A 'Moral' Government

Since Yonni has asked us to take this off his feedback thread, here it is:

Coyote, the problem with your 'logic' is that where do you draw the line? If smoking pot is deemed 'dangerous' to the family, what about watching too much TV or no violent TV? What about allowing parents to take kids on OHV's, horses, hiking? Should soda be banned from homes that have minors present? How about alcohol, cigars, red meat, sugar, white flour, Cap N Crunch? My point is, once you invite the beast into your front room, the beast being the government, how do you stop it from going into the kitchen, the family room, the bedroom? Once you crack the door open the beast WILL devour you.

Quote :

You might get rid of one problem, but you would creating several other major problems by legalizing drugs. People would have easy access to drugs thus causing more problems in human society. It would also affect the families that watch their drug addict son/daughter explore with drugs. Crime rates would go up because people will be trying more hardcore drugs and in order to feed their addiction they will commit crimes. This is not true. Access to drugs is easy NOW. If you make it legal but regulated like alcohol and tobacco and people don't do it secret thus inviting criminal activities to ensue, it will reduce crime across the board, the prisons will not be over-crowded by non-violent 'offenders', and the police will be able to better focus on violent crime.

We all know that prostitution/gambling/porn ALL will destoy families which is the main structure of society because it all starts with families. That is why the churches and community leaders do their job instead of passing it off to the government.

We should be at war with the drug cartel in Mexico, but yet we still back and do NOTHING as many Americans and Mexicans are killed on a daily basis. 1,200 troops plus the boarder patrol isn't enough to ultimately fix the problem. Our military has the power to take care of business if the politicians would get out of the away so we can unleash the dogs. If you legalize the drugs, no war is needed. Crime will go down, the drug cartels will have to find new venues to fund their activities, and the border patrol can patrol the border.

When our Constitution was ratified there were no federal anti-drug laws, no anti-liquor laws, no anti-pornography laws and slavery was legal. Was this a "moral" government?

fatbass wrote:

When our Constitution was ratified there were no federal anti-drug laws, no anti-liquor laws, no anti-pornography laws and slavery was legal. Was this a "moral" government?

Just because it was happening at the time that this great nation was founded doesn't make it morally right. When the LDS church was first established once again upon the earth then mormons could drink alcohol, chew tabacco etc right there in the church meeting because it wasn't viewed as a bad thing.

coyoteslayer wrote:

fatbass wrote:

When our Constitution was ratified there were no federal anti-drug laws, no anti-liquor laws, no anti-pornography laws and slavery was legal. Was this a "moral" government?

Just because it was happening at the time that this great nation was founded doesn't make it morally right. When the LDS church was first established once again upon the earth then mormons could drink alcohol, chew tabacco etc right there in the church meeting because it wasn't viewed as a bad thing.

And at that time those members of your church were bad because of their alcohol & tobacco usage?

Are you trying to say that your faith in your church trumps all other's beliefs? Because if you are, you're no better than the Taliban.

I thought it was religion that "regulated" morals not the government

coyoteslayer wrote:

fatbass wrote:

coyoteslayer wrote:

fatbass wrote:

When our Constitution was ratified there were no federal anti-drug laws, no anti-liquor laws, no anti-pornography laws and slavery was legal. Was this a "moral" government?

Just because it was happening at the time that this great nation was founded doesn't make it morally right. When the LDS church was first established once again upon the earth then mormons could drink alcohol, chew tabacco etc right there in the church meeting because it wasn't viewed as a bad thing.

And at that time those members of your church were bad because of their alcohol & tobacco usage?

Are you trying to say that your faith in your church trumps all other's beliefs? Because if you are, you're no better than the Taliban.

Fatbass, we all know that slavery should be viewed as something that is morally wrong. Also not everyone in the church was drinking and chewing tobacco, but their was never a law against it until the revelation about the Word of Wisdom. Which is a promise that people will have good health if they refrain from using such substances.Therefore people were required to live to a little high standard and are blessed because of it. People were getting drunk and fighting with one another and it becoming a concern. Many people couldn't give up the drink for awhile, and some never did give up their bad habits

Your faith in modern revelation makes me giggle.

I believe Son of Sam, Charles Manson and Brian David Mitchell also had revelations so let's not go there.

Why is slavery morally wrong when so many of the Old Testament faithful had slaves?

(I already know your simplistic answer but I need another giggle so serve it up, Brother coyoteslayer.)

No religion bashing, this can be a great discussion and let's keep it that way, I am tolerant about most stuff but not bashing a religious belief for whatever reason. So carry on!

Yonni wrote:

I thought it was religion that "regulated" morals not the government

You're a naive idealist Yonni, but I agree with you that this is the way it has been up until the last few decades as the government has increasingly taken on the role of moral guidance counselor and enforcer of those values that were once the primary domain of the churches.

The first European immigrants to North American were largely those disaffected people whose religious and moral values differed from the established, official state religions of the various European states. These people were a mixture of religious converts, anarchists and nonconformists who came here to to escape having a value system that differed from their own imposed upon them by the governments that they left behind.

Now here we are, two, three and four hundred years later with a government that is once again playing the paternalistic and authoritarian role as the enforcer of the moral values of the majority. Smoke pot or gamble or become a prostitute and you're no longer a sinner who risks ending up in Hell, you're a criminal who risks ending up in jail.

I know that you will never get it Fatbass. You're like talking to a brick wall. It's no secret about your hate for the church. You just cannot comprehend the things that you never have taken the time to understand. You make me laugh a lot.

I know you love to drink beer so of course you would be against someone/church telling you that it's not right. You're always on the defensive. I could care less if you drank a gallon a beer a day as long as you aren't out killing people on the highways.

Pete wrote:

Yonni wrote:

I thought it was religion that "regulated" morals not the government

You're a naive idealist Yonni

You will find that I will say stuff on here only to stir the pot, heck it got you to post

I will on occasion give my personal opinion, but I will refrain and be a conscientious observer since I am the admin here. I don't want to make things personal!

Quote :

I believe Son of Sam, Charles Manson and Brian David Mitchell also had revelations so let's not go there.

If you believe these people actually received a revelation from God then you might have a screw loose.

As the saying goes.......Ye shall know them by their fruits because they will produce good fruits. I dont see anything good that came from the people that you listed..

Yonni wrote:

No religion bashing, this can be a great discussion and let's keep it that way, I am tolerant about most stuff but not bashing a religious belief for whatever reason. So carry on!

I'd love to steer clear of zealot-bashing but some people simply can't give a rational argument in non-religious terms. If that someone uses his religion in an attempt to rationalize his political viewpoints, it becomes central to the argument. It's a 2-way street.

coyoteslayer wrote:

I know that you will never get it Fatbass. You're like talking to a brick wall. It's no secret about your hate for the church. You just cannot comprehend the things that you never have taken the time to understand. You make me laugh a lot.

I know you love to drink beer so of course you would be against someone/church telling you that it's not right. You're always on the defensive. I could care less if you drank a gallon a beer a day as long as you aren't out killing people on the highways.

I get it and you're the punchline.

Just stop casting your pious pearls before us beer drinking swine and there'll be no problems.

Quote :

I'd love to steer clear of zealot-bashing but some people simply can't give a rational argument in non-religious terms. If that someone uses his religion in an attempt to rationalize his political viewpoints, it becomes central to the argument. It's a 2-way street

I'm done if your done talking about religion because I might as well be talking to the neighbor's dog because it's the same as talking to you when it comes to moral issues. You believe people shouldn't have any morals. We should all be care free hippies hahaha.

coyoteslayer wrote:

I could care less if you drank a gallon a beer a day as long as you aren't out killing people on the highways.

On the same note, why should you or the government care if he is at home toking it up? Would it bother you if he was? Do you believe that it would warrant the government coming in to cause him hardships and reach into his wallet at the same time? You do realize, that forgiveness, one of the central doctrines of your faith, goes out the window when the government takes moral enforcement as one of its duties? Is that very Christlike to support others being given records, and placed on data bases that could affect their entire remaining lives without a chance of forgiveness to move on in this world, over things that were sins, until big brother stepped in to make said transgressions a crime?

fatbass wrote:

coyoteslayer wrote:

I know that you will never get it Fatbass. You're like talking to a brick wall. It's no secret about your hate for the church. You just cannot comprehend the things that you never have taken the time to understand. You make me laugh a lot.

I know you love to drink beer so of course you would be against someone/church telling you that it's not right. You're always on the defensive. I could care less if you drank a gallon a beer a day as long as you aren't out killing people on the highways.

I get it and you're the punchline.

Just stop casting your pious pearls before us beer drinking swine and there'll be no problems.

Dude, you're cracking me up!

[quote="Nibble Nuts"]

coyoteslayer wrote:

I could care less if you drank a gallon a beer a day as long as you aren't out killing people on the highways.

On the same note, why should you or the government care if he is at home toking it up? Would it bother you if he was? Do you believe that it would warrant the government coming in to cause him hardships and reach into his wallet at the same time? You do realize, that forgiveness, one of the central doctrines of your faith, goes out the window when the government takes moral enforcement as one of its duties? Is that very Christlike to support others being given records, and placed on data bases that could affect their entire remaining lives without a chance of forgiveness to move on in this world, over things that were sins, until big brother stepped in to make said transgressions a crime?

Like I said I could care less if he drank himself to death because that's his choice, but when people drink and drive or beat the hell out of their wife and kids then it becomes an issue.[/quote]

coyoteslayer wrote:

Quote :

I'd love to steer clear of zealot-bashing but some people simply can't give a rational argument in non-religious terms. If that someone uses his religion in an attempt to rationalize his political viewpoints, it becomes central to the argument. It's a 2-way street

I'm done if your done talking about religion because I might has well be talking to the neighbor's dog because it's the same as talking to you when it comes to moral issues. You believe people shouldn't have any morals. We should all be care free hippies hahaha.

It's entirely possible to have morals without gulping down and spontaneously regurgitating man-made dogma.
YOUR "morals" are not the same as mine yet we are both productive members of society with strong feelings for family and nation.
We won't see eye to eye as long as you keep insisting that you alone hold the keys to God's kingdom and everyone else is somehow lacking in "morals".

Here's the essence of Christianity: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." I enterpret that to mean that as long as I'm not hurting you with my lifestyle, you have no business messing with me and I'll leave you and your faith-based rituals alone as well.

So CS, based on your last post, you agree than that the government has no role as our moral enforcer, but as a protector of our individual rights outlined in the constitution, based on the premise that our rights come from God and are inalienable. To beat one's wife is an infringement of her God bestowed rights, so is killing or injuring others while driving drunk.

For evert right there also comes a responsibility. If I choose to partake of spirits or other substances then I have a responsibility not to drive while under the influence of said substances and put others at risk of being injured. If I choose to ignore that responsibility then I will if caught pay the consequences.

Quote :

It's entirely possible to have morals without gulping down and spontaneously regurgitating man-made dogma.
YOUR "morals" are not the same as mine yet we are both productive members of society with strong feelings for family and nation.
We won't see eye to eye as long as you keep insisting that you alone hold the keys to God's kingdom and everyone else is somehow lacking in "morals".

I never did say such a thing. Even people that don't believe in GOD have morals

Here's the essence of Christianity: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." I enterpret that to mean that as long as I'm not hurting you with my lifestyle, you have no business messing with me and I'll leave you and your faith-based rituals alone as well.

That is very true, but the problem is.......Some people have ruined it for the rest of us like yourself that live your lifestyle responsible. We would have fewer laws if everyone would use common sense and not do stupid things.

coyoteslayer wrote:

That is very true, but the problem is.......Some people have ruined it for the rest of us like yourself that live your lifestyle responsible. We would have fewer laws if everyone would use common sense and not do stupid things.

So therefore we need the government to save us from ourselves
Is your real name Nancy Pelosi?