Illegal=Immoral

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Dec 12 2004, 02:44 AM'] But he wasn't a tyrant -- He simply tried to rule us agian when his Father had neglected us, as for ravaging our coast, burnt our towns etc. It's called propoganda. Only 1/3 of the population wanted independence they imposed it on the other 2/3's a third stayed out of the war and a third violently opposed the rebels. [/quote]
Can you present proof for that please?

[Don John of Austria]

[quote]I just don't think that the parents should give permission while they're not there (I've seen this happen), nor should they be allowed to give permission to other minors.[/quote]

What they should do and whatthey have the right to do are not the same thing, now I would agree completly they have no authority to grant that right to anyone else's Children.

[qfnol31]

How, exactly, do you think the law is unjust then?

[Don John of Austria]

[quote]Can you present proof for that please? [/quote]

Of course, I'm not sure I can at 3 in the morning, but give me a minute and I'll see whatI can do.

[Don John of Austria]

The Law is unjust because the State removes the right of the parants to empower there own Children.

[qfnol31]

I don't know of any laws that do that. Here in Texas I'm allowed to drink as long as my parents are around. Believe me, I'm glad that the law is that parents cannot give their children permission while they are not around them. I know from experience.

[Don John of Austria]

Well not bad for 3 in the morning here you go.[url="http://hnn.us/articles/5641.html"] right here[/url]

[qfnol31]

[quote]The most common piece of evidence cited in numerous books about the Revolution is a letter of John Adams indicating that one third of the Americans were for the Revolution, another third were against it, and a final third were neutral or indifferent to the whole affair. [/quote]

I actually find this a little sad. Oh well.

[quote]That event was the British decision to send an army from Halifax to occupy Boston in October, 1768. This was an affront to the Standing Army Act, and the Americans thought, of the Constitution itself. The violence of such an occupation led to the Boston Massacre in 1770, the Tea Party in 1773, and the Intolerable Acts a year later.[/quote]

[quote][b]If the British had lost legitimacy, Thomas Paine’s pamphlet “Common Sense,” in January, 1776 succinctly provided an American legitimacy based on Natural Law[/b]. Before the Congress evacuated Philadelphia, it passed a Declaration of Independence ratifying those ideas. Abigail Adams was quite right to question her husband’s statement about just all “men” being created equal.[/quote]

[Don John of Austria]

If I cannot give my Child permission to do something when I am not there then I cannot in effect parant my own Child, that is a violation of the parents Authority and an intrusion by the state.

[Don John of Austria]

I don't agree with the authors conclusions about adams letter not being aboutthe american Revolution, I've read the letter ( copies anyway) and he seemed very clear to me.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Dec 12 2004, 02:58 AM'] If I cannot give my Child permission to do something when I am not there then I cannot in effect parant my own Child, that is a violation of the parents Authority and an intrusion by the state. [/quote]
If you do not have supervision, you probably should be careful about giving your child permission for different things anyways. Plus, who could regulate this? All underage drinkers would then say "I have parental permission," and that would just turn into a mess.

[Don John of Austria]

There is no need for regulation at all the state shouldn't be involved at all, as long as the "teen" is not in the public realm meaning anyhere public, it is none of the states buisness.

[qfnol31]

What would you say if the state said that about parents who beat their children? It's in private.

[Don John of Austria]

Well I don't think CPS should exist, If a parent is truely injuring a Child then that is a situation for the police because the State has the right and duty to Protect it's citizens, As I said before this is the primary function of the State. That being said I think what we coonsider abusive is now achieved a ludicrus level, I am a junior High teacher and I will tell you with out any hesitation some of these Children need to be beaten, because if they don't understand that pain is the concequence of their behavior someone else is going to Kill them, and judgeing from there atitudes many of them will not be having a happy afterlife. Unless permanent damage is being done ( mental physical emotional or spiritual [ which of course our state doesn't care about] I don't think it is within the Authority of the State to say anything about it, If permanent damage is being done then that Falls under the States Authority, Drinking in moderation does not do permanent damage.

[Don John of Austria]

Well I have to go I'll talk to you later.

[qfnol31]

Yes, the hour is getting late.

I agree about CPS.

However, I do still believe that our government is legit and just.

[BeenaBobba]

[quote name='burnsspivey' date='Dec 10 2004, 06:07 PM'] Not arguing natural law, here.  I don't agree with the concept. [/quote]
Do you mean to say that you're only subjectively against murder? What makes you any more correct than those who don't have a problem with it, and what is your justification for imposing your view that murder is wrong on others?

And do you mean to say that you wouldn't have opposed racial slavery had you been alive in the 19th century? After all, if you don't believe in the natural moral law, then it'd follow that you don't believe in objective morality. Had you opposed racial slavery, your reasons for doing so would have been both subjective and arbitrary (i.e., according to your logic). Do you really want to believe that your right to life and your equality under the law is subjective, and do you really want to believe that someone could rightly take your life if they arbitrarily willed to do so?

God bless,

Jennifer

[BeenaBobba]

[quote name='burnsspivey' date='Dec 10 2004, 06:14 PM'] You can't avoid relativism when you have people of different faiths living together.  Even different sects of christianity disagree on many, many things and just because you hold one above the others doesn't mean that everyone else does.  This kind of thinking is the height of egocentrism.  Frankly, I can handle the cognitive dissonance of saying that there are no absolutes.  Then again, I don't say that -- the only constant is change, the eternal absolute. [/quote]
You make the erroneous assumption that varying views automatically make the case for relativism. This is false because it assumes too much. How do you know that one religion couldn't be absolutely true? If one religion's absolutely true, all other religions would be partially false. You cannot logically make the case for relativism; to do so, you'd have to insist upon it absolutely. Obviously, that's an illogical contradiction. The idea that change is an absolute truth is equally erroneous, and it's equally erroneous because it relies on the premise that truth is relative. After all, if truth is relative, it can change. If, for the sake of argument, I conceded that change is an absolute truth, how would you know that it's the only absolute truth? Why must the buck stop there? If absolute truth exists at all, then it'd follow that other things, including issues pertaining to morality, could be objectively true. What you haven't accounted for is why you think that morality and religion are relative. With science, there are often differing theories, but the mere existence of differing theories does not mean that all theories are therefore relative. No, there's always a chance that one theory is correct. And so it is with religion and morality, I'd say.

[quote]Our laws should not be influence by any particular religion or the rest of the religions, and the followers thereof, suffer.
[/quote]

I agree, which is why I think the natural moral law is important. Either way, you will saw off the branch you sit on if you argue against the natural moral law. Some group will suffer because of the mere fact that laws exist. Don't you think murderers suffer because of our laws against murder? Would you then argue against laws prohibiting murder on the basis that those with the proclivity to murder suffer?

To be perfectly fair, nonreligious philosophies are no different than religious philosophies when it comes to their application in law. There will always be groups who dislike laws stopping them from doing what they want to do.

[quote]So you are free to believe, when you can offer concrete proof of such, let me know. [/quote]

Well, for starters, if God doesn't exist, everything would be permissible. Are you comfortable with that? Are you comfortable with the fact that someone could justly kill your loved ones if God doesn't exist? Are you comfortable with the fact that there'd be nothing wrong with genocide if God doesn't exist? If God doesn't exist, then the fact of the matter is that things are wrong only because we [b]think[/b] they are. In actuality, however, they wouldn't [i]really[/i] be wrong.

The fact that consequence exists offers a proof. If someone commits murder, they (usually) go to jail. It's just an ontological fact. How can you argue against moral consequences when there are moral consequences all around us?

You know, it's slightly amusing that you're arguing for relative truth and the absense of proof. I mean, what's the point of arguing if our opinions are no more or less true than yours? And what good would proof be in a world where absolute truth doesn't exist?

God bless,

Jennifer

[Winchester]

I must take exception in giving a blanket "just" description of a country that is violating the rights of the most defensless of our society.

We do many good things in this country and many bad as well. We are better in many areas than most and worse than very few in very few areas. We have much work to do and our ponderous system is a hindrance to the accomplishment of that work.

CPS is a good idea if it is well thought out; sadly it is not. Most of the people I've met working with it really do want to do good. It is not a job for those with soft hearts, though. Those who are able to remain functionally "cold" to stressful situations should be employed in defending children, not those who worry if the little darlings will become serial killers because Daddy put a controlled switch to their backside.

[qfnol31]

Winchester,

I wouldn't say that every action of our government is just. In fact, quite often it's not. However, I do think that we have a governmnet that is justly in place. It would be different if the government was forcing the abortions on women (as in China), but since they do not, though they're doing a poor job of not having the law, they are still a government with a just right to rule the country.