Mitt Romney has officially suspended his campaign. But at this website, we really don’t care about Mitt Romney, so the more important question is: what does this mean for Ron Paul?
The Death Blow Scenario - With Mitt Romney out, that leaves Huckabee, McCain and Paul going for the nomination. Romney’s supporters will likely back Huckabee over McCain, but some will pick McCain. With Romney’s votes, McCain gets the required delegates to make it to the convention unopposed. Ron Paul drifts quietly into the night.
The Brokered Convention Scenario - If Huckabee drops out soon, then Christians, pro-lifers and immigration advocates only have one rational choice - Ron Paul. Pro-war republicans will have to swallow their dislike of Paul, and vote for him because McCain holds positions closer to Hillary Clinton than Ronald Reagan.
What the media doesn’t get in all of this (but McCain and Huckabee are very aware of this) is that Ron Paul has significantly more delegates than his poll numbers would indicate. His campaign reported 42 after Super Tuesday. He won’t have enough to win, but he may have enough to be the kingmaker in a brokered convention.
eBay Changes Feedback Structure
eBay stops the tit-for-tat feedback cycle that has been happening lately. The problem is that sellers are conserably more likely to leave retaliatory feedback. The new rules are designed to fix this by basically removing sellers from the feedback equation.
As both a buyer and seller on eBay, I can definitely confirm that the seller has way to much advantage in the current feedback system. However, the problem could be fixed if this issue were looked at more fundamentally. The sellers are claiming that they have rights to leave the last word on feedback because “buyer satisfaction” is part of their requirements. In other words, unless the buyer leaves positive feedback, then they haven’t “completed” their part of the transaction. I think this is garbage - a petty excuse to preserve an etiquette system that allows them to retaliate. I propose that the seller should be required to leave feedback once they have shipped the item (this is when the item is legally the buyer’s responsibility) or the buyer has confirmed they have received the item. Are you listening eBay? I propose!
Money
Wesley Snipes was acquitted of tax fraud, conspiracy.
Euros are starting to become accepted in New York city.
Maniacism
FBI wants palm prints, eye scans, tattoo mapping
Medicine
Assisted suicide, sans doctor, in Oregon. Husband arrested for murder of wife with Lou Gehrig’s Disease.
Finnish patient gets new jaw from own stem cells
Ministry
5 Reasons Why The Emergining Church Is Fading
Cigarette Silence: When will the Church comment on the evils of Big Tobacco?
Colin said: “[Ron Paul] may have enough [delegates] to be the kingmaker in a brokered convention.”
Not likely. At best he will have enough delegates to influence the party platform in some minor ways.
One problem… the Emerging link is joined with the tobacco link.
Regarding the husband-assisted suicide case: are we surprised?
I am not surprised - there are legitimate assisted suicides all the time (assuming this one is). It is unfortunate that these people were caught and now have to be “punished” by a third party that has no right in any of it. In my opinion, the man should be required to prove that it was not murder - he should have a document that shows his wife’s consent. If he doesn’t, he should be prosecuted.
But this is what the black market in assisted suicides has made. In an open market, this could have been legally notarized and done in a more medically appropriate method.
Colin, will you kill me? I’m having a bad day. I’ll put it in writing.
I definitely will not - I think suicide is morally and ethically wrong in any form. However, it is also not my right to prevent you by force or coercion from ending your life or seeking help to do so.
Good. I don’t really want to die, no matter how bad my day is. Your words “legitimate assisted suicide” threw me. Yes, there might be “legitimate” suicides under Oregon law, but they are, IMO, a very bad idea. Such a bad idea that I likely would use force, or at least coercion, to prevent it.
I am saying that the law is irrelevant and actually has no legitimate authority to intervene. It’s logic for intervention is circular and has no basis outside it’s own relativistic philosophy justifying its existence. If it is your friends or family, it is one thing to personally intervene (although this is defined by individual circumstances). If it is a stranger, 300 miles away, you or I have no right to tell them how to live (or die) and threaten them with force, fines or jail if they don’t.
Well, on that Ron Paul note…we have a caucus tomorrow here in Kansas. I did something I said I never would. I changed my part affiliation from Independent to Republican so I can vote for Paul. I completely expect him to get most of the vote in this county. With Romney out, it will definitely change some things. I expect most of the Romney people to gravitate towards McCain, with a minority of them opting for Huckabee. But who knows? I just think its going to be a very interesting election year. I wonder what kind of shenanigans we should expect.
Yeah, a friend asked me what I thought Romney’s departure would do, if it would help Huck. I think it will help Huck where he’s already strong (the South), and help McCain where he’s already strong (everywhere else). In other words, it probably won’t mean much help for Huck. So now I see Dobson endorsed Huck. Hmm… not sure what I’m going to do since I’m a delegate at our district’s convention in a few weeks. If only Ron Paul had a clue on foreign policy, I would support him in a heartbeat. If only…
Darius, obviously everyone here has made various points of foreign policy. I encourage you to take some time to consult Dr. Paul’s speeches and articles on the subject directly. His 25 minute speech at CPAC I thought was rather definitive. I think you can respect that Ron Paul (even if you think he is wrong) has actual reasoning behind his claims, unlike most democrats. Also, I hope you will see that even if you disagree with him on that single issue - the rest of his platform is unambiguously “conservative.” Huck and McCain are both democrats in Republican skin - I think you may find out that Ron Paul is a conservative, but appears more “democrat” to you primarily on foreign policy alone. Ultimately, I think you’d agree, that you want someone who is a conservative at his core, who will stand on conservative grounds in a time of decision, rather than a democrat pander to the GOP who will (and has) acted like a democrat when he is in office.
PART 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8l8AIuJJRZo
PART 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-oaD9oM4xQo
PART 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWlUc8ip5hc
PART 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGaZsAeMKFo
Thanks for the links. His first part was really good, the 2nd part lost me at foreign policy, and then I picked him up again halfway through the third part.
Oh I agree that he is conservative on all other issues except on prostitution/drugs/etc. But I can live with that, since it is highly unlikely that he could legalize prostitution. But he COULD do a lot of damage with foreign policy. He’s surprisingly naive when it comes to alliances. If World War II taught us anything (besides no appeasement), it was that it is sometimes necessary to ally with a country that is at odds with you ideologically. Furthermore, sometimes we have no idea what a person/government is capable of. Saddam is a great example of this. He was highly regarded as someone who could do a lot of good in the Middle East… it didn’t become apparent until a decade later that he could also do a lot of evil. Meanwhile, Iran was a known entity, and it was a disruptive one. So we aided Saddam in keeping Iran down. In hindsight, that may have been a poor choice.
Also, Paul would do well to not play to the extremes of his followers. Twice he mentioned the coming draft, when that is a farce. And he also mentioned the North American Union. A NAU won’t happen in my lifetime, conservatism in this country is way too strong for that. A draft, maybe. But not anytime soon. He should stick to the serious stuff and not pander, it makes him look like a quack to those of us conservatives who want to take a second look at him.
That said, he’s intriguing. Huck doesn’t stand a chance, and his liberalism scares the crap out of me. But if he did stand a chance, his strength on life would maybe pull me to him. McCain is not a choice. So it’s stay home or vote for RP. You know, it’s funny, all of these Ron Paul supporters rip on the conservative talking heads for using “absolutes,” yet Ron Paul does the very same thing. I think he missed an opportunity to get some of the more principled conservatives behind him, people like Dennis Prager, Ann Coulter, Michele Malkin, Mark Steyn, etc. Those people aren’t politicians, they want to see conservatism win out. Coulter especially marches to her own beat on conservatism. If Paul would tone down his foreign policy rhetoric, he would get a lot of people behind him, because he’s not saying almost anything different or new from what Coulter and Prager say every week.
His statements about global warming hysteria appeal to me…
And his adamant pro-life position is thrilling.
Hmm, what to do, what to do…
Christians and “values-voters” aren’t going to flock to an anti-Israel candidate who supports legalizing drugs and prostitution - those are show-stoppers. A few might, but not many.
Highly probable and most likely.
To use the old cliche, the people have spoken - you may not like the outcome, but that’s politics.
McCain has it wrapped up. With most of the states from here not being winner take all he’s unstoppable.
1, Paul does not stand a chance of being a force of any kind running on the republican ticket. Not this year or this next decade. Most republicans are not going to embrace a libertarian…ever. You forget that a good percentage of republicans favor the top down, big business monolith that we are building (many democrats also). I just do not see a lot of fat republicans who are heavily invested in their 401k in stocks or even mutual funds, wanting to do away with the Fed, let alone the IMF or World Bank. I mean to say that a lot of republicans serve their intrests by alligning with big business not necassaraly conservitive social issues. Paul, by his very philosophy, is at odds with this group. He or another person with views like his should have a presence in every election local state and national, but as an independant. The more people listen through time, the ideas like the ones he proposes will eventually sink in. I dont mean to make you mad, but if Rommney and Huckabee both commited their votes to Paul, he still wouldnt win. No chance whatsoever on the republican ticket.
2, eBays new policy is rotten! I take issue with your stance that the previous feedback system was slanted in favor of the seller. I have been selling since 1998, exclusivly as an income since 2001. You stated that you sell some also, I assume not enough to deal with any nuts or new people that just like to see what they can get away with. I have had several buyers contact me to let me know they wanted a refund and keep the item or they would leave a negative feedback. I have had chargebacks from stolen credit cards, I have had bad checks. I have had forged money orders from Wal-Mart(3 of them). I have had people claim to not get a package when I had delivery conformation and can see it was delivered. I have had paypal claims filed against me that were refunded without me getting back the item. I have had negatives left after I issued a refund because it wasnt “what I expected” You name it, I have seen it. Most transactions are with normal, sane people, but 1 or 2 out of every few hundred will take their toll. Also, any idiot can open a buying account. I could open 10 different ones tonight. It is something entirely different to open a sellers account. When you give virtually annomymous people the ability to play around with your income with no recourse, you are asking for trouble. It stinks, but I will have to live with it I guess.
Coward, Ron Paul may be “perceived” as anti-Israel, but he is hardly so. He has in fact, stood up for Israel defending itself when no one else did. He is just for ending foreign aid, which benefits Arab countries much more than Israel. Israel would be much better off with Ron Paul’s policy.
Biff, I don’t doubt anything you say, and I agree that the buyer has a lot more power than the seller in a broad sense. However, with strict regard to feedback, eBay has shown that statistically it is sellers in the wrong on this. Like I said, this is easily fixed by requiring sellers to leave feedback before the buyer.
Darius, I agree that you are in a bind. I am glad to see that you understand that Paul’s views on prostitution and drugs are a non-issue. I have had people list this and “electability” as major issues for not voting for Paul, when Paul won’t/can’t do jack about drugs and prostitution. I’m pleasantly surprised you get this.
I think you would be surprised about the NAU. Europeans would have said the same thing in 1988 about the EU as a government. Global government is a big draw. And that’s the point - ignoring what people in individual nations believe. So the conservatives (who seem to like electing people that support it) aren’t going to be able to do anything about it.
I also agree that Ron Paul could court the base a lot better if he would tone down the foreign policy stuff. I think he sounds the same as democrats to a lot of conservatives.
I just think that an EU-type system has no chance here whereas it had plenty of support among the masses in Europe. Conservatism has been dead for decades in Europe, but it still has at least a few gasps left in this country.
Paul sounds so much like a Democrat, the 9/11 truthers are pulling for him.
Darius,
If this foreign policy of occupying foreign countries and instigating years-long wars continues (which it will under John McCain), the draft will be re-instated. We have congressmen who are already proposing it. As parents of four children in a war-driven political climate, we pay very close attention to this and the prospects are terrifying.
Also, I live in Texas. People here have been fighting to keep their land because the government is trying to seize it via emminent domain for the purpose of beginning the NAFTA superhighway, which is a substantial part of the drafting of the NAU. This IS happening whether they talk about it on the news locally for everyone or not. They DO talk about it here, because it has touched people’s lives here and now. Next year, no. Next five to ten years, yes. The foundation is already being put in place. And officials in Mexico and Canada don’t talk about it like it won’t be in our lifetime…they talk about it openly and as though they plan to see it through to its conclusion themselves.
How long did it take to implement the EU?
Colin,
We are very active locally for the Ron Paul campaign (my husband especially since oddly enough being the breadwinner still affords him more time than I seem to have, ha!) and we are seeing VERY encouraging signs here.
We have had GOP officials calling our grassroots offices to say that people are very, very unhappy with John McCain being heralded as the nominee and shoved down their throats now. We had many people who were very pro-Romney and anti-Paul (mainly because of his war stance) show up at grass-roots organizations last night to say they are backing Paul and were ready to do whatever it took to keep McCain out of office.
In one state, the GOP party officials have requested a letter of no-confidence be written against McCain, basically stating that he does not represent the party platform and should not be given the nomination.
His speech at yesterday was very combative, IMO, and the campaign says to expect even tougher approaches going forward. Keep in mind that it is fairly well-known that McCain calls Ron Paul, “The most honest man in Washington,” so when McCain comes out swinging at Dr. Paul in upcoming days, it’s going to be sort of fun to see what he can come up with. The stellar example of conservatism that Dr. Paul has been for his entire career is going to be pretty hard to combat, and it’s going to point out the myriad flaws in McCain’s claim of conservatism.
I can’t say that Romney supporters are coming in droves, because I don’t know for sure. But I do know they are coming and are being welcomed. They had previously chosen the most conservative of the bunch who they thought was “electable” and now that he’s gone, they are trying to stay conservative, and that can only mean Paul. Many of them are angry about Romney giving the nod to McCain, and question if there are any “back room” deals that went down already, which would have been a betrayal of Romney’s base and further anger them. I don’t know if the McCain or Huckabee camps are profiting at all from his bowing out, but the Paul campaign has, if only because “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.”
Anyway, be encouraged, and I hate to use a Bushism, but stay the course.
Colin, do you *really* think Christians (evangelical, “values-voters”, or whatever) will (or should) support someone who wants to legalize drugs and prostitution? Those positions make Paul kryptonite to the vast majority of Christians (if past votes are any guide — and they are). It’s just not going to happen. The “everyone does what is right in their own eyes” simply isn’t going to fly for the vast majority of Christians/Evangelicals/values-voters. It may not be a big deal for *you*, but for the majority of that group, it’s *huge*.
Yes, his views *are* important. He *wants* to legalize them, and would if given the chance. Again, that’s kryptonite to values voters.
As to Paul being anti-Israel, I went back and read the debate transcripts. If by support, you mean Israel has a right to exist, and a right to defend itself, then Paul does that. But if you mean military and financial support (and intervention if they’re attacked), Paul is against it, saying we should not be involved at all. That sums up his debate statements, and generally aligns with his anti-military foreign policy in general. (”It’s the empire, stupid”).
So anti-Israel *may* be a little strong, but he’s definitely not pro-Israel. He says they have a right to exist, and have the right to defend themselves, as long as we’re not involved. That’s unlikely what people have in mind when they think of “support Israel”.
Conservative talk-radio people won’t support him for the simple reason he’s not a Conservative — he’s a Libertarian. (For some reason, many Libertarians and Liberals don’t like to be called what they are, but I digress).
Paul has some conservative ideas, but wrapped in Libertarian philosophy means he’s unacceptable. Perhaps if he’s the last and only one in the race, maybe. But social conservatives would *never* accept him (already mentioned legalizing drugs/prostitution), and economic conservatives would find someone else without the Libertarian negatives. Pro-defense Conservatives would have to look elsewhere as well. Paul is Libertarian, not Conservative.
And as Colin pointed out, on foreign policy he sounds like a Democrat.
You’re right — if Paul wants to be taken seriously, he’s got to distance himself from all the fringe groups supporting him — prostitution, drug users, white supremacists, 9/11 truthers, anti-Israel, etc.
I don’t know what criteria you used for the comparison, but it’s popular now to say McCain is more liberal than Clinton, which is absurd. I wrote about it recently, but here’s a summary of ratings:
Clinton’s 2006 vote ratings from liberal groups: Americans for Democratic Action - 95%; ACLU - 83%; League of Conservation Voters - 71%.
Her 2006 ratings from conservative groups: National Taxpayers Union - 17%; Americans Conservative Union - 6%; Club for Growth - 8%; Family Research Council - 0%.
McCain’s liberal group ratings: ADA - 15%; ACLU - 33%; LCV - 29%.
And conservative group: NTU - 88%; ACU - 65%; CFG - 76%; FRC - 62%.
But it all depends on how you rate ‘em I suppose — without knowing your criteria, it’s impossible to say. But these groups are a cross section of both conservative and liberal thought, and rate candidates over many votes, years and issues (If you look at only a few issues/votes, you can get any results you want).
That’s because Paul is a Libertarian and not a Conservative, and the crossover between Libertarians and Liberals/Democrats is on foreign policy and social do-whatever-you-want, while the crossover between Libertarians and Conservatives is mostly on Paul’s saner parts of economic policy.
If Paul emphasized foreign/social policy instead of economics, he’d be welcomed as a Democrat.
I would have to agree with Constitutional… he’s not a conservative, but does like to play one on TV. He really panders, which is kinda funny since everyone likes to make him out to be some super authentic non-politician politician.
Paul’s foreign policy (the big sticking point in my book) is basically fiddle while Rome burns. Israel gets wiped out, so be it. He’s not Neville Chamberlain, cause at least Neville tried to do something. If he had been in charge in the 1940’s, he would have been part of the group that called for no involvement in World War II.
Tamara, it is interesting how most Ron Paul people whine about Bush promoting fear to keep up his support when Ron Paul is the biggest fearmonger of all (and bases it on a lot less evidence to boot). Paul says things like “North American Union,” “draft,” and what not to spread fear and drum up support. THERE WILL NOT BE AN NAU IN WHICH THE UNITED STATES PARTICIPATE IN THE NEXT 50 YEARS. Perhaps sometime, if our country continues turning liberal. But not anytime soon. So what if some congressman are proposing NAUs and drafts, they propose impossible things all the time. You give the conservative movement in this country too little credit. And Paul plays to your fears perfectly.
Darius, yelling (i.e. writing in capitals) does not make your point any more correct or wise or justified. The fact that there are congressman talking about and actively working towards a draft, super highway, and NAU should be enough to make any rational person think twice. Tamara has a valid point, we should not just be concerned about our lifetime or the next 50 years, but for what this country may become for our children’s children.
Constitutional Conservative: everyday people “do what is right in their own eyes” regardless of laws on the books. These laws do not stop them from doing immoral things, nor are the majority of them caught by these laws. In fact, such laws create a black market, making the entire situation worse. If someone using drugs harms another person, they should be prosecuted for the crime of the harm, same thing for people who use caffeine, alcohol etc. After all, we don’t prosecute people for using large amounts of caffeine which sometimes can cause problems, nor do we prosecute people for consuming large amounts of alcohol. You cannot stop people from doing these things. You can prosecute them for harm they inflict on others. Even a brief study of prohibition proves this point.
The point of having a law is to protect people not to make them ascribe to a moral idea which is not their own. It’s not the government’s position to enforce morals, it is the government’s job to protect people and their rights to life and liberty and keep them safe. If a person want a government that enforces morals, so that drug use and prostitution is (supposedly) almost non-existent then he/she should go and visit a middle eastern country such as Oman.
first of all, I don’t capitalize to express yelling, I capitalize to EMPHASIZE. I’m tired of people thinking I’m yelling.
lol
Sadie, you seriously compared drug use to caffeine use???
Let’s take meth as an example of a drug that completely destroys your argument. Meth is a highly addictive drug that wipes out a person’s desire to live beyond his/her next “hit.” Thus, it severely affects the lives of those around the addict.
Heh, caffeine… now that’s a good one.
For a GOOD argument AGAINST drug use, read this. If anyone has can refute it, please let me know.
http://www.city-journal.org/html/7_2_a1.html
Darius, that article is foolish in that it falls into the trap of comparing the consumption of materials with burglary, theft, murder, etc. Drug abuse is considered a “victimless” crime, since it is perpetrated BY the self TO the self FOR the self. Any harm outside of that person’s being is INDEED a crime and would be prosecuted as such. Destroying of families, friendships, loss of income, jobs, etc are truly sad, but not a crime. Abandoned children and families ripped apart by drugs are tragedies, NOT crimes. Yet, even with the prohibition against these substances, these situations still occur.
The problem with comparing them to burglary and such, is that such crimes are perpetrated by someone AGAINST someone else. An act of agression against another person’s rights in a criminal manner. While we may never win the war against stealing/burglary, that’s not the point. It’s a crime to take someone else’s property, especially by force. Ingestion of substances for the sake of pursuit of the high, or out of pure need, is no more a crime than divorce. Both are tragedies with a ripple effect of harm around them, but it’s not a crime. Nor is it in the governments scope to prosecute those that emotionally scar those around them. As stated above, if a man/woman gets high and agresses against another human, it would be a crime regardless of the substance they have consumed.
And yes, caffeine indeed can be compared to other substances. Not perhaps in severity, but obviously severity does not factor into the legality of the substance. Overwhelmingly, the only substance truly life threatening to detox from is ALCHOHOL. We don’t worry much about heroin, or meth, or coke…we can taper these people and hopefully relieve some discomfort, but we hardly worry about their life. Alcohol is as substance that can cause DEATH during detox/rehab. Yet it is still legal. Your argument about meth does not fly, since all of those principles you applied can be placed on Alchohol.
Just this week, the Dallas Morning News reported on a congressionally mandated commission that investigated the state of our military preparedness. The report is 448 pages long and so I doubt any of us here are too interested in reading it in its entirety. However, it’s conclusion was that our troop depletion rates are “appalling.” Last year, 88 percent of our guard units were not fully manned, this year it is worse. Here’s a direct quote from one of the researchers: “”The Guard and Reserves are the prime reason we’ve not had a national military draft, but the challenges facing the Guard and Reserves in recruiting, equipment and training have snowballed.”
Because of the severe depletion of our National Guard and Reserves, due to spreading them out around the globe, we have a severe troop shortage. Therefore, as confirmed by this study, we have two options: stop spreading ourselves so thin, or re-instate a draft.
This is not an “out-there” news rag or some fear-mongering website that reached these conclusions. This was a congressionally mandated study that was professionally done over the course of several months.
My assertion that a draft could well be in our future is not a conspiracy theory, nor is it borne of listening to too much Ron Paul. This is well-substantiated fact that was a concern long before Ron Paul ever ran for president. Perhaps if there is never going to be draft again, our esteemed congressman would like to get rid of selective service laws???? Yeah, I didn’t think so.
As for the NAU perhaps you could come down here to Texas and tell these people who have been fighting to keep their land that it’s not going to happen. I doubt they’ll believe you though, since they have been embroiled in a legal battle for a while now. This thing has been on the front pages of all the major newspapers around here, it’s not like it’s news to us. So to have someone say it’s not happening, or at the very least won’t happen in our lifetime, is somewhat amusing, to be honest. Perhaps you can stop by Parliament in Canada and alert them to the fact that the U.S. won’t be taking part in the NAU anytime soon, because so far all the collaborative efforts seem to have left them with that impression.
I am not working towards keeping just my lifetime free. We have four children and future generations to think of. “My lifetime” is hardly my chief aim; if it were, how selfish would that be? Let’s say it doesn’t happen for another 50 years. I’ll be 83 years old. I’ll have children and even great-grandchildren. And I will not want us to be that generation that Ronald Reagan predicted would come if we did not work to preserve our liberty: the one that will sit around and tell our younger generations about how great America was when men were free. I want them to know for themselves.
“Your argument about meth does not fly, since all of those principles you applied can be placed on Alcohol.”
I don’t agree. Alcohol does not nearly have the addictive properties of meth, nor the extremely negative side effects. Many people can and do use alcohol in moderation. I haven’t heard of many people who use meth moderately for very long. Perhaps some of this is due to the fact that it is illicit. But, as Dalrymple WISELY points out, are we willing to take a chance and assume that legalizing it is going to be good for society. As he said, “Amsterdam, where access to drugs is relatively unproblematic, is among the most violent and squalid cities in Europe.”
I’ll take the truly CONSERVATIVE position and err on the side of keeping drug use illegal as opposed to pushing for a social experiment. Furthermore, I put a lot of credibility in the opinion of a man who has spent his life in the ravages wrought by drug use (much of it legal).
Tamara, I’m all for fighting against the NAU and a draft. However, I think there are much more pressing issues (radical Islam, and not just the terrorism vein; abortion; and on and on). I don’t think we should spend too much energy “tilting at windmills.” The NAU is a real possibility, but not any time soon. So go ahead and keep up-to-date on the matter, but don’t get tunnel vision.
“Therefore, as confirmed by this study, we have two options: stop spreading ourselves so thin, or re-instate a draft.”
You missed a third option: raise troop levels back to the pre-Clinton years. Clinton did a very good job of decimating our military, and unfortunately, Bush hasn’t really addressed that issue very well.
I don’t agree. Alcohol does not nearly have the addictive properties of meth, nor the extremely negative side effects.
This is absolutely false. As I stated above, alcohol is worse with negative side effects. As I stated above, alcoholics withdrawing from the substance die. Withdrawing from meth will not kill you.
Many people can and do use alcohol in moderation. I haven’t heard of many people who use meth moderately for very long. Perhaps some of this is due to the fact that it is illicit. But, as Dalrymple WISELY points out, are we willing to take a chance and assume that legalizing it is going to be good for society.
The moderation argument isn’t the point, as the amount of the substance one ingested is not a legal issue, regardless. Regardless, the roll of the government is not to determine what is good for society (seriously, can you imagine? How far does that precedent fall?) but to uphold and protect our individual liberties. The fact of the matter is, making such substances illegal has been a failed social experiment. Drug abuse is rampant, the “war on drugs” is costing millions of wasted dollars, a large black market with organized crime exists due to it, etc.
“Amsterdam, where access to drugs is relatively unproblematic, is among the most violent and squalid cities in Europe.”
And this, as well, is a foolish statement. It falls under the post hoc ergo propter hoc, or non-sequitor, since it cannot be shown but only assumed to be connected. How does one know that legalized drug use is the cause of such anectdotal and subjective terms such as “squalid”. According to what sentiments and standards? How does one measure squalor, or violence, for that matter? If you could compare drug-related crimes in Amsterdam as compared to…the U.K.? Then you may have a point. Other than that, he simply makes a weak, emotional driven argument based on personal opinion.
I’ll take the truly CONSERVATIVE position and err on the side of keeping drug use illegal as opposed to pushing for a social experiment. Furthermore, I put a lot of credibility in the opinion of a man who has spent his life in the ravages wrought by drug use (much of it legal).
Show me how keeping drugs illegal is somehow a conservative opinion (in the true sense), and I’ll buy it.
While I respect any man who has brought himself out of the rigors and horrors of drug use, his personal life story does not qualify anything he has to say beyond the influence of his own actions. Anecdotal stories are never a good enough reason for enactment of policy.
You missed a third option: raise troop levels back to the pre-Clinton years. Clinton did a very good job of decimating our military, and unfortunately, Bush hasn’t really addressed that issue very well.
One cannot raise troop levels if people don’t join. Several branches of the military have not been meeting recruitment goals for a while now, and this is becoming problematic. I think Tamara covers this. The whole POINT is to raise troop levels, but in a voluntary military, one cannot do as such without people signing up.
Regarding Amsterdam… it’s a known fact that the city is squalid and crime-infested, feeding off of the legal prostitution and drug markets. Kinda like saying Siberia is cold.
Regardless, the roll of the government is not to determine what is good for society.
Government does this ALL THE TIME. Public nudity is only one of many examples of laws that are for the good of society. Then again, I’m guessing you’re against public decency laws. How that is “conservative,” I have no idea. Just admit to libertarianism (it’s not like it’s liberalism :)).
Regarding Amsterdam… it’s a known fact that the city is squalid and crime-infested, feeding off of the legal prostitution and drug markets. Kinda like saying Siberia is cold.
If you could provide me with a bit more hard evidence than “it’s a known fact”, I would indeed appreciate it. I found things such as this:
http://www.drugwarfacts.org/thenethe.htm
http://www.nationmaster.com/country/nl-netherlands/cri-crime
http://www.nationmaster.com/country/us-united-states/cri-crime
Much of America is squalid and crime-infest as well. Ever been to downtown Baltimore? Washington D.C.? LA? It’s hard to make such comparisons based on such anecdotal evidence.
Government does this ALL THE TIME. Public nudity is only one of many examples of laws that are for the good of society. Then again, I’m guessing you’re against public decency laws. How that is “conservative,” I have no idea. Just admit to libertarianism (it’s not like it’s liberalism :)).
I’ll be honest, Darius, I’ve never really given much thought to public decency laws/acts. I shall put some thought into it, though. I still stand by my conviction of the role of government, which is probably why we disagree so much. Hard to agree when the basic foundations of both are principles are different.
Oh, and I fully admit to libertarianism. It’s just that I believe that as a libertarian, I’m a true and original “conservative”.
Will the real conservative please stand up?
Sadie (or Colin posting as Sadie) - you missed the point. The original article said Christians would have to support Ron Paul — and Christians/Values Voters/Evangelicals/Whatever will *never* support Libertarians like Paul who support legalized prostitution and heroin - it’s just not going to happen. (The foreign policy is also deal-breaker).
The argument about whether government *should* do those things is completely different and what you spoke about without answering my question - if you say Christians will have to support Paul, that implies it’s OK to support those things, and Conservatives simply won’t do it. Should Christians/Evangelicals/Values voters support legalized prostitution and drugs? Why? (Let’s not dance around the issue, let’s deal with it head-on)
And if you’re going to argue laws are useless because “people are going to do it anyway”, why have laws for anything? Most aren’t caught, so why bother? Only a small percentage of murders are convicted, so why have a law against murder? They’re going to do it anyway.
That argument is logically inconsistent unless you’re going to argue murder should be legal because people are going to do it anyway — and I hope you’re not. Anything less and you’re deciding what is right and wrong (morals) and having government enforce your idea of morals — exactly what you said government shouldn’t do.
There are absolutes. Right and wrong do exist.
Someone has to decide right and wrong — that’s a moral judgment. And the government enforces it, thus government enforces morality. (Morality is any right and wrong judgment, not just don’t cheat on your wife).
Constitution, yes, you are right that they are incorrect when they say that government shouldn’t enforce morality, since it does it all the time (the whole basis of law is to enforce morality). However, Colin/Ornot/Chris A. would say that ok, fine, government can only enforce morality when it is hurting someone else. However, if you take this to the logical end of it all, everything from public indecency to sodomy has to be allowed. Scalia described the perils of this thinking in his dissenting opinion on that Texas(?) sodomy law case. The slippery slope is slick indeed.
Oh yeah, that’s just what I want: some politician in Washington or Austin deciding what is and is not “public indecency.” There has to be a better way. At the very least, we could leave such judgement calls up to cities or (even better!) neighborhood associations.
Yep — someone’s view of it. ANY law is a judgment of right and wrong … i.e. morality.
You’re likely right on their position, but “hurting someone else” requires a moral judgment, and you’re right back at square one.
That would be the Libertarian position.
*sigh* I’m just going to give up. Simply because we’ve been over these same points about five times now (or more) in the past year. No matter how many times we explain morality and rights, it never fails that once again, the “well, GOSH, MURDER SHOULD BE LEGAL THEN! LOL!!!11!”
Fine. If you want to continue to regurgitate the same straw men over and over and over and over and over and over again, do so. If you honestly can’t understand how murder is an aggression against the God-given right to life, and laws against the harming of one-self (ingestion of substances), then we are through here. No point in wasting the time just dancing the same dance.
Darius, I wanted to send you a quick note that I am going to take some time to discuss this issue with CC, because he’s asked a lot of relevant questions. In order to focus myself on answering his concerns, I will not have time to answer any of the objections you bring up (if you chose). I have to get some work done and so unless you have something radically different to discuss ask Jew or someone else who shares (I think) a moderately similar position to me on this issue.
Harming oneself is also aggression against God-given life, if you believe all life is God-given. In fact, if you want to go down that road of religion, God says “whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord’s.”
If you take the Bible, you are the Lord’s creation, and suicide is harming God’s creation. No difference WHO does the killing, as the crime is against God.
If you are God’s creation, the crime is against God, just as if someone steals your car, the crime is against you, not the car.
You wanted to bring religion into it
But back to the original topic, I really don’t want to argue religion…
ALL laws are moral judgments. To say government shouldn’t enforce morals is logically absurd — that’s all they *can* enforce. Morals is right and wrong, and laws are based on some right and wrong, i.e. morals.
Driving 75 on the freeway is someones idea of wrong.
So, Ornot, should government enforce morals, or should we have no laws at all? I’m interested in your reply — let’s skip the religion discussion.
ALL laws are moral judgments
Although someone may argue that all laws should be moral judgements, it seem clear that they currently are not unless you stretch the meaning of morality quite a bit. It’s quite difficult to see the moral component of a law regarding the colour of lights a car is allowed to have as moral. The simple fact is that what are called “laws” today are often simply rules, and as such have no more moral force then the rules of a board game. They exist to direct how people act together, but don’t give moral judgement to it. The distinction between a private morality and laws that all follow but do not have a moral component is at the heart of the liberalism that the western world has embraced for better or worse.
All laws *are* moral judgments. The reason driving 75 is illegal is someone decided it was wrong — that by definition is a moral judgment.
Someone decided it’s wrong for some reason. That’s a moral judgment (deciding right and wrong).
Morals are simply deciding what’s right and wrong.
CC, so you think the government should enforce your personal morals against yourself? You seem to be stretching the concept of morals. While sometimes laws and morals interact, they aren’t mutually exclusive. This is apparently where we differ, as I don’t feel the government has any right interfering with my life unless I purposely am interfering with the rights of others.
Deciding what is wrong or right, with that basis only being the decision itself, is not a moral judgment; it’s borderline pragmatism. Morality is not an appeal to a decision, but an appeal to the way things actually are. The way your throwing around the word strips it of all authority and turn it into another way of saying “like”. It may be old fashion but I still hold to a different between “good/bad” and “like/dislike”.
If you’re referring to the suicide argument, I just followed your religion line of reason. I’m not taking sides — I left religion out of it until you brought it up.
Just using the Websters dictionary definition for morals. Deciding right and wrong is exactly the definition for morals.
SO.. for both Ornot and Bryan, how do you define morals? Websters Dictionary says “relating to, dealing with, or capable of making the distinction between right and wrong”. Dictionary.com says morals are “pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong”
Morals is just defining right and wrong. For both of you, you seem to be using something different — so how do you define morals, if not by common dictionary definition?
That’s likely the cause of the disagreement.
That is a moral judgment on your part. Let’s assume I *agree* with that statement (whether I do or not doesn’t matter). I’m forced then to admit government *should* enforce morals, just the ones I define, because your statement is a statement of right and wrong, i.e. morality.
That’s what I’m getting at — you can’t say government shouldn’t legislate morality — except in this one case. That’s illogical. If government doesn’t enforce morality, we’d have no laws as no one could define right and wrong.
I think you’ll agree with the previous — the disagreement then becomes *what* morals the government should enforce. And that’s a horse of a different color.
Well, on a somewhat unrelated matter…I’m sure everyone by now has heard that Huckabee destroyed the competition in the Kansas GOP caucus. He won decisively in my district, even though I thought Ron Paul might win. As it turns out, Paul got third in my district and third in the state with 11%.
Any opinions on the impact Huckabee will have on the final outcome? I was astonished to learn that Huckabee is being advised by Richard Haass on foreign policy matters. I was actually informed of this during the caucus yesterday. Since Sadie brought up the proposed North American Union, I thought it might be pertinent to post a quote from Mr. Haass, who just happens to be the president of the Council on Foreign Relations.
“States must be prepared to cede some sovereignty to world bodies if the international system is to function.This is already taking place in the trade realm. Governments agree to accept the rulings of the WTO because on balance they benefit from an international trading order even if a particular decision requires that they alter a practice that is their sovereign right to carry out…States would be wise to weaken sovereignty in order to protect themselves, because they cannot insulate themselves from what goes on elsewhere. Sovereignty is no longer a sanctuary.”
Talk amongst yourselves.
CC, I see Sadie posted on this issue while I was gone. I am going to start this conversation there, as you basically just restated your original views in response to her post.
Christian voters should, if they read their bibles, be a little more cautious about their speed to moralize society via secular law. What the group of “Christians” who are nominally or culturally Christians, but lack fundamental Christian principles do with their vote is something I just don’t care about. But for actual Christians, who have a responsibility over their vote, are/should consider the fundamental issues. That means, first, men who are supported with the vote should be godly men.
As a Christian, the single most important issue to me (and I see no biblical justification for assigning another priority as most important), is that Ron Paul confesses Jesus Christ as his personal savior and has the lifestyle to prove it. Aside from the constitution party candidate, who has almost always been of a similar disposition and I suspect will this year, and pending the condition of Huckabee dropping out which I outlined for this scenario, then I see no other candidate that fits this criteria.
Second in importance to me, and I suspect to most Christians, is the issue of abortion and the rampant murder of the unborn. Again, Ron Paul is vehemently Pro-life. So much so that he has authored bills to completely remove the federal court’s jurisdiction from the issue, so that states would be able to outright ban it.
I see few other issues so fundamental to Christian voters en masse. In fact, Many are single-issue voters on these matters. And if those who expand beyond these issues were all put in a room to vote on how they came down on them, we would see almost unanimous agreement that a Christian should vote for a godly man and a man who supports life. If they did not pick him, it would have to do with their politics (which would make the “Christian Conservative” label irrelevant) and not the values of their faith. We have genuine Christians who are anarchists, libertarians, conservatives, liberals and socialists in the rest of their political views, but they will unite on these basic things. (Pending my Huckabee criteria, and the constitution party guy) Ron Paul is the last man standing that holds these views.
My answer to why Christians should support legalization of drugs and prostitution
There as some fundamental biblical principles/questions that support this, so those have to be looked at first. I expect the reader to please look up my scripture references to judge for yourself the accuracy.
Did God give man freewill? Yes. (If you disagree, then that will have to be addressed before anything else.)
Does God respect man’s free-will? Yes. God told Adam and Eve not to eat of the tree, but he left the tree in the garden (Gen 2:9). He left the choice available to them (and they chose poorly). God gave his law to the people and allowed them to chose if they would follow him (Josh 24:14-15) - he did not make them robots which unconditionally loved him. Jesus died for all mankind and God desires that all men be saved (2 Peter 3:9), but he doesn’t force them into heaven. He does not force them to repent and believe. He educates, he explains the consequences, he unabashedly reveals his desire that men would turn from sin (and drugs and prostitution are sins, morally evil in the sight of God) but yet he does not whisk the drugs and lust away as he well could. God holds absolute respect for the order he gave the world, and the freedom he gave man. He demonstrates his love by declaring, in frank terms, the consequences for evil that man will bring upon himself if he continues to chose poorly. God’s respect of freewill is based on education, love and choice not on fear and control (2 Timothy 1:7).
Who is responsible for a man’s freewill choices? The man himself. Fathers aren’t punished for their son’s sins. God will not destroy the righteous with the wicked. A sin that anyone commits, from lies, murder, drug-use, lust, fornication, etc… is soley accountable to the man who did it. No one else is punished (Ezekiel 18:20).
What causes a man to make good choices? Conversion. Compliance with God’s law, in and of itself, is not what converts a man. God’s law is an educational tool, not a list of requirements. Obedience to the law is totally unable to produce actual inward change (conversion). Conversion takes place by education about the law (Psalm 19:7). The law reveals that man is sinful and requires a supernatural change. (Romans 3:20) Through understanding the purpose of the law, he is empowered to seek Gods power to convert his soul and make wise, morally good choices. But God still does not remove the choices, reminding the man whenever he choses evil to depend on God. Were God to remove choice after conversion, man would consider God’s work a one-time-only solution, and not a consistent change in lifestyle for the rest of his life. The converted man now despises sin and is convicted when he sins - the unconverted man has no ability to gauge sin, and has only the inward inclination to continue in sin, without a real desire to change. Sin is not effectively addressed without conversion. Christians have no other solution or alternative to see man actually turn from sin.
So, man has free-will which God respects by permitting choice (good or bad). God’s law converts the soul by education, not by fear. It is the conversion of the soul that causes man to turn from sin - he is incapable of change without conversion. Any attempt to change a man’s morality without conversion is futile, and pharasitic.
As Christians (”Christ-like”, “little Christs”) it is our job to emulate God (Ephesians 5:1) not to do things our way, and violate his order. That means we must never (because God does not ever) violate free-will. He has given us no permission to do so and will not because he himself does not violate his own order.
We see that God will act on behalf of innocents to protect them from violations of their free-will by others. And, not surprisingly in perfect consistency, man is given jurisdiction to protect against violations of the above (Gen 9:6), not to violate God’s order and infringe these things. There was at least some Christian foundation to our country, as these principles were enshrined in the declaration of Independence. namely, that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
How should the Christian deal with all sin? Well, how does God deal with sin? God will punish sin in the day of judgment. His “punishment” though, is interesting because it is a punishment of ultimate permission. That is, God submits his desire that all would be saved to the principle of free-will, and allows man an eternity of total absence from God and all things pertaining to his nature (love, joy, goodness, hope, light, etc…) God’s punishment is not a negative punishment, but a positive one. It affirms man’s freewill rather than deny it (Galatians 6:7). Libertarians are often criticized in the same way God is for being “harsh” or “cold” because the natural consequences for sin (not crimes [which is a social function to be dealt with separately, in a moment]) are brutal. A person who abuses drugs, for example, will lose his health, property, friends, family and life very quickly (Proverbs 22:8). A person who is slothful will become impoverished, unhealthy and probably shorten his life as well (Ecclesiastes 11:4). These are natural consequences built into the laws of the universe, and outlined in scripture.
God has compassion on humanity, and has (without violating free-will) intervened to educate, warn, caution and compel men to convert. It is the call of the radical Muslim to “convert or die” - but God actually says “convert or else I will let you go.” The Christian adopts this attitude for sin - by laying out the consequences, warning, compelling, convicting, reminding even pleading. Christian who understand this know that, for example, a man who defiles his body with the sin of homosexuality is not locked up by the church against his will and prevented for choosing good or bad. Nor is anyone who tempts him into homosexual acts locked up. Gossips are not forced to have their mouth taped shut, or their ears plugged.
These people aren’t “punished” or even hedged against themselves by preventative measures because God himself does no such thing. Even the Holy Spirit, when he indwells believers is a gentleman, and will not force himself on someone (Luke 11:13).
How is the sin of prostitution or drug use any different? The ridiculous solutions used above for gossip and homosexuality are actually used in drug use and prostitution! Drugs are banned and women who practice fornication are locked up. This is the same erroneous logic that gun-control advocates endorse - ban guns, as though the sin of murder has anything to do with guns?
Christians should not support secular laws against sin because they want to obey God and conform to his sovereign will, which governs the entire universe. Christians are not immune to sin themselves, and they actually sin in making these laws (voting for these laws will also be accounted for). Man’s desire to make laws that violate free-will, is, in essence, idolatry. We want to be like God - only we do not posses the perfect justice of God and thus make poor laws, enforce them inconsistently and corrupt society - generating more sin, not less. As Christians, we think we know God and thus have a right to do things in his name - and so we give ourselves authority that even God does not take. This is blasphemy and idolatry - both abusing God’s name and divine sanction, as well as making ourselves into gods.
Christians should not support these laws because God does not support anything about them - neither their principle, their motives, their effects (intended and unintended) or their justification.
Moreover, drug laws are a tremendous detriment to conversion, which is the called work of the church. By forcing the right choice (by removing wrong choices), we disable a man to chose correctly. It is required of a man to humble himself and chose to follow God - this is the responsibility associated with free-will (Micah 6:8). In order to turn from sin, there must be sin to turn from - otherwise it’s a false choice. God is smart enough not to do this, are Christians smart enough to obey God?
I am not suggesting laws are useless, and I don’t think Sadie was either, but let me speak for myself. “Laws” are not useless, but all laws that are not ordained by God are useless for the purposes of effecting conversion, and thus for actually affecting individual morality. And this is why Christians are on the earth, not to make good governments or societies, but to obey God and labor in his harvest.
Just laws against crime are instituted to 1) protect individuals from violations of their rights 2) obtain justice for crimes committed against an individual which are proven in a court of objective moral law (not mere authority itself). Whether they “work” absolutely and universally is irrelevant - that is, just because the law against murder does not protect from all murders, and punish all murders, it is not invalidated. The fact is that drug and prostitution laws don’t work at all, and do great harm on top of what they permit, but that isn’t what invalidates them (but it doesn’t help). It is the fact that they have no basis, either in Biblical principles (for a Christian), or the principles of jurisprudence. You can’t have a law without a specific victim, a specific perpetrator and a quantifiable crime.
It is tremendously inconsistent to say the above, and then this:
This is completely illogical
a. “right” and “wrong” exist and are absolute
b. someone (anyone?) can decide “right” or “wrong”
c. morality is anything “someone” defines as “right” or “wrong”
thus, “right” and “wrong” is not absolute and relative to the authority of the “someone” who decides it.
I say we can discover absolute moral law by studying the bible, and we can discover objective natural law by engaging science.
Colin,
That was a quite exhaustive post. I have to agree with much of what you said. Some things I just haven’t given enough thought to completely form an opinion. But I tend to think that criminalization of drugs is a bad idea. It really has become a racket. The prison industrial complex is thriving because of the War on Drugs.
I don’t blame private industry for making a profit, but is it really worth the money spent to keep people doing things like growing marijuana? I read a report a few years ago that said over 90% of the “marijuana” crops destroyed by federal authorities was actually feral hemp. It is cannabis, but it has no value as a drug. It grows wild after having escaped from farms years ago. What a waste!
Chris, the complete and utter ignorance of basic logic, economic law and science in the drug prohibition is another exhaustive, but separate issue.
Also, I probably shouldn’t keep that post buried, but really should post it as a proper post this week.
Colin, I’ve never heard anyone describe laws as a form of idolatry. It’s an intriguing concept and I’ll have to investigate it further.
Not really — let me clarify a bit. Absolutes *do* exist — that is about the overriding moral absolutes which exist in the universe. The second has to do with government, and those in government have to decide right and wrong as the government defines it. Government may (or may not) go along with moral absolutes. For example, if the government is corrupt they may decide on corrupt morality.
Sorry for the confusion. The second quote I thought was clear spoke about the government, which of course can do whatever they want, and it may or may not be right or wrong — absolutely. Hopefully that clears it up.
Agree. We’re starting off well
Paul may confess Jesus Christ, but I think we’ll disagree on whether he lives it. If he’s a true Christian, I can’t fathom how he can promote legalized prostitution and heroin — both of which are prohibited by Biblical teaching. That leaves me with the idea either his Christianity isn’t as serious as he proclaims, or he’s making political compromises for some reason.
Touchy Subject, which I’ll just move past to save time, but don’t infer any agreement or disagreement on it.
Now it gets interesting. You may be right on the first part, about fundamental issues. However, those issues are normally held by someone with other high moral values — and Paul doesn’t fit that mold. Since other candidates exist who are pro-life, those candidates are likely to get support before Paul.
But in light of what you say here, I can’t deduce your disdain for Huckabee, which meets your criteria as well as Paul. It’s one thing to *prefer* Paul over Huckabee, but frankly Colin you’ve bordered on outright hatred for Huckabee — which doesn’t make sense in light of what you say here.
See previous comment — Paul vs. Huckabee. Both meet your criteria, yet your attitude towards Huckabee isn’t the same as Paul.
But Paul contradicts the values of their faith regarding other issues — and when other candidates are available, it’s as I originally said, Paul would *not* be the first choice. With all sincerity and respect Colin, I think you’re allowing your Libertarian preference to color your analysis of the likely results. It’s not likely Christians will flock to Paul, not only for the drugs/prostitution, but for his tepid Israel support, and anti-military foreign policy. You *hope* people flock to Paul, but the reality is it’s just not likely. You have reasons why they should, but those aren’t shared by the majority, at least according to polls.
So, let’s close the book on Paul — we’ll disagree. According to exit polls and the votes, “values voters” pick Huckabee over Paul. My original question has been answered so we’ll move on — you supplied an answer.
The rest of your comment I’ll deal with shortly…
You are dead wrong here. The Bible does not prohibit legalized prostitution and drugs (heroin). It is very clear that these are sin, these are evil and these are not to be done. The bible however does not specify that they must be illegal - especially in the sense of modern drug laws. Your proposal is completely anachronistic.
This doesn’t address my point, which you agree with, and then back off again. Moreover, my guess is that you presume Paul doesn’t have “high moral values” (whatever those are) because he believes in legalized prostitution and gambling. I presume that true Christian will support alcohol prohibition as well? It is the exact same principle.
My original point that in a choice between McCain and Paul, Paul should be the choice of actual Christians based on his confession, lifestyle and devotion to life.
Look at what I originally wrote, please. My scenario with Paul getting Christian votes is without Huckabee. Of course Huckabee will win 90% of Christians every time against Paul - the point I also make in my original post. This is not hard to find in my post. I could understand your accusations if I were ridiculous enough to make such a claim. I suggest that your preference for presuming I have a libertarian preference is coloring your analysis.
Then you’re reading a different Bible. “Thou shalt not commit adultery”. Thats as clear a prohibition as it gets. (Legal or un legal prostitution is still adultery).
Prohibit — to refuse to permit, forbid by law or by an order. (Webster’s Dictionary)
Nope, I don’t agree — you *may* be right is what I said. I simply don’t want to derail the discussion with what the majority of Christians take as the most important fundamental issues as that is extremly difficult to discern. The discussion was about Paul. I simply want to keep it there.
Specifically, he doesn’t hold BIBLICAL values. That’s why he’s kryptonite to the vast majority of Christians/Evangelicals/Values Voters (and election results bear that out).
No, it’s not. Adultery/prostitution/pharmacia is explicitly forbidden by God’s law AT ALL. Paul actually told Timothy to use a little wine, and Jesus created wine. Don’t confuse alcohol with drunkeness (excessive alcohol).
It’s refreshing to see a debate and I’m on the sideline…
here’s a weekly link for ya libertarians…
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=28906_Al_Qaeda_Documents_Show_Theyre_in_Big_Trouble&only&headline