In a stunning/seemingly bizarre ruling, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has decided to (for once) enforce the Constitution. The court actually ruled that one has the right to receive a gun (carry) permit for self defense in San Diego County (and potentially in all of California). AMAZING!!!
Up until now, only retired judges and cops, some politicians and a handful of people carrying high value items (jewelry salesmen) could hope to get a permit from the issuers (county sheriffs). Oh, and a few domestic violence potential victims (as long as they were women, of course). And, of course, a few “Friends of [Sheriff] Bill Gore” in San Diego.The case is far from over, and we can expect that every anti-gun nut in the country from Barack Obama on down will be pressuring the court to deny Californians the right that people in 40 or more states currently enjoy. Still, for the (admittedly divided) uber-liberal 9th Circuit to come to this commonsense, Constitutional conclusion is simply mind-boggling.
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/feb/13/ccw-gun-conceal-carry-sheriff-opinion-peruta/
Comments 35
Does the GOP platform still support the Second Amendment? Who can tell these days. I’m sure it’s just a matter of time before they will once again determine it isn’t “pragmatic” to support the Second Amendment, and the more progressive elements of the New Generation/Majority will cajole and persuade the leadership that they need to get on the “right side” of history on this..after all, peace is better than violence……”Peace Tolerance” and “Zero-Weapons Equality”…”Say No to Guns”, “Make Love Not War”…
Ah, the flashy video opportunities…
Many Americans believe we should control guns..the politicians of Chicago thought about guns just like our esteemed former SD Councilmen did regarding Prop 8…after all, its about equality and fairness..you know, for the kids.
Oh for goodness sake FF, grow up.
Which part must I find “maturity,” Brian…the part about the GOP is demonstrably no longer a trusted agent for millions of its conservative members with its duplicitous and dis-informational platform? Or that SD, in a politically-correct belief by some of its opportunistic former City Councilmen, is no different than Chicago? (Prop 8 vs. Gun Control)
Don’t shoot the messenger, my friend. I can understand some not liking it…but can they refute it?
Facts are pesky things.
If you’re going to compare…Prop 8 is exactly like CA’s Assault Weapon Ban. The government excluding people from their rights by passing a legal definition.
You’re a Social Conservative, FF, but make no mistake. You’re a Social Statist. Just because you like the result doesn’t make you less of a statist, friend.
What “rights” precisely were denied again?
The biggest, most stark difference was the Prop 8 law passed overwhelmingly in CA…it wasn’t denying anyone anything under existing law..as an all out political assault to social mores and natural familial significance was being waged, Prop 8 was a grassroots measure to codify what billions over centuries understood inherently; Even BO and Bill Clinton recognized that; it was affirming the social, natural, and most widely beneficial and universal definition of marriage in Western society…it never prevented one homosexual any provision they did not already have under the law. The “equality of marriage” propagandists hijacked and maligned the rhetoric where DOMA and scores of state laws were shaped to appear intolerant, opposed to a legal argument and affirming what millions of Americans knew and accepted as “Marriage.”
If the “equality” fallacy was really about “equality” then the Rainbow would have extended to polygamists, consensual incest, and the “rights” sought by NAMBLA in an effort to lower the age of consent for children to “love who they want.”
BTW- Speaking of “devoid of content”…What precisely is Mr. DeMaio’s definition of marriage? (and no, not what he thinks about Gay marriage) Anyone….Bueller??? I must have asked this question a half a dozen times….still crickets..
Then what’d Prop 8 change, FF?
What was the purpose of Prop 8?
Giving the state the power to define marriage based on the majority vote takes the power from the church and the individual to define marriage. And it certainly isn;t protecting the minority, does it?
Is government denial of the marriage your church believes in really what a constitutional representative republic with a First Amendment right of religion really what the country was designed to do? Or is it statist mob-rule?
Spolier alert: it’s the latter.
I don’t think it is important to know how Carl DeMaio defines marriage, but it is important to know that he supports the right of your church and you to define it how you’d like.
Now, please…please say something about incest marriages and marrying your dog. This is the part of the conversation where that usually happens and it always adds so much to the debate by making you look so intellectual.
You are conflating the “state” of America with the “nation” of America…America, the Nation, is overwhelmingly faith-based. As a result, pesky issues like marriage, sanctity of life, are crucial in the daily lives of the people. As the “state” began to threaten the “nation”, the people, with redefinitions and political agenda’s to fundamentally alter the foundations of western society, it was quite natural, and understandable the people would resist that.
I disagree with you; I believe DeMaio’s definition would be very telling. See, you may have bought into the lie of “marriage equality” but just because it is hip and popular, doesn’t make it right. In fact, Mr. DeMaio’s definition would be a great barometer on what his position is regarding natural families, the social construct with children, what is to be taught at schools, AB 48, transgender bathrooms, all that. I think people, overwhelmingly BTW who are NOT gay, view marriage between OM/OW as the cornerstone for healthy, productive, and most beneficial for their families. What could be more important than the fate and future of America’s families?
Since Mr. DeMaio, and many libertine, social-progressives, secular humanists that have infiltrated the Republican Party are now a flutter over “equal rights” for marriage, isn’t it logical, now that pandora’s box has been opened, to explore all the infinite number of combinations and deviations of what marriage could be? Why are homosexuals and their “rights” supporters bigoted against the polygamists or the consensual incest practitioners? Polygamy and consensual incest have been around for millennia, and are still practiced in many societies today. With billions of Muslims around the world, it is a safe bet that their are more polygamists than there are homosexuals…but that doesn’t interest you or the agenda seekers…logic just gets in the way.
Not gonna answer this, FF?
“Then what’d Prop 8 change, FF?
What was the purpose of Prop 8?”
If Prop 8 didn’t change anything then why pass it? It didn’t alter anyone’s ability to do anything, apparently. But still had to be passed? For a law that didn’t do anything, people sure were mad when the court pointed out it’s unconstitutional.
No matter. Don’t answer. Whatever you come up with won’t be worth the read.
“I believe DeMaio’s definition would be very telling.”
Why would that be telling? It tells you nothing about me. I believe the definition of “marriage” is one man and one woman for life. So I married a woman and am not getting divorced. It’s practice what you preach, not shove what you preach down everyone’s throats via government. Because I am not a Social Statist, FF.
So now you know my definition of marriage. What’s that tell you about me? Nothing more than my definition of marraige. I’m an individual. Not a collectivist.
Where do I stand on natural familes? The social construct with children? What is being taught in school? AB48? Transgender bathrooms? And “all that”?
What I can tell you about me is I’m not a statist who feels the need to force others to bend to my way of thinking. I’m not a statist. I don’t view people as part of a collective. I don’t think it is ok to take away rights as long as the majority is ok with it. I’m a small-government guy who believes in the proper role of government and follows the Constitution. All this makes you and I very different people, FF.
Happy St. Valentine’s Day!
Michael,
I like the pugnacious cyber tough guy act..its cute.. 🙂
Prop 8 was designed to affirm Marriage between a man and a woman. As I believe you know, it was eventually ruled by a federal court as unconstitutional. As a result, legal precedence for same sex marriage in California was established. Additionally, it now redefines marriage in a way that fundamentally alters the parent-child paradigm and the significance of the nuclear family. I can’t educate you or other self-absorbed, secular-libertines on the myriad of social and cultural difficulties this will, and has already caused. Starting with Gay-Day sensitivity instruction at the K-6 level, gender-neutral accommodations, to include children “choosing” their sexuality, able to decide from day to day (perhaps you are ok with having your 8 y/o daughter in the same bathroom as a 10 year old boy who wants to be a girl…) I guess that is how you libertines roll.
If you can focus between your rhetoric, you would have seen that I was asking about Mr. DeMaio’s definition…I know this may come as a blow, but I really do not care what your definition is..but I am in complete agreement as to us being very different people. You are a relativist…claiming the Constitution is your guide, yet ignoring the wisdom, scholarship, brilliance, and grace behind it. “Inalienable rights” deemed by our Creator… you apparently select which parts the Creator you choose to adhere, and others you ignore..you rail against your nemesis, the “statist”, yet you demand people accept your brand of immorality. It is not surprising though, you are the face of the New Generation GOP; duplicitous, hypocritical, relativist, irreverent, libertine, secular, and smug. A true progressive. You and the New Majority/Generation are made for each other.
At least when Richard Rider resorts to name calling, he uses his real name.
…or is it??
It’s just a blog, Steve.
Richard Rider is his real name. It’s pretty clear he has no problem with being known for what he believes in.
FF,
I can’t thank you enough for writing what you wrote. You so clearly prove my points.
“Prop 8 was designed to affirm Marriage between a man and a woman.”
Yeah. So if you don’t define marriage that way, guess what? Your rights have been infringed upon. We could keep going around this circle if you want, but it has become droll.
“…redefines marriage in a way that fundamentally alters the parent-child paradigm and the significance of the nuclear family.”
No, striking down Prop 8 just stops the majority from legally defining marriage according to their religious beliefs. It in no way addresses biological or legal relationships between parents and children. I’m well familiar with the argument you’re referring to and it doesn’t stand up to any level of scrutiny. It’s basically a “the-sky-is-falling” attempt to garner support since defining marriage according to someone’s religious preference is unconstitutional. We’re not a Democracy where 50%+1 gets to decide which rights everyone gets to keep.
“…I was asking about Mr. DeMaio’s definition…”
Yeah, I got that. I’m not Carl so I can’t speak for him. So I used my opinions as the example to show you can’t make broad, collectivist assumptions about a person based on their personal definition of marriage. Perhaps I expected too much from you with my attempt. I am sorry. I will slow the pitches way down from now on and make sure they are right over the plate for you. Again, as a congressman and from what he’s said and written, it would appear that he is not looking to force his personal opinion into your life, rather, he wants you as an American to live your own life as you see fit.
“claiming the Constitution is your guide, yet ignoring the wisdom, scholarship, brilliance, and grace behind it. “Inalienable rights” deemed by our Creator…”
That’s not from the Constitution. It’s from the Declaration of Independence. They’re different documents. And the term Jefferson used was “unalienable”. But whatever, right? The point is you don’t like the gays. We get it.
“…you apparently select which parts the Creator you choose to adhere,”
Your Creator and who others consider the Creator are different. This is why you can’t use government to force your Creator’s rules on others. It’s kinda a big point of our country. Put all the fancy window dressing on your argument, but it comes down to you wanting all others to follow your religious beliefs by law. This is what turns you from a Social Conservative into a Social Statist.
“…you demand people accept your brand of immorality”
Nobody who reads anything I write would honestly walk away believing that I want to force immorality or force anything on people. In fact, stopping the force of others and protecting their rights are pretty much all I write about. Do you need a law to stop you from getting gay married? Or were you able to make your own decision? I’d argue that people’s ability to make their own decisions do not impact you.
FF, I’m not going to call you names. Although I don’t know who you are, I believe you are generally and genuinely a nice man who is well intentioned. When I use the term “statist” and “bigot”, I want to be clear that I am not name-calling. I am describing your believes. Your attempt to use the government to force your beliefs onto others is very much the definition of a statist. I point this out to you because your stated Prop 8/same sex marriage views do not fit in with your stated political philosophy. Live your life to the highest moral standard down to the last detail of your religion, but forcing others to do the same using law is wrong. Your prejudice against LGBTs that drives your language and beliefs is bigotry by the very definition of the word. And I’d be willing to bet that also goes against your other beliefs.
I know this site allows people to use pseudonyms. (A mistake as far as I’m concerned because anonymity encourages incivility and trolling.) But Elliot and Steve make a good point. Who are you Founding Father? Why won’t you stand behind your rhetoric with your true identity?
Dave,
Anonymity can also allow truth to power. It provides one the ability to be judged and responded solely on the content of one’s efforts as related to the only thing that matters here…one’s thoughts, provided they are collegial, respectful, albeit direct, and on point. The Neo-republicans as exemplified by the New Generation have instituted the same tactics the GOP scorned used by Democrats for decades…attacking the person, not the argument being levied. Proof positive of that is any one who is not for Mr. DeMaio is immediately painted with euphemisms and soft bigotry as a homophobe…a tactic that initially worked very well for BO and the opponents of the Tea Party movement regarding “racist”. (Exhibit A….see MS comments recent comments…he is a serial offender..often his last retort, but there are others)
“Your prejudice against LGBTs that drives your language and beliefs is bigotry by the very definition of the word.”
Classic…and tremendously revealing of the exact neo-GOP, hyper-libertine, progressive-apolgetic strain now occupying the GOP.
There are those that know exactly who I am. I have spoken in several forums both in San Diego and nationally. I have my reasons for maintaining a “Nom De Plume” on Rostra that the facilitators here have been gracious enough to respect. Many journalists, intelligence operatives, and political observers have sources…they keep them confidential, yet do you besmirch Watergates’s “Deep Throat” or Judith Miller’s sources??…same here..for awhile.
I speak in defense of all the proverbial “grandmas in tennis-shoes” and others minimized and marginalized by the local apparatus that have been systematically manipulated, cajoled, even out-right intimidated by big scary voices of the SD GOP and its fervent and virulent supports..again, see Exhibit A.. They know who they are…the big scary voices that is.
I’m sure, like Tony Stark, I will have my “I AM Iron Man” moment.
Until then, the mask stays on! 🙂
“I am describing your believes [sic]”
It is just a blog, Michael. It isn’t an Amicus Brief…I get your intent though…I can assume you get mine…
I’ll’ set aside the soft bigotry for a moment, and address saliently the crux of our dichotomy;
I believe our Judeo-Christian heritage and foundations are paramount to our past, our existence, and our future…you apparently do not.
Many secularist, libertines, and progressives do exactly what you have attempted here; make arguments about “liberty” “freedom”, “government” selectively ignoring one of the most prominent aspects to the very foundation that makes the Bill of Rights, the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence the most significant documents in the history of the human endeavor; The Judeo-Christian Ethic.
There is no doubt that this single principle, captured in 7 main tenets, is the impetus behind the creation of the greatest single construct providing the widest, deepest, and most prosperous and free society in the history of the world.
http://www.theconservativeforum.com/documents/CFSVNewsltrFeb2010_001.pdf
Alexis de Tocqueville best underscored this in his monumental treatise, “Democracy in America”
“In the second chapter, de Tocqueville describes America’s unique religious heritage from the Puritans. His analysis showed the Puritans as providing the foundational values of America, based on their strong Hebrew Bible view of the world, which included fighting for earthly political justice, an emphasis on laws and education, and the “chosenness” which the Puritans identified with, giving them a sense of moral mission in founding America. As de Tocqueville observed, the Puritan’s biblical outlook gave America a moral dimension which the Old World lacked. De Tocqueville believed these biblical values led to America’s unique institutions of religious tolerance, public education, egalitarianism, and democracy.”
George Washington also emphasized this greatly as illustrated below;
“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim tribute to patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness — these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. . . . reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principles.”
My “bigotry” and “intolerance” as you so passionately paint is no more so than what is espoused by the “Tired-Old Faces” (The new Generation speak for “Old White Men”) of George Washington and de Tocqueville. You say you do not want to “force” anyone, yet by your very blatant attempts to besmirch and demonize, you are perfectly willing to stuff faith-based conservatives into the closet.
I do not, nor advocate, or in any way support the idea of a Theocracy, Michael..it isn’t in my DNA as an American. But to obfuscate, ignore, even marginalize and de-couple our nation’s deep and widely understood genetic code regarding the Judeo-Chritian Ethic as brought forth by our nation’s Founders is either woefully ignorant, or purposely insidious and malicious.
I’ll leave it to you which one best describes your position…
Author
We tell the gun grabbers that, if they are REALLY serious about banning the private ownership of guns, they need to repeal the 2nd Amendment. There is a process for doing exactly that, yet no gun control nuts have ever seriously proposed such a step — because they know it would never pass.
Similarly, I suggest that those who think America should be run on codified tenets of Christian morals and theology, you can Amend the Constitution to make it so. Give it your best shot (so to speak).
Was it just an oversight that the Founders didn’t codify Christianity into the Constitution? I think not, but some here think otherwise.
So have at it, Christian purists — the Constitution gives you the process for you to amend the Constitution. You can indeed impose a Christian state (or at least “Christian morals”) on America. What’s holding you back?
“Similarly, I suggest that those who think America should be run on codified tenets of Christian morals and theology, you can Amend the Constitution to make it so..”
It has, Richard, for generations…this is nothing new…what has transpired is a concerted eroding of those principles, government subverting the 1st Amendment through legalistic gymnastics to void any mention of God, Christ, or Biblical morality…in a nation that repeatedly sides with 75-80% of the population self-declaring as Christian or, at a minimum, believing in God…
I ask you..why are the “offended” suddenly so? Have you always been offended, or is this a new phenomenon for you? The 10 Commandments were in most schools for generations, courthouses and town halls for centuries in some cases..why now is it suddenly offensive? Generations of coaches saying prayers before a game, public meetings opening with a benediction, children reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, under God, for decades, Christmas and Hanukkah salutations and thematic stories, plays, concerts all spreading a basic message of love, hope, and good cheer…all being systematically wiped out by a sudden and seemingly spontaneous cultural and political backlash feigning “offense”, and “intolerance”…Shall I expect you to suddenly reach for your wallet, take out your money and burn it because it says “In God We Trust?” Shall those RPSDC GOP Executive Committee members who share your grievances and views demand the Party STOP IMMEDIATELY with the opening benedictions invoking “Jesus Christ” in public? Are they not invoking the same “offense” you accuse social-conservative Christians of? Do these “offenses” represent the New Generation Republican Party? Apparently the verdict is…since many both invoke Jesus, then directly disobey his commands in the support, albeit tacitly, of policies, endorsements, and campaigns antithetical to Christ’s teachings.. that form of “theology” is just fine with them, and you. It is their right to do so…I am certainly not claiming that it is not…but…
Why the duplicity? Why the hypocrisy? Why the sham? Do core members of the GOP leadership see the incongruent nature of their actions, deeds with their alleged convictions? In this way, are they any different than Nancy Pelosi or Joe Biden, taking communion on Sunday, then voting and supporting policies, organizations, and candidates that embrace Abortion and SSM?
You, among others, act and espouse as if this “Christian, religious, morality, conviction” thing just manifested recently…as if the members of the Republican Party JUST came to some religious or Biblical epiphany. (I know it is a common refrain, but it IS in the Republican Party stated Platform in the form of Life and Marriage) ..as if America, steeped in the Judeo-Christian Ethic and reams of historical documents, treatises, and correspondence all affirming the wide, deep, and engrained and inherent understanding of the prominence, vitality, and import Christianity played in the forging of our nation, just came to be…the Founding Fathers didn’t speak of the crucial aspects of air or water either, but would anyone deny they too believed it their necessity for survival and preservation? No. because the Judeo-Christian Ethic was so fundamental in their thinking, wisdom, mindset, and outlook, it is fully implied and commonly accepted and understood…and was for centruies before that!.
I’m not looking to inject my form of morality. I seek to preserve what the Nation inherently has understood, adhered to, and practiced, and the principles, guidance, and wisdom underscored by our Founders. for the vast majority of its history. It is the onslaught and efforts of a core of virulent libertine, secular, progressive forces that have infiltrated into the sundry GOP apparatuses and its supporters that are busy at work to minimize, cauterize, demonize, and eliminate existing vestiges of biblical discernment and conviction for the political arena, and thus the arena of ideas, expression, or social thought.
In the telling words of one prominent GOP insider after the Prop 8 campaign…” It will be great to finally get rid of those Christians…” Clearly, that work has begun. Can you imagine if they said “Jews” or “Gays” or “Blacks” …they would have been run out of the organization on rails…but, Christians…that’s ok.
What is puzzling is that their is surprise at all on the part of many in the GOP that there is blowback…as if thousands of faith-centric conservatives weren’t going to notice the total abandonment of them by the GOP…hubris…its a bi*ch.
Blah, blah blah. I’m not anti-Christian. I’m just not keen on a theocracy. I have NO interest in suppressing Christianity, nor in promoting other religions. You raise a false issue (no surprise, of course).
You need to codify your imposition of Christian morality (“thou shall not”) on the country. I understand and respect Christian morality — but to impose your will on others, you need the force of law. To do THAT, you need to either change the Constitution, or perhaps simply pass state laws that will withstand state and federal constitutional review.
Imposing federal Sunday Blue Laws would be a good “training wheels” start. But since the federal courts would rightly overturn such laws as unconstitutional (9th and 10th Amendment, among other reasons), you’ll need to add an amendment to give the federal government such powers. Tradition ain’t enough.
Many things were inherent and accepted when the country was founded. Slavery is one. We changed.
If you want to impose old time religion for all eternity (and why not, if you’re a good Christian [or Muslim]?), forget tradition and codify it into the Constitution. You claim you don’t need no stinkin’ Constitution to impose your theocracy on America — as we have always been a Christian nation. I don’t buy it. And I think your gyrations explain why you’ll never seek to codify your Christian agenda — you know full well it will not happen on the federal (or California) level. People have changed.
If you want marriage limited to one man and one woman, regardless of state law, you need to amend the U.S. Constitution. Get back to me with your plan on this.
Here’s a question for you — should not we codify the 10 Commandments as law? Perhaps with old school Christian penalties for infractions?
Blah, blah, blah…not that easy, is it? Your blood is as red as mine when it comes to being called a bigot…..you have proven yourself repeatedly as “anti-social conservative” Richard, ..warning: that of course, being the hip new euphemism for “those Christians”, the new face of soft bigotry advanced by the New Generation and its supporters, as demonstrated with the recent slick Demaio ad identifying, separating, and subtly vilifying the “tired old faces” of the Old GOP. (Again, read “no room for faith-based conservatives, espeially the old white guys…”)…oh, have you not seen it yet? He is “your guy.”
This just in…The Ten Commandments ARE law Richard…for those Americans that actually prescribe to the Judeo-Christian Ethic you are so tired of recognizing…oh, and it was the the Christian conscience of the nation that led to the abolishment of slavery…which if I remember was a libertine, economic-centric construct focused on pragmatic fiscal and financial concerns…right down your ally, Tax Fighter…sounds very “New Generation-ish” to me.
Quid pro quo, Clarice….tell me, RR..if everything was equal regarding your support for the GOP-endorsed 52CD candidate, if he was “firing on the right cylinders” policy-wise, less Tax policy..i.e., for argument sake, he was everything you wanted except he was for necessarily raising of the corporate tax rate, and personal earned income…to whittle down the debt, let’s presume..but everything else, he “passed muster” for the GOP endorsement.
Would you still support him? Why or why not? Hint-it is not a hypothetical question…
Founding Father,
“This just in…The Ten Commandments ARE law…”
Uh, no. In fact, only two of them, “Thou shalt not kill” and “Thou shalt not steal” are actually law.
Do you actually believe the other eight should become law?
I’m still laughing at the historical revisionism being thrown around. The majority of Founding Fathers were Unitarians, Deists, and secularist free masons. Three groups that the religious right today consider heretical!
Even the phrase “Judeo-Christian” (new vogue term not to alienate Jewish conservatives) is laughable since Christianity was vehemently anti-Jewish until antisemitism reached its logical conclusion with the holocaust.
I’m also not buying FFs “80k” silent majority argument. Especially when easily acceptable things like California Proposition 4, Parental Notification for Minor’s Abortion (2008) was beaten 52-48. The religious right is not politically influential in California. But they want the GOP to make their issues front and center meaning we have to sacrifice the battles (like lower taxes and regulations) that we can win. Making social right issues priority one here makes the Democrats look like the lesser of two evils when we get in these culture wars in California. With the two party system that means we lose everything. Fight battles we can win then reinforce victory.
FF, please drop the silent majority argument. Unless you can show some statistics (and more importantly an electoral victory) it’s just an example of the False-consensus effect. (http://en.wikipediaNice reaction from Bode. http://m.today.com/sochi/bode-miller-nbc-reporter-i-dont-blame-her-all-emotional-2D12124900.org/wiki/False-consensus_effect)
Just a quick correction…FF, you’re saying “social conservatives”, but you mean “Social Statist”.
Your attempt to make Richard Rider sound like he’s against “social conservatives” and Christians needs to be changed to an attempt to make it sound like Richard Rider is against “Social Statists” in order to be accurate.
FF: “This just in…The Ten Commandments ARE law…”
Oh MY!!! It’s okay for heretics to be so ignorant of the Bible and codified law, but you’re a devout Christian, for Christ’s Sake!! As HQ points out, only TWO of the vaunted Ten Commandments are codified into law in America.
FF, you need to acquire a Bible and spend some time reading it. But if free apostate online postings are an acceptable source, go here for the list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments
Yes, many — probably not most — Christians try to follow all Ten Commandments (Sabbath commandment is widely ignored), but only two are LAWS. And LAWS is what politics is all about — favoring or opposing LAWS — laws enforced by government police, courts and prisons — up to and including death for defying such laws.
So before I answer YOUR question (and I WILL) you still need to answer my question (with HQ repeating the question) — should America codify the Ten Commandments into government law? I think that even YOU will concede that this is a nutty idea — an ideal you can only dream about — for now.
What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not.
[Pres. James Madison,A Memorial and Remonstrance, addressed to the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia, 1785]
What is this argument about anymore?
Dave,
lol…good question.. 🙂
Elliot- “I’m still laughing at the historical revisionism being thrown around. The majority of Founding Fathers were Unitarians, Deists, and secularist free masons. Three groups that the religious right today consider heretical!”
Really… for Elliot, Michael, RR, HQ and others…
Fact- Many of the founding fathers of the United States of America were men of deep religious convictions based in the Bible and their Christian faith in Jesus Christ. Of the 56 men who signed the Declaration of Independence, nearly half (24) held seminary or Bible school degrees.
George Washington- “While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian.”
This is in direct response to both HQ and others where the 10 Commandments ARE a set of millenia-long laws of equal or greater importance than our limited secular civil or criminal laws…Conscientious objectors are examples of both sets of laws in conflict…Come on guys..are you saying that ONLY the State’s civil/criminal law is your moral/ethical guide? You are completely devoid of either supplementary or complimentary direction, wisdom or guidance? Really? What a fascist prison that would be…
John Adams- “The general principles, on which the Fathers achieved independence, were the only Principles in which that beautiful Assembly of young Gentlemen could Unite, and these Principles only could be intended by them in their address, or by me in my answer. And what were these general Principles? I answer, the general Principles of Christianity, in which all these Sects were United:
To Michael’s point…were these men then also social statists?
To Elliot’s point- Madison is aptly pointing out the dangers of “Religion” versus faith..(yes, Virginia, they are quite different..I learned that, RR, in the Bible…) and the insidiousness of institutionalized religious dogma..like Social Progressivism, Collegiate Libertine Humanism, Global Warming, and the Church of “Hope and Change”
Patrick Henry – “It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.”
RR- I am not, have not, nor would I force my faith beliefs on anyone (The echoing charge of “theocracy” can be laid to rest…whew)…yet, you appear sanguine with forces telling faith-conscious voters to simply accept an abrogation of their faith by the party they previously supported, funded, help build/win even in a political construct? (Was there an issue with “social conservatives” when they were the main vanguard that brought the 2010 GOP success mid election??) i.e. Accept this candidate and the transformation of the pre-existing GOP platform…or get lost..They have a word for that for all you back bench observers..- BETRAYAL.
WRT any of the commandments, be them, murder or the Sabbath..I am confident people of faith do not blame God for what the world does to His commands. Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, and select members of the SD GOP are evidence of that. As has been agreed in previous posts, that is between them and God.
Though I do not attest one must believe in any of these tenets (i.e Michael’s fading “statist” drumbeat), I do prescribe one at least acknowledge the meaning, depth, and significance as they are recorded by these, and scores, of others in the founding of our nation..to do otherwise is truly revisionist.
I will close with this…(for fear of being psychologically profiled by the mighty TA …:)
I am confident Mr. Rider would not vote for a GOP endorsed candidate if he were for raising the personal or corporate tax rate, nor MS would support a GOP endorsed candidate that favored stricter gun control, or others if they endorsee favored increasing the debt limit…yet, many of you, and others here have railed against those pointing out the sheer hypocrisy and duplicity of the GOP leadership as they endorsed candidates that rejected or negated long existing tenets of the same stated platform…you will continue to hurl accusations of “social conservative” “statist”, and in some cases “bigots” to those that are illustrating the same conviction, criticism, and resistance that each of you would no doubt display if it were a tenet YOU found less than “pure..” This, among other reasons, is why 80K people have left the party…and your hypocritical, duplicitous, “pragmatic” and strict libertine strategy is a direct cause to that affect.
————————————–Out!
FF wins this month’s award of “shifting the subject.” Usually liberals excel in this field by finding ways to avoid issues like inflation, debt, unemployment by jumping to topics such as gay marriage, class warfare, and other emotional hot-buttons.
Yet with only a few posts, FF has hijacked the entire post which was about California concealed permits, to his usual forte’ topics of bashing gay marriage, preaching Christianity, and trashing DeMaio. I suppose there’s a loose connection with 2nd Amendments, but still… impressive!
What’s ironic is that he loves shifting to topics that liberals would love to hear him talk about. Folks like FF, who relentless condemn gay marriage and tirelessly push their social agenda are the EXACT people the LEFT love to have in front of a microphone.
FF, I don’t see how John Adams and George Washington on their personal convictions compares to passing a law. The “passing a law” part is the statism.
Adams did support passage of the Aliens and Sedition Acts. Those were unconstitutional too. Is that what you meant?
Steve,
With all due respect…at least have the common courtesy of being accurate….
“FF wins this month’s award of “shifting the subject.”- As you can see, I am often responding to several posts at once…Responding is not “shifting.” There are a wide spectrum of issues that fall under the rubric of the GOP blatantly and consciously shifting its ideology where it has abandon key tenets within the former platform. Though you may or may not agree with the tenets themselves, it is irrefutable that they have abandoned them. It is the New Generation GOP and it “tireless” supporters that do anything and everything to shift away from that increasingly recognized fact.
“…his usual forte’ topics of bashing gay marriage, preaching Christianity, and trashing DeMaio.” – Um, Steve…words matter…which you have illustrated quite adroitly here. “Bashing” apparently is the New Generation euphemism for “supporting Marriage as define as one man/one woman…you know, the platform tenet espoused on the Republican Platform websites..I can be for marriage, while indifferent to one’s sexual preference….” Preaching Christianity”…again, apparently is the New Generation Orwellian double speak which now includes an illustration of the prevalence, historical and cultural influences and ideological impact Christianity definitively played in the forging of the American Ethos and national persona…”Trashing DeMaio”…of course, just like the virulent arm of the Obama enablers of the 2008 and 2010 election cycles went apoplectic over criticism of BO in the form of claiming Americans exercising their First Amendment rights were “Nazis”, “racist”, “terrorists”, we see the Young Mr. Rider now confirming the same tactic used in the soft bigotry of the New GOP toward anyone critical of Mr. DeMaio…”gay-bashing”, “trashing”, “homophobes.”
I think it is that has done a brilliant job emulating the progressive left, Steve. (golf clap)
“FF wins this month’s award of “shifting the subject.”FF wins this month’s award of “shifting the subject.”
…which explains my first comment on this thread. FFt t, you have made it clear on this site that you:
1- support Jorgensen for Congress
2- want the RPSDC Committee to refrain from endorsing candidates who are not aligned with the CRP platform.
3- do a better than average job at defending your positions
I hope you can stick to the topics in the future because I find your dialogue helpful at times but getting tedious rather than tenacious. I don’t want to be deprived of your knowledge but you’re screaming so loud that I just can’t hear you anymore.
Brian,
Point taken…in my defense, I do end up defending multiple responses simultaneously (which I think is a positive indicator that at least people are stimulated to engage…either in opposition or agreement). I have been told by many it is striking cords.
I would share with you this; there is a rapidly increasing number of people in and around the 52CD that are also finding clarity with the 3 salient points you underscored above. I am energized to be a small part in those developments.
God Bless…and Pass the Ammo!
🙂
“you’re screaming so loud that I just can’t hear you anymore.”
There have been many things written on this site that I have used as life lessons. That beauty from Brian Brady is now at the top of the list.
…yet, perhaps as one recognizing a higher moral calling even amidst the pressures of modern political pragmatism, that “screaming” may be one’s conscience…
I hear there’s a court decision? Or something?