unfortunately liberals have suceeded in giving Gov't a right to meddle in such things.


As for wealth redistribution programs, truly: "Democracies survive only until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury ..." -- Alexander Tyler

Unless we reverse the trend of big gov't social engineering... our fate is sealed. We are headed toward a totalitarian state.

 

But you think it is perfectly fine for them to favor one moral position over another so long as religion is not admitted, right?

BTW, religion and religious ideals were freely referenced and used by the people who wrote the Constitution... The law may and without fail will favor or disfavor some religious sects. It is inevitable but must not be intentional.

For instance, the growth of Federal wealth redistribution and poverty programs clearly favored the religious liberals' ideal of the social gospel and humanitarianism. Liberalism made charity the primary concern and the gospel of repentance secondary if a concern at all.

Intentional or not, it disfavored those who used charity as a vehicle to spread the gospel to the poor, orphans, disabled, elderly, etc. We already have a state religion... liberals just won't allow it to be called what it is. You have adequately proven in this very thread that you agree with the state religion... and are offended that others want to change it to something else.

I oppose state religion... so I don't want yours or anyone else's receiving gov't sanction.

 

No, Daisy, the British invented the notion that the command of the king was the law. That was proven invalid when the Germans pointed out that their actions were legal under the nazi legal system.

No one called for a theocracy, Daisy. It would be nice to have a legal system wherein the Supreme Court could not call for the murder of 40,000,000 unborn because the law was based upon the idea that thou shalt not murder and not based upon the fact that the command of a judge was the law of the land.

As for the specific commandments relating to the enforcement of the Christian religion, they have always been outside of consideration according to our constitution.

The problem that you have, Daisy, is that under your system of thinking, you really cannot find anything wrong with what the nazis did.

 

The truth is that it was British thinking that called for the abolition of natural law. It was thought by the egotistical British that they would rule the world and that British law would be in effect everywhere. So the British never gave an answer to nazi law which was the command of the German king, specifically everything that the nazi party did in Germany was properly legal under German laws.

Once again, Matt, we are not talking theocracy but a legal system based upon the commandments against murder, etc. Such a system would find abortion illegal because it is murder. Currently, abortion is found legal because it is the command of the king.

 

No, church mouse guy, that notion existed long before there was a Britain.

Please explain a bit further what you mean by this.

Actually, Dale-c does seem to be calling for a theocracy by confusing law with Law. Perhaps I am misreading him, but he seems to believe that our, the US's, government is Bible-based when it is not.

Agreed.

Actually, under my "system of thinking" I really can find quite a bit wrong with what the Nazis did.

BTW, I call Goodwin's Law on you.

 

Well, Daisy, natural law prevailed until the British overthrew it in the 19th century. The British called natural law nonsense on stilts. They thought that everyone would have British law sooner or later. However, that did not go as planned.

Then Germany arose and agreed that the law was the command of the king and passed their own laws that Jews were not human beings and therefore for the good of Germany it was necessary to rid Germany of Jews by any means possible. That being the command of the king or the law of the land Germany acted legally in murdering the Jews just as we are acting legally in murdering the unborn.

 

Where on earth do you get all this nonsense from? That the 'British' (who did not exist BTW before the 17th century) overthrew natural law in the 19th century? That we worshipped our kings as divine (only two Stuart kings, James I and Charles I, claimed Divine Right, and a rather messy civil war killed off that notion, along with Charles - the rest of the country disagreed with them). Since Magna Carta - and here we're talking English not British, the power of the kings had been progressively circumscribed by the representatives of the people - Parliament - so much so that by the 19th century - the period you're talking about - Parliament was supreme, not the king.

So, drop the nonsensical comparison to the Nazis, lest I invoke the wrath of Godwin's law upon thee!!

 

Wow, Matt, maybe someone will draw you a picture. The command of the king is a metaphor for saying that the law of a country was whatever the people who made the laws said that it is.

English theory came undone at Nuremburg because the nazi party acted legally according to legally passed German law and the English had helped pave the way by overthrowing natural law. OK?

Let's face it: the English no longer rule the waves or the world.