All Things Second Amendment

Idolater

"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
First, what is the right to bear arms?

Second, do you believe it is real? I.e., do you believe that the right to bear arms is a basic, fundamental, inherent, absolute, inalienable, inborn, natural, human right?

Third, how serious are you about human rights? As a classical liberal, I am deathly serious about rights. "Give me liberty or give me death," is classically liberal. Abraham Lincoln was classically liberal. The Declaration of Independence is classically liberal.
We're all going to die. You can draw a line between dying of natural causes, and dying from something other than natural causes. Other things will bring about death, besides natural causes, and besides disease, homicide is one.

Classical liberalism is worth dying for because it reflects humanity so well. It fits like a glove. Humans were made for classical liberalism, or classical liberalism was made for humans, and probably it's both. We just had to discover it, and America did and America is the plant that sprouted from that classical liberal seed.

We are to carry on Lincoln's example, of faithfully administrating classical liberalism, until America remembers who we are, until Europe and other Western Industrial Democracies yield to classical liberalism, and finally the whole world succumbs to classical liberalism, the political philosophy of nascent America, and most famously spread by Lincoln by the Civil War, the War of Northern Aggression.

"Give me liberty (classical liberalism) or give me death." It wasn't just a saying; they meant it.
 

Gary K

New member
Banned
Because that course of action somehow will quell violence from law abiding weapon owners? Similarly they have confiscated all guns in the UK, now knives are the weapon of choice, so they ban knives as if that will solve the problem. The misunderstanding is that it isn't a weapon problem, be it a gun or knife but, a people problem, and that seems to be either what escapes them or the problem they are unwilling to tackle. What was that definition for insanity again?

I mostly agree with you but I would define the problem differently. What we have is a morality problem with people. All moral constraints have been removed from society by the removal of God from the public sphere. You add together the influence of darwinism and socialism upon the population and you get an anti-God, anti-morality structure that is destroying all of society's good influences and replacing it with what happened in the OT when the COI moved away from God. Everyone was doing exactly what they, individually, thought was moral while under the influence of paganism. And that is exactly what we face in all western societies today.
 

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
I mostly agree with you but I would define the problem differently. What we have is a morality problem with people. All moral constraints have been removed from society by the removal of God from the public sphere. You add together the influence of darwinism and socialism upon the population and you get an anti-God, anti-morality structure that is destroying all of society's good influences and replacing it with what happened in the OT when the COI moved away from God. Everyone was doing exactly what they, individually, thought was moral while under the influence of paganism. And that is exactly what we face in all western societies today.

The 60's revolution, replacing a sense of community with individualist selfishness, has ruined this country
 

Gary K

New member
Banned
The 60's revolution, replacing a sense of community with individualist selfishness, has ruined this country

Well, I have to disagree with you.

The Declaration of Independence and our Constitution are based in individualism. So are the teachings of the Bible and Christianity as they both teach individual responsibility before God. We don't relate to God as groups, but as individuals. It is the morality of the individuals in a community that make up a community's overall morality.

It is this that has been in the process of being destroyed over the last 100 plus years and greatly accelerated over the last 6 or 7 decades or so. The more the nation moves to socialism the farther we move away from God's way of doing things, i.e. His concepts of morality and individual responsibility for each person's behavior.
 

Idolater

"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
Well, I have to disagree with you.

The Declaration of Independence and our Constitution are based in individualism. So are the teachings of the Bible and Christianity as they both teach individual responsibility before God. We don't relate to God as groups, but as individuals. It is the morality of the individuals in a community that make up a community's overall morality.
Is there some other political philosophy or political theory where individuals are not judged on their individual behavior? All the one's I know about judge individuals on their individual behavior. This doesn't seem to distinguish any particular political philosophy.

I would say that the founding documents are based on classical liberalism, which at this moment Wikipedia sums up nicely with the sentence that it is, "...liberty to do whatever we wish so long as we do not infringe upon the rights of others." iow it has nothing to do with Adam Smith, and everything to do with the right to bear arms. Human rights and their defense are the point of government, and of law. That is classical liberalism, and you'll find that exact sentiment in the Declaration of Independence, which makes perfect sense if my claim is true, that the founders were classical liberals.

What classical liberalism does not do, is rule out the Civil War, the War of Northern Aggression, which was classically liberally right and just, contrary to modern libertarianism (a distortion of classical liberalism) which categorically rejects any war not waged in direct self defense as immoral. It is not categorically a bad idea, under classical liberalism, to wage war to liberate people whose rights are not recognized, affirmed, acknowledged, honored, defended, protected, etc., even if it is not in direct self defense. Vietnam was a bad idea, but WWII, the Civil War, the War of Northern Aggression, and the Revolution were all good ideas. Perhaps the difference is in knowing that surrender was a possible outcome in the other wars, but not in Vietnam. Upon surrender, we occupied, and presided over the extinguishing of the enemy's remaining will. It worked, even in Vietnam, if judged economically. England, Germany, Japan, and Vietnam are strong trading partners with us, they all welcome Americans to do business freely. The exact opposite of their position on Americans during the wars we waged against them.

Vietnam was a big reason for Americans forgetting our roots, of classical liberalism. Also, that there aren't any heroes of classical liberalism. Buckley Jr., for a counter example, helped distort our understanding of classical liberalism, because he was a deontologist, morally, and he approved of laws that supported his personal deontology, and his particular interpretation of the particular morality that his deontology led him to accept as authoritative, which is contrary to classical liberalism. All this even though people identified him with classical liberalism.

China and North Korea and Russia are not strong trading partners with us, and they are also not very classically liberal.
It is this that has been in the process of being destroyed over the last 100 plus years and greatly accelerated over the last 6 or 7 decades or so. The more the nation moves to socialism the farther we move away from God's way of doing things, i.e. His concepts of morality and individual responsibility for each person's behavior.
A classical liberal would disagree that the law should have any business favoring any one moral philosophy's morality over any others. Also anyone who wants to obey the First Amendment. The First Amendment, the whole notion of a Bill of enumerated Rights as being part of a country's supreme law /constitution, is classically liberal.

It's more important to a classical liberal to defend rights, than it is to see those rights exercised in a way that I approve of, morally. My morals are Catholic, so if I weren't a classical liberal, I'd simply want to make laws in accordance with Catholicism's social teachings. But as a classical liberal, I don't want laws favoring Catholicism's moral view of abortion, anymore than I want laws favoring Town's moral view of ARs. I understand that the Church believes that abortion is killing, and I agree with her, but I also agree with classical liberalism, that classical liberalism is part of what we mean when we pray, Our Father Who art in heaven, hallowed be Thy name; Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven, we mean that we are praying for the establishment of classical liberalism the whole world round.

Classical liberalism rules out theocracy as God's will. So Islam must change to fit into the world, they are free to believe what they want, but violating classical liberalism must be against the law, and Islam believes in violating classical liberalism, so Islam must change.

Also, some fundamentalist Protestants, and for the same reason. Classical liberalism forbids religious wars.
 

Idolater

"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
In trying to set out the current conflict over gun control plainly, I submit the following.
====
Spoiler
I am going to categorize weapons. The "lowest form" of firearm in this categorization is basically a "single shot" .22LR gun. I call this category A. A single shot gun chambered in .22LR is an example of a category A weapon, and also a "black powder" musket. The first firearms in history were category A weapons, single shot guns that could be carried.


The next rung up the weapons ladder is category B; these are firearms with more than one round capacity, but are inherently limited to under 11 rounds typically in their internal magazines, and they require manual work to prepare the gun to fire a second round. Category B includes internal-magazine fed guns like rifles and shotguns, as well as revolvers that require manually setting the hammer each shot. Typical examples are "hunting" rifles and shotguns, except for any semiautomatic guns like semiautomatic shotguns that are internal-magazine fed. "Actions" are "bolt action," "lever action," and "pump action," which are different ways that manual work is required to prepare the gun to fire another round. Pump action, bolt action, lever action, and manual revolver guns fall into the category B.

The heaviest type of category A or B weapon is a single shot or bolt action rifle, that fires the same round as the category F (see below) M2 machine gun.


The next rung up is category C, which includes automatic weapons, in the sense of "semiautomatic." They are automatic because in the classical sense, upon firing a round, they automatically prepare themselves to fire a second round, but they do require a second trigger pull to actually fire again. They are automatic, contrasted against category B guns, which require some manual work to prepare a second round to fire. Category C includes all those guns fed from internal magazines, where the capacity is no more than 10 rounds, and those that fire semiautomatically, which is one round fired per trigger pull. Category C also includes semiautomatic guns that are fed by a "detachable" magazine that is limited to a maximum of 10 rounds. This includes handguns like Glocks and 1911s, though the 1911 classically ("single stack") is already limited to a maximum magazine capacity of seven rounds without using a magazine that protrudes from the bottom of the magazine well, to make room for up to ten rounds. Category C also includes AR and AK pattern semiautomatic rifles with the same 10 round limit imposed upon the capacity of their detachable magazine.


Category D denotes the same weapons as category C that are artificially limited in the maximum capacity of their detachable magazines, and if there are any artificially limited internal-magazine fed guns, when the limitation is removed, they also are in category D, so long as they are semiautomatic. There is no limit to the feeding capacity in category D, including up to "belt fed," which is basically limitless capacity. Category D includes all those weapons from category C, but without limitation on their feeding capacity. This would include the newer "double stack" 1911 patterns, but classical 1911s are not in this category unless they are fed from a "drum style" magazine, due to their inherent capacity limitation.

The heaviest type of category C or D weapon is a semiautomatic rifle that fires the same ammunition as an M2 machine gun, which is basically the lightest weight category F weapon.

Spoiler
The most infamous example of a category D weapon is an AR pattern semiautomatic rifle, fed from a magazine without capacity limit. Similarly the most infamous category C weapon is the same AR pattern, but with the magazine capacity limited to 10 rounds.

Spoiler
(I'll mention that a "double barrel" shotgun is between category A and category C, because the second shot is basically like a semiauto, only requiring a second trigger pull, but its feeding capacity is two. Double barrel shotguns won't figure into this.)

Category E include all weapons capable of firing "fully automatic," which is that it will fire so long as the trigger is pressed down, and there is ammunition feeding. Some category E weapons are machine guns, and only fire in "fully automatic," and others are selective fire rifles, that are capable of being set to fire in semiautomatic, and in fully automatic (or "burst," which is between semiautomatic and full auto). Category E includes most of the same patterns of guns in categories C and D, with the distinction that they are capable of firing "fully automatic." In sum, category E are all machine guns and selective fire guns that can be carried (including "machine pistols" which fire pistol ammunition in full auto, e.g. Uzis), and category E forms the upmost rung of the category of "small arms."

The heaviest weapons in category E are called "SAWs," which stands for "squad automatic weapons," which are in some cases identical in operation to some selective fire rifles and machine guns, except that they can fire continuously for a much longer time before malfunctioning due to excessive buildup of heat. A famous SAW is the M60.


And so category F are not "small arms." Category F weapons cannot be, and aren't carried. Category F includes the M2 machine gun, along with all other firearms that are too heavy to carry, which I generally call "canon." These weapons must be mounted, either to a vehicle like a tank, to an aircraft, or to a ship, or onto a trailer or a building, or right onto the ground, but they are too heavy to carry, and so they are not small arms. Category F weapons are machine guns like the M2 that cannot be carried, and canon.

The heaviest category F weapons are canon that were in times past mounted to navy battleships. The heaviest automatic category F weapons are those mounted to ships, aircraft, and land vehicles, and to the ground /in concrete.

===
Spoiler
Category F weapons are in some ways legal for civilians to possess, through a lot of red tape involving the formal approval of federal and state and local law enforcement agencies.

Category E weapons are federally categorized as "NFA Title II" weapons, a designation invented in 1934, and which is imposed upon all category E weapons. Civilian possession of category E weapons is also regulated through federal, state, and local law enforcement.

Category D weapons are available for sale in most states, while some like MA, CA, CT, and probably soon some others, outlaw the new sale of category D weapons.

Category C weapons are available for sale in still more states than for category D, although still MA outlaws the new sale of category C rifles (but not handguns) also.

Category B and category A weapons are available for sale in all states, and also in most other countries.

==
Spoiler
The current dispute in America involves category C and D weapons. Since category E and F weapons are already as heavily regulated as is licitly possible in America, and basically nobody is arguing that anything be done regarding category A and B weapons, the matter before us is whether category D weapons should be banned from new sales (which is what the temporary "federal AWB" did in the US from 1994-2004), or whether category C and D weapons should both be banned from new sales (like Australia, England, soon New Zealand, and many other so-called Western Industrial Democracies have already done), or whether we should maintain the status quo of no federal ban on the new sales of category C and D weapons.

Additionally the dispute concerns whether category D, or both categories C and D, both weapons and feeding devices (magazines), ought to be in some sense confiscated (aka "'removed' from the stream of commerce"), along with being banned from new sales.

The ban could also take the form of categorizing category D or both categories C and D weapons, as NFA Title II weapons. Therefore confiscation would commence if the current owners cannot be authorized to possess NFA Title II weapons, which again involves federal, state, and usually local law enforcement agencies to formally approve.

=
Spoiler
itt Town has argued consistently for banning and confiscating category C and D rifles, and I have been arguing that such is wrong because it further infringes the natural human right to bear arms, which is what I think we all agree the Second Amendment is intended to protect. My position is that the NFA Title II designation itself, and its paired red tape, is Unconstitutional.

It is worth noting in the context of this discussion, that at the time of the founding of America, only category A and category F weapons existed. Yorzhik and Town have been among things arguing whether Town believes the Second Amendment protects category B weapons, with Yorzhik setting out a hypothetical scenario where massacres with category B weapons occur more frequently, and Town maintains that he believes the Second Amendment intends to protect category B weapons, even though category B weapons weren't invented at the time of the founding.

Ok Doser has consistently argued for the freedom to own category F weapons, which include canon /artillery, and also rapid fire guns that cannot be carried (Gatling guns, e.g.).

No one itt afaik is arguing for banning category C or D handguns, only category C or D long guns, like rifles and shotguns.

Category C and D weapons are available for new sales in some other countries besides the US, probably most notably Switzerland and Israel (with significant red tape), and in the Czech Republic, with less.
 

Idolater

"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/s...-terrorist-organization/ar-AAGNz0O?li=BBnb7Kz

Headline: "San Francisco board passes resolution labeling NRA 'domestic terrorist organization'"

This should be a crime. Either libel or defamation or whatever the crime is where damage or harm is done through the published press. This board should be under the legal obligation to provide restitution to the NRA. The NRA possesses the right to not be slandered or defamed, and so this board should now have the duty imposed upon it to provide restitution to the NRA for doing this.
 

Idolater

"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
Also wrt my categories set out above at post #527, the standard issue small arms for American troops during WWII, were in category C and E; with the 1911 pistol and the M1 Garand rifle being category C, and the M1 Carbine being category E.

In WWI the standard issue handgun was again the category C 1911, and the standard issue rifle was category B (bolt action, fed by internal magazine under 10 rounds in capacity).

It's also notable and maybe curious that category D rifles probably would not have ever been devised at all, if not for the NFA Title II designation, which permits semiauto-only versions of otherwise category E weapons, in between the fairly uncontested civilian ownership of categories A and B, and the NFA Title II designation which almost effectively bans civilian ownership of category E weapons. In the same vein, category C rifles fed by detachable magazines with imposed artificial capacity limits, probably also would not have ever been devised at all, if not for the invention of category D rifles.

So categories C and D rifles only exist today because of NFA gun control (1934), creating the NFA Title II designation. Without the NFA, we would probably only be considering categories A, B, E, and F.
 

Idolater

"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/c...s-shooting-sues-walmart/ar-AAGO9bI?li=BBnb7Kz

"Couple wounded in El Paso mass shooting sues Walmart"

Is this just? Should the jury find in favor of the plaintiff?

The plaintiff argues that Walmart is obliged to make restitution to them, because of the actions of the mass murderer. To my mind the only obligations imposed upon anybody in this massacre, are upon the mass murderer himself.

What did Walmart do to the plaintiff, that Walmart is now obliged to make restitution? They argue that Walmart should have provided better security, but is this a right and just claim? Why isn't the plaintiff themselves just as duty-bound to provide for their own security, as Walmart is, in their view?
 

rocketman

Resident Rocket Surgeon
Hall of Fame
I mostly agree with you but I would define the problem differently. What we have is a morality problem with people. All moral constraints have been removed from society by the removal of God from the public sphere. You add together the influence of darwinism and socialism upon the population and you get an anti-God, anti-morality structure that is destroying all of society's good influences and replacing it with what happened in the OT when the COI moved away from God. Everyone was doing exactly what they, individually, thought was moral while under the influence of paganism. And that is exactly what we face in all western societies today.

I agree totally, I love hearing secular humanists espouse morality, the questions always begging to be asked are: What Morality? and where do you derive your morality? what is your standard? As Christians we know what our standard is, and where it is derived, the founding fathers of our country derived our Constitution, Bill Of Rights, and their amendments on the same standard. What secular humanists ie progressive liberals have done is erode & undermine the moral foundation that our country was founded upon, then decry the result of their destruction. Relativism allows any set of morals to apply, and it is a moving target where nothing can be called wrong, as long as it feels good do it, right?
 

Idolater

"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
Here's an idea.

Let's, designate ARs and all AR magazines as NFA Title II weapons.

If you own these, and are not authorized to possess NFA Title II weapons, then buyback is available, if you either don't want to seek approval to maintain possession of them, or if you are denied it. (Buyback available for all magazines and other AR accessories that are only useful for ARs, along with the ARs themselves; i.e., the uppers, lowers /receivers, etc.)

Outcome, the ranks of Americans with federal firearms licenses skyrockets. And since FFLs never commit massacres, massacres with ARs also plummet.

I'm not saying I support the idea, but it's a different idea than "ban," and "ban +confiscate," which are the only ideas I'm hearing, beyond things regarding background checks and 'red flags.'

fwiw.
 

Gary K

New member
Banned
There is an interesting article on Breitbart today on the relationship between bicycle caused, street crossing caused, and semi-automatic rifle caused deaths each day in the US. What follows is the very last part of the article because it shows the statistics for these types of deaths.

1. Daily Drunk Driving Deaths: 29
2. Daily Deaths from Crossing the Street: 16
3. Daily Distracted Driving Deaths: 9
4. Daily Deaths by Knives and Other Sharp Instruments: 4
5. Daily Deaths from Bicycles: 2.7
6. Daily Deaths by Hammers and Other Blunt Objects: 1.27



Again, the daily number of deaths from all types of rifles combined is 1.1.

Rifles lose big time to bicycles, crossing the street, distracted driving, and knives. The only thing rifles come even close to being as deadly as on a daily basis is hammers. I am waiting to hear the clamor for banning hammers, bicycles, alcohol, cell phones, children, crossing the street, etc... from the socialists here. If safety is the issue then semi automatic rifles are extremely low on the list of causes of death. Of course we all know that safety and the thought of life being sacred is far, far away from the reality of socialists wanting to ban firearms. They do not want an armed group of people opposing their agenda.

The rest of the article can be found here: https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/09/06/18-daily-causes-death-americans/
 

Gary K

New member
Banned
Is there some other political philosophy or political theory where individuals are not judged on their individual behavior? All the one's I know about judge individuals on their individual behavior. This doesn't seem to distinguish any particular political philosophy.

I would say that the founding documents are based on classical liberalism, which at this moment Wikipedia sums up nicely with the sentence that it is, "...liberty to do whatever we wish so long as we do not infringe upon the rights of others." iow it has nothing to do with Adam Smith, and everything to do with the right to bear arms. Human rights and their defense are the point of government, and of law. That is classical liberalism, and you'll find that exact sentiment in the Declaration of Independence, which makes perfect sense if my claim is true, that the founders were classical liberals.

What classical liberalism does not do, is rule out the Civil War, the War of Northern Aggression, which was classically liberally right and just, contrary to modern libertarianism (a distortion of classical liberalism) which categorically rejects any war not waged in direct self defense as immoral. It is not categorically a bad idea, under classical liberalism, to wage war to liberate people whose rights are not recognized, affirmed, acknowledged, honored, defended, protected, etc., even if it is not in direct self defense. Vietnam was a bad idea, but WWII, the Civil War, the War of Northern Aggression, and the Revolution were all good ideas. Perhaps the difference is in knowing that surrender was a possible outcome in the other wars, but not in Vietnam. Upon surrender, we occupied, and presided over the extinguishing of the enemy's remaining will. It worked, even in Vietnam, if judged economically. England, Germany, Japan, and Vietnam are strong trading partners with us, they all welcome Americans to do business freely. The exact opposite of their position on Americans during the wars we waged against them.

Vietnam was a big reason for Americans forgetting our roots, of classical liberalism. Also, that there aren't any heroes of classical liberalism. Buckley Jr., for a counter example, helped distort our understanding of classical liberalism, because he was a deontologist, morally, and he approved of laws that supported his personal deontology, and his particular interpretation of the particular morality that his deontology led him to accept as authoritative, which is contrary to classical liberalism. All this even though people identified him with classical liberalism.

China and North Korea and Russia are not strong trading partners with us, and they are also not very classically liberal.
A classical liberal would disagree that the law should have any business favoring any one moral philosophy's morality over any others. Also anyone who wants to obey the First Amendment. The First Amendment, the whole notion of a Bill of enumerated Rights as being part of a country's supreme law /constitution, is classically liberal.

It's more important to a classical liberal to defend rights, than it is to see those rights exercised in a way that I approve of, morally. My morals are Catholic, so if I weren't a classical liberal, I'd simply want to make laws in accordance with Catholicism's social teachings. But as a classical liberal, I don't want laws favoring Catholicism's moral view of abortion, anymore than I want laws favoring Town's moral view of ARs. I understand that the Church believes that abortion is killing, and I agree with her, but I also agree with classical liberalism, that classical liberalism is part of what we mean when we pray, Our Father Who art in heaven, hallowed be Thy name; Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven, we mean that we are praying for the establishment of classical liberalism the whole world round.

Classical liberalism rules out theocracy as God's will. So Islam must change to fit into the world, they are free to believe what they want, but violating classical liberalism must be against the law, and Islam believes in violating classical liberalism, so Islam must change.

Also, some fundamentalist Protestants, and for the same reason. Classical liberalism forbids religious wars.

It's very interesting that those people who brought liberalism to the forefront in 1700s and 1800s disagreed very sharply with you on the need for morality, Biblical morality. Adam Smith wrote a lot on morality. So did Alexis de Tocqueville. He made morality an integral part of his arguments. One of his statements on morality goes thus:
“Liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith.”
Tocqueville also made many other statements like that one. Here's another one:
“America is great because she is good. If America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.”

de Tocqueville was absolutely correct in what he said. History shows de Tocqueville's statements to be true. Every nation that abandoned morality fell into decline and was conquered. Babylon? So corrupt they were partying big time while the Medes and Persians were outside the city. Greece? They were so corrupt morally, homosexuality and pedophelia, that their society just fell apart and caused war after war among Greek cities. The destroyed themselves. Rome? They also destroyed themselves internally. They became a nation where their society was completely dedicated to hedonism. Their young men became so effeminate that they would no longer fight for their own national survival and as a result had to hire barbarians to do their fighting for them. That caused untold amounts of trouble both militarily and politically.

Look at what is going on in the US. We have huge morality problems. Pedophelia and homosexuality are rampant. The younger generations think that fighting for their own country is morally repugnant. Political corruption dominates our nation.

Adam Smith wrote an entire book on morality. It was one of his first books, and his later books like Wealth of Nations relied heavily on his stand on morality. John Stuart Mill wrote the following on war, and he was the most influential liberal of the 19th century in Britain where classical liberalism came from originated:
It's clear that Mill found morality a fundamental requirement for society.

It is libertarianism that abandons the need for morality. Classical liberalism is founded on morality.
 

Idolater

"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
It's very interesting that those people who brought liberalism to the forefront in 1700s and 1800s disagreed very sharply with you on the need for morality, Biblical morality. Adam Smith wrote a lot on morality. So did Alexis de Tocqueville. He made morality an integral part of his arguments. One of his statements on morality goes thus: Tocqueville also made many other statements like that one. Here's another one:

de Tocqueville was absolutely correct in what he said. History shows de Tocqueville's statements to be true. Every nation that abandoned morality fell into decline and was conquered. Babylon? So corrupt they were partying big time while the Medes and Persians were outside the city. Greece? They were so corrupt morally, homosexuality and pedophelia, that their society just fell apart and caused war after war among Greek cities. The destroyed themselves. Rome? They also destroyed themselves internally. They became a nation where their society was completely dedicated to hedonism. Their young men became so effeminate that they would no longer fight for their own national survival and as a result had to hire barbarians to do their fighting for them. That caused untold amounts of trouble both militarily and politically.

Look at what is going on in the US. We have huge morality problems. Pedophelia and homosexuality are rampant. The younger generations think that fighting for their own country is morally repugnant. Political corruption dominates our nation.

Adam Smith wrote an entire book on morality. It was one of his first books, and his later books like Wealth of Nations relied heavily on his stand on morality. John Stuart Mill wrote the following on war, and he was the most influential liberal of the 19th century in Britain where classical liberalism came from originated: It's clear that Mill found morality a fundamental requirement for society.

It is libertarianism that abandons the need for morality. Classical liberalism is founded on morality.
I don't know why you think that I'm opposed to morality. I am a classical liberal. I don't believe that the state can be validly authorized to establish any religion, or any religion's morals. Do you believe that laws supporting one religion's moral theory over others are good laws?
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
I don't believe that the state can be validly authorized to establish any religion, or any religion's morals.

Well, then, it's a good thing morality isn't determined by religion, isn't it?

Do you believe that laws supporting one religion's moral theory over others are good laws?

You mean, laws like "do not murder," "do not steal," "do not commit adultery," "do not bear false witness"?

Yes, those laws are good laws.
 

Idolater

"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
Well, then, it's a good thing morality isn't determined by religion, isn't it?
Show me what you mean. Show me how morality or moral theory can not be based on religion in some way, or an appeal to God in some way. I'm not arguing that it must come from religion. I'm asking you to demonstrate how morals can come from something completely independent of a religious faith.
You mean, laws like "do not murder," "do not steal," "do not commit adultery," "do not bear false witness"?

Yes, those laws are good laws.
Homonymy. I feel it is pretty clearly from the context talking about civil laws that are made by our state. I didn't explicate it though, but now you know, that I was talking about the "laws" that our government makes. Also "rule of law" invokes the "law" I was talking about, rather than God's law, that you quoted.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Show me what you mean. Show me how morality or moral theory can not be based on religion in some way, or an appeal to God in some way.

Under what religion did God tell Noah that murderers should be put to death?

I'm not arguing that it must come from religion.

No, your argument is that apart from religion, there can be no such thing as moral law (as applied by a government to it's citizens).

That is not the case.

Morality is NOT dependent on religion, because even the godless know that the above are wrong, even if their conscience is dulled.

I'm asking you to demonstrate how morals can come from something completely independent of a religious faith.

See above.

Homonymy. I feel it is pretty clearly from the context talking about civil laws that are made by our state.

Sorry, but morality (and therefore moral laws) is not defined by a government. A law is either moral, amoral, or immoral, and moral laws are not "made," but rather discovered, and either enforced or not enforced.

"Do not murder." - moral (revealed by God, has never not applied)
"Vehicles must stop at the light when it is red." - amoral (made up, arbitrary law)
"if ________ condition is met, you can kill the baby in the womb." - immoral

The government does not define morality, because morality comes from God. It's not bound by a national border, and it applies everywhere at all times in all places in all circumstances.

Morality is absolute, because God exists.

I didn't explicate it though, but now you know, that I was talking about the "laws" that our government makes.

And as I said above in this post, the government does not "make" moral laws (laws that are moral). It can either apply them or ignore them.

Do not murder originated with God, not with man.

Whether man's government applies that law does not change the fact that it originated with God.

Also "rule of law" invokes the "law" I was talking about, rather than God's law, that you quoted.

Sorry, but again, morality, whether a government applies it or not, comes from God.

A government cannot apply moral law without using God's Law, because there is no such thing as a moral law that does not originate from God.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Politics precedes morals, not the other way round, looks like.

Saying it doesn't make it so, Idolater.

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2019/09/political-party-morals/597517/

'Means, if you like a political theory, then you're going to wind up believing morals that align with that political theory. Your morals don't determine your politics.

In other words, you are teaching as gospel the doctrines of men, something Christ warned about.

You need to place GOD first, not politics.

“Therefore whoever hears these sayings of Mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on the rock:and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it did not fall, for it was founded on the rock.“But everyone who hears these sayings of Mine, and does not do them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand:and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it fell. And great was its fall.” - Matthew 7:24-27 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew7:24-27&version=NKJV

:think:

When you place politics before what God says, you commit idolatry.

Somewhat ironic, Idolater...

You should repent.
 
Top