Wwjd?

[skyking1976]

Read all about the libertarians here...

 

[skyking1976]

...but there is less of a sense of a moral imperative, with which I disagree. The founders were well aware, and wrote about the necessity of Americans being a "moral people."

I disagree with that statement. For Libertarians, the the responsibility for morality, or the direction of the moral imperative is the personal responsibilty of the citizen not the government. It is only right to say that a government for the people and by the people should have its moral enforced by personal values. Not the government entity as a watchdog.

 

[Timebuilder]

All morality comes from God. God works though Men to appoint governments that are worthy of leadership of His people. Leaving morality to an individual interpretation is anarchy, not morality. Leadership in these areas is a requirement of any well organized society.

Left to his own devices, man seeks his own pleasures instead of finding the narrow path. The founders understood this well, which is why the constitution does not contain any provision that inhibits religious beliefs being practiced or encouraged in the public square, including government leaders while in office. It simply says that no law may be made by congress respecting the establishment of religion.

In order to have a moral people, there must be a system of moral belief to which the majority of the people ascribe. Without that, it's a free-for-all.

 

[Dash8]

All morality comes from God. God works though Men to appoint governments that are worthy of leadership of His people. Leaving morality to an individual interpretation is anarchy, not morality. Leadership in these areas is a requirement of any well organized society.

Left to his own devices, man seeks his own pleasures instead of finding the narrow path. The founders understood this well, which is why the constitution does not contain any provision that inhibits religious beliefs being practiced or encouraged in the public square, including government leaders while in office. It simply says that no law may be made by congress respecting the establishment of religion.

In order to have a moral people, there must be a system of moral belief to which the majority of the people ascribe. Without that, it's a free-for-all.

nothing personal TB but ALL people of faith feel this way, that a person can't be moral unless they 'believe' which is a highly segregationist and elitest ideology to profer.

thats like saying that all evil people are areligious, and we all know that religion has been historically fraught with plenty of 'evil' people.

its those manners of characterizations that allow the self-aggrandization that these 'people of faith' use to vilify those not like them. now i know that non-believers are guilty of that as well, so please no prostylizing about that. but i don't generally make claims about believers being deluded or weak for having faith, i can understand why somepeople might need to have a faith of sometype, and believe thats all well and good for them. I don't try to convert people, live and let live as it were.

i'm not perfect either, but i do consider myself to be a fairly good and moral person, i know right from wrong, and try to live thusly
but i don't need the supposed ever lasting threat of purgatory/hell/'gnashing of teeth'(i remember that from a thread way back when), or reward of 'heaven' as my impetus to be that way.

peace, i'm out, gonna play some 'call of duty' online before running to the coffee shop to meet a new girl

 

[Timebuilder]

nothing personal TB but ALL people of faith feel this way, that a person can't be moral unless they 'believe' which is a highly segregationist and elitest ideology to profer.

Not only does God impose His morality on "believers," but on ALL of His creation. Everyone.

The quote above does not reflect my position. You can subscribe to ALL of God's teaching on morality, and still not be a "believer." For example, many observant jews are moral, as were the Pharisees and Saducees, and probably many of the better Catholic priests and protestant pastors. Even a Hindu or Muslim may, repeat MAY behave in a moral manner. The non-religious people who are moral aren't even aware that they are subscribing to a moral system that originated with God. The ONE God.

Being a believer in Christ brings salvation, but even then, you are not exempt from all of the temptation of immorality.

So, being a believer and being moral are often two different things entirely. The morality though, does indeed come from God.

its those manners of characterizations that allow the self-aggrandization that these 'people of faith' use to vilify those not like them.

ALL of the vilification comes from the sinful nature of Man, not from anything a believer or anyone else might say or think. It isn't a case of "those not like them," it's a case of those who are clearly engaging in behavior that God says is abhorrent. Your statement is only being used to vilify people of faith, though, isn't it?

I don't try to convert people, live and let live as it were.

That's how most people who are not believers live. For believers, the Great Commission mandates the sharing of God's word.

That's why it happens. Not to say "I'm better than you are" or some such nonsense.

i'm not perfect either, but i do consider myself to be a fairly good and moral person, i know right from wrong, and try to live thusly

That's good, but it doesn't get you to where you will need to be. The place where the one who created you wants you to be.

That is a matter beyond and separate from being a "moral person."

 

[skyking1976]

Timebuilder:

In your argument you assume that one cannot tell the difference between right and wrong. All of us have received discipline from our parents, teachers, etc. We have a foundation on which to base personal morals. You stated:

All morality comes from God. God works though Men to appoint governments that are worthy of leadership of His people.

If the divine vison of morality is common among "men", why have government enforce it? I will grant you, ill conceived actions warrant repercussions. The problem with having certain taboos (i.e. casual drug use) is that the danger involved is more intriguing than the actual taboo itself. This is precisely why teenagers will drink, use drugs, have sex, etc. It's exciting to be a rebel. The acts themselves, when used/performed in moderation and with a responsible attitude are essentially harmless. Keep in mind there were reasons why prohibition was repealed...

SK

 

[bart]

ok i gotta ask, and i'm just showing my ignorance here, but what the hell is a libertarian?

Glad you asked:

All you want to know about the Libertarian Party

 

[skyking1976]

Glad you asked:

All you want to know about the Libertarian Party

Dare I say a fellow libertarian?

 

[Timebuilder]

Timebuilder:

In your argument you assume that one cannot tell the difference between right and wrong. All of us have received discipline from our parents, teachers, etc. We have a foundation on which to base personal morals. You stated:



If the divine vison of morality is common among "men", why have government enforce it? I will grant you, ill conceived actions warrant repercussions. The problem with having certain taboos (i.e. casual drug use) is that the danger involved is more intriguing than the actual taboo itself. This is precisely why teenagers will drink, use drugs, have sex, etc. It's exciting to be a rebel. The acts themselves, when used/performed in moderation and with a responsible attitude are essentially harmless. Keep in mind there were reasons why prohibition was repealed...

SK [/B]

The reason we have recieved discipline from our parents is that we grew up in a far more moral society than children are being raised in now. Through government, we extend our desire for a stable, moral environmeent into the laws we call self-governance.

The founders designed our governemnt to be responsive to the needs of the people for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We have decided as a society, over time, to place limits on just what kinds of activities are in the best interests of scociety to help us remain a moral people.

There are many reasons why prohibition was repealed. Those reasons have nothing to do with recreational drug use, which I have seen first hand is far more destructive than alcohol consumption by responsible adults.

 

[skyking1976]

The reason we have recieved [sic] discipline from our parents is that we grew up in a far more moral society than children are being raised in now. Through government, we extend our desire for a stable, moral environmeent [sic] into the laws we call self-governance.

Again, the aspect of personal responsibility comes into play here. As a parent, I feel personally responsible to teach my stepson the value of good manners, fair play, being careful with sharp objects, etc. because my parents did, their parents did, and so on. Call it what you will; we learn by others' example or we learn by personal failure (i.e. the Judicial system).

The founders designed our governemnt [sic] to be responsive to the needs of the people for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We have decided as a society, over time, to place limits on just what kinds of activities are in the best interests of scociety [sic] to help us remain a moral people.

Establishing limits, per se, is not why our laws exist. They are designed to protect the three basic freedoms so that no one may infringe upon anothers' rights. The words of a law do not beget civility. It is the will of a civilization that laws exist.

There are many reasons why prohibition was repealed. Those reasons have nothing to do with recreational drug use, which I have seen first hand is far more destructive than alcohol consumption by responsible adults.

Prohibition was repealed, in part, because people were putting themselves in harms' way to drink alcohol. (Remember the movie "Thunder Road"?) I agree that chronic, habitual, drug use should be curtailed. It is the occasional use (not that I choose to be a part of it) that I take no issue with. I am sure you have witnessed, first-hand drug use. I question as to whether or not it was being done in moderation, however.

 

[Timebuilder]

I think we are very close to being in agreement.

Our laws are how our society brings individual agreement on behavior into a codified form. We discipline our children because it is in the interest of all of society that our children become moral citizens.

Recently, fewer people have come to regard that idea as being foundational, and it has much do do with the destruction of the family. That destruction is due primarily to the rejection of accepted moral standards.

 

[skyking1976]

TB:

I think we are after the same result: A society in which no one infringes upon anothers personal freedoms. We just have different ideas of what is considered personal freedom.

I like to think that disciplining children is not necessarily in society's best interest, as it is in our childrens' best interest to prepare them for society. I have always thought that the true measure of a parent is how well your children turn out later in life.

I agree with the last paragraph. Rejection of moral standards (lack of discipline) denegrates society. Those standards are what allow us to call ourselves civilized.

 

[Timebuilder]

I like to think that disciplining children is not necessarily in society's best interest, as it is in our childrens' best interest to prepare them for society.

In addition, we want OTHER parents to raise their children well, so that they do not prey upon us or our friends later. When they fail, or don't share our mores and cultural tenets, we all suffer. There is a Proverb that addresses this perfectly, 22:6 :

Train up a child in the way he should go, And when he is old he will not depart from it.


This question of government as moral "advocate" is where the individual aspects of freedom come into play: the right to free association (sometimes this means the right to discriminate, doesn't it?) the right to share beliefs with others, the right to create and support legislation as an active and aware citizen, following one's complete set of beliefs with the mission of retaining the good and preventing the bad; the essence of conservatism. As good citizens share their beliefs in a codified statute, we all benefit from the clear expression of our morality as a society.

Much of what we valued as a culture did not need to be codified until recently, such as the idea of "marriage." Now, we are facing a crisis where an amendment may be necessary. Most likely, it is because children are raised in public schools without "discernment," and they are thus losing the ability to detect and reject abhorrent and/or disgusting behavior. Stigma and shame are powerful motivators in an orderly society. Rejecting stigma and shame are typical of the "reasonable" and "progressive" ideas that are a part of the cancer in our society today. Those ideas are the internal workings of our moral clockwork.

 

[100LL... Again!]

donkey balls?

yawn.

so much for raising the level of invective to something more scintillating.

_________________________________________


As to this quote:

...nothing personal TB but ALL people of faith feel this way, that a person can't be moral unless they 'believe' which is a highly segregationist and elitest ideology to profer.



Here's the problem - the opposite viewpoint is also equally elitist.
You see why? People of faith get their moral rules from their faith.

People of the secularist persuasion get their moral rules from...THEMSELVES! Sorry to seem like a punk, but I see that as equally elitist, if not more.

If you deny the existence of a higher moral authority (God), then all basis for laws and social mores are reduced to the majority forcing its views on the majority.

This essentially allows anything - as long as you have a majority.
Remember, slavery was once legal, because everyone agreed it should be.

If you don't acknowledge a higher authority, then anything goes, right? It's only a matter of opinion.

 

[spongebob]

WTF, over

God! I hope I never have to fly with some self-righteous, brainwashed ideologue like timebuilder. As for the rest of you, never argue with a fanatic.

SB

 

[Timebuilder]

Wow! MORE AGREEMENT!

This is too weird.

I was just thinking that I hope I never have to fly with you, either, sponge.

Too strange.

Is the moon in the seventh house? Has Jupiter aligned with Mars?

It must be the dawning of the.......

 

[skyking1976]

Wow! MORE AGREEMENT!

This is too weird.

I was just thinking that I hope I never have to fly with you, either, sponge.

Too strange.

Is the moon in the seventh house? Has Jupiter aligned with Mars?

It must be the dawning of the.......

I feel a 5th Dimension song coming on...

 

[100LL... Again!]

Poor spongebob has been brainwashed into thinking that no ideologies are valid.

Sorry you are so adrift in post-modern relativism.

See? Implying brainwashing is a very weak debate tactic.

Even someone who knows the truth about an issue could have been brainwashed into it.

Again, becomes he-said-she-said.

Facts, facts, facts, my friend.

Or, a logical development of your position with point-by-point refutations of the other viewpoint.

Just accuse him of being a nazi and get it over with.

Game over. Try again.