The Supreme Court often decides on a one person margin because there are only nine members. And historically, by my estimation the Supreme Court has done a pretty good job of interpreting the law in a majority of its cases. The same court that unfortunately decided Roe v. Wade also heroically struck down countless racist laws, such as the ones prohibiting racial intermarriage.
My point about the margin of one person wasn't about the Supreme Court specifically, it was about the nature of law itself. In any argument there can be one wrong side, two wrong sides, but, never two correct sides (note if a side is mistaken it is still incorrect). The fact that the Supreme Court (the highest court, the supposed best for interpreting law) has outcomes by a one person margin AT ALL means at least 4 of the people on the Supreme Court are wrong in their interpretation of law. It makes it painfully clear that so much of our law is not decided by any written document, but, by personal beliefs. This is why a law based system does not work without a moral center behind it. In short law is just a ordered form, it is useless without agreement to the underling intent without which it will be used to serve anyone's purposes. Why do you think lawyers are among the most reviled professions? Maybe its because some use law to legally achieve aims that are not moral, whether it was within the scope of the original law's intent or not. You see the necessity of law is that you define the underling terms or one cannot follow it. Defining those terms will always lead you back to the need to define the source of everything I.E. God or consequently you have nothing.
At one point my mother was covered by a insurance company that said she would be taken care of if she got sick etc. This is a legally binding contract. Of course the day she got sick we found out the contact had a clause that basically said that they could drop her at any time for any reason. Making any promises in the rest of the contract pretty useless (hmm wonder why they are there then). The deception was entirely legal and makes my point about the bill. Laws are only as good as the people who use them or interpret them.
And my optimism in our judges comes not only from experience, but also from the fact that my grandfather was a judge before he was retired, and I believe pretty firmly that neither him nor any of his fellows would have ruled in such an unjustified manner.
Great! That's at least one good one
, to bad he's retired though. I have heard about some pretty liberal judges however. Jay Sekulow
http://aclj.org was talking about some 9th? or 11th? circuit at some point being pretty out there as to it rulings creating law, not interpreting them. I cannot remember the facts at this moment, sorry, but, it is for people like that such a bill should not be passed. Odd that I could not find his opinion on the bill (which does make me think the bill isn't THAT big a deal).
My point is that ours is a political system in which powers are limited and distributed to keep laws fair and balanced, and despite any past failings, we must continue to fight laws first in the appropriate ways before we give in to feelings of persecution, otherwise those feelings are unjustified and therefore meaningless.
Our government should not have to serve a Christian worldview. It should strive for neutrality, and I believe it does. We are not the only ones living here. Our government is made up of human beings, and as such it can never be perfect.
I've mentioned this in other threads, but, it is not possible for a person to be neutral thus neither a government made up of people. To even pursue neutrality is foolish in my opinion. The very definitions of who is human and what it means to be human cannot be agreed upon without adopting a belief system.
Now if you mean that our government should reflect it's peoples beliefs ok, but, how do you decide what those beliefs are initially? Lets have a vote about it, but wait who should vote? Lets have a vote about it, but wait who should vote? Lets have.... you get my point. Initially our government was based on a Christian faith. From that base many things were changed, some towards that base, others away from it. In today's society I think we are moving away from it and it is up to us to move it back towards it. If our government is to be a reflection of its people we have the power to make it legally and democratically Christian.
But if you stop believing that the system works, then there is no point to participating in politics at all, and your safest option is to actively arm yourself and fight to overthrow the government, or emigrate to a country that has a political system you consider fair.
Governance is too important to be ignored.
Absolutely correct. I've often wondered why people think it was ok to have a civil war which denied some people liberty and happiness (and sometimes life) when abortion denies life directly and therefore liberty and happiness as well. However, I do not think things have gotten as far as civil war yet as we still have some recourse. Only that bills such as the one we are discussing are too vague and should not be implemented. It's like handing your enemy a weapon.
Yes no government will be perfect till Christ comes back, but, I do not consider 4.8+ million children murdered legally a small error in judgment. It's enough to make me doubt any legal system. It's not just the fact they allowed it, it's the fact they haven't overturned it in 34 years. That is just what I have though doubt, enough to want to effect change, not armed rebellion. My faith is in Christ not in any government. When I fight (not speaking specifically physically) I do it not because I believe I will win any single fight, but, because it's right by God and in Christ we know we have ultimately won the war.
And on the interpretation of "crime of violence," I would say that there is a difference between someone calling your house and saying "we are going to kill you because you are a homosexual" and someone saying from the pulpit, "in ancient Israel, homosexuality carried the death penalty." One of those is a future threat, and one is a historical fact, and the two are in completely separate classes of statement.
It doesn't matter how you or I interpret it. What matters is how the government will interpret it. Neither do I quote the Biblical verses as "historical fact" as in no longer relevant. I was quoting what the bible says should be done about homosexuals, as in the present, BUT, we don't because of the grace of God. Suffice to say without a comprehensive understanding of the Bible people could interpret that as a order to go kill homosexuals. If your intent is to see the Bible in a negative light that's just what you are going to do. That there are people involved in law that will use the vagueness of the wording of the bill to do just that is a fact. If you haven't read it part of the AFA's initial reason against the bill and response to snopes was as follows....
AFA response to Snopes: American Family Association became concerned about the imminent threat to free speech during the Judiciary Committee hearings about H.R.1592. During the hearings Representative Gohmert directed the following question to Representative Davis (the sponsor of Section 8 – H.R.1592): “If a minister preaches that sexual relations outside of marriage of a man and woman is wrong, and somebody within that congregation goes out and does an act of violence, and that person says that that minister counseled or induced him through the sermon to commit the act, are you saying under your amendment that in no way could that ever be introduced against the minister?” Representative Davis answered, “No.” In other words, it could be introduced in action against the minister. Click here to read this section of the Judiciary Committee hearing.
However that is in response to H.R.1592 which I haven't read yet. I've only read S.1105, which with the other reasons I listed was enough to be againist it. Gerbil so tired writing/researching sleep now ZZZZZZZZzzzzzzz........
![Amicus Dei of [FoG]](/forums/data/avatars/m/2/2239.jpg?1442680077){kind=avatar}
