SUPREME COURT EXTENDS GAY MARRIAGE NATIONWIDE

[GFR7]

Your court system is perverted. It is a tool of the wicked.

Being black isn't against the law. Being a homo is against God's standards. Your courts have bowed to the homo agenda. Anything they once did that was right does not excuse them from their current perversion.

Moreover, they have done damage to individual rights, which may take decades or centuries to reverse.

This quote from Douglass Farrow:

Obergefell makes every American, in that sense, a ward of the state, stripped of his or her primordial and familial defenses against the encroachment of the state. It may be one of the most incoherent judgments ever delivered by SCOTUS, but there is a logic to it nevertheless, the tyrannical effects of which will unfold inexorably unless and until it is overturned by some later revolution.

 

[Interplanner]

I've written a petition statement that might be universal enough for counties in the US to have a go. It is an evasion of some of the mess for churches. I just heard this week that a large non-denominational church in my area has not offered weddings for a year now.

The strategy here is to use what sounds like a secular use of separation against any government granting of marriage.

_____

PETITION: To further prevent the government from 'establishing a religion' (as in the 1st Amendment), marriages will be granted by churches according to their beliefs and practices. This is also founded on the paragraph in the Jun.26.15 Supreme Court decision on same sex marriage about religious freedom and debate.

THEREFORE: (This) County will have no further authority to grant marriage licenses.

_____

As I understood the paragraph on religious freedom, this is really close to what he had in mind. Then the faiths/churches are in competition with each other, and I like that idea. But I don't see too much Christian press getting over the gloom of the allowance for SS couples.

 

[Town Heretic]

Moreover

No, you have to establish the base claim before you can have more of anything, but at least this moves your attempts at the appearance of a benign sort of confusion into a clearer light.

, they have done damage to individual rights, which may take decades or centuries to reverse.

What damage? What has been taken from you? What don't you have today that you had yesterday?

This quote from Douglass Farrow:

Obergefell makes every American, in that sense, a ward of the state, stripped of his or her primordial and familial defenses against the encroachment of the state.

It sounds out well, but it's complete nonsense.

Ward of the state? If recognition of a right prior denied is that any recognition of right without prior foundation (like the nation's radical founding notion of equality before the law) does that and the complaint is what?

Familial defenses? lain: What do you imagine those are and how have they been diminished in any part? You must know since you think enough of this to proffer it.

It may be one of the most incoherent judgments ever delivered by SCOTUS,

A nonsensical claim. Is he (are you) saying you don't understand it? The dissenting justices didn't have any trouble understanding it. I didn't.

but there is a logic to it nevertheless, the tyrannical effects of which will unfold inexorably unless and until it is overturned by some later revolution.

Thank you, George Wallace, part I.

 

[Town Heretic]

Can you defend this incredible claim, i.e.,
that the court system is NOT perverted and corrupt?

Sure. I've done that repeatedly. Not getting the outcome one wants isn't a sign of corruption or perversion. The Court isn't a moral arbiter, it's a legal one. Rights frequently (and legally) lead to morally questionable or challenge worthy choices.

And why haven't you commented on Kent Hovind and "structuring" and the IRS?

Haven't followed it.

 

[Ktoyou]

Do you think churches will be able to not perform gay weddings? That hasn't worked out too well for the cake shops.

yes, they will be able to deny such weddings. A cake shop is another matter.

 

[Ktoyou]

So you think churches will have the liberty to deny gay wedding services after this ruling?

Way different ballpark. A baker isn't in the idea of selling a particular ideology to anyone. He's in the business of providing a service and can't deny service absent a legitimate business interest being served (no shoes, no shirt, no service, by way of).

A minister in a church where the product is a particular religious view, wherein homosexuality is in opposition to it, could if pressed (and that pressing is the precedent unlikely to be abridged) simply note that to do so would be to fundamentally work a harm to that product, severing something fundamental to the nature of his business.


Absolutely.

This about sums it up. The Court may hold it unconstitutional, under 14th Amendment, to say states must not ban these so called 'marriages' (how silly), but they cannot force any individual to accept their view, as that would infringe on individual liberty.

 

[Dan Emanuel]

Marriage is a legal contract between two adults that bind them together...

True.

...as a social and family unit.

Is that actually part of the contract?


Daniel

 

[Nazaroo]

Sure. I've done that repeatedly. Not getting the outcome one wants isn't a sign of corruption or perversion.
The Court isn't a moral arbiter, it's a legal one.
Rights frequently (and legally) lead to morally questionable or challenge worthy choices.

A court system which operates amorally is automatically corrupt morally.

Haven't followed it.

Why do you always give me such unsatisfying answers to
questions which ought to be in the interest of a legal expert?

Can you do just a little better than that?

 

[Town Heretic]

A court system which operates amorally is automatically corrupt morally.

That's a bumper sticker, not an argument. Here's the problem with your advance: people differ, often strongly, on what constitutes morality in its particulars. So the law may be perfectly moral in the eyes of any number of people and a mixed bag to others.

The court is concerned with rights. Morality is mostly about what we do with them, within the context of what is legally permissible.

Why do you always give me such unsatisfying answers to questions which ought to be in the interest of a legal expert?

I rarely trust the reasonableness of anything that follows "always" when what follows it is a complaint.

Since you feel confident enough to so qualify you should have little trouble enumerating a handful of similar experiences or be more careful with language that offers insult or vague insinuation.

But to be kinder in response and on the point, an expert in that area of the law would and should be expected to find it interesting and to be familiar with it. The Alabama bar tests for tax law. Many bars don't. Most lawyers have little to nothing to do with it and the law covers so vast an intellectual terrain that if you tried to keep abreast of half of it you'd end up being passably conversant in some of those areas and unworthy of reliance and/or employ regarding any.

I'm sorry you feel that should interest me and that among the numbers of issues and opinions I should have held it as a thing apart, but sadly, on the point of inquiry, I didn't.

Can you do just a little better than that?

I was only just thinking that same thing.

 

[Nazaroo]

Meanwhile, it will interest many that allowing Sodomite marriage
would not have been possible without Obama appointing two new judges,
and I also think it is surprising and disturbing that
4 of the 5 judges allowing Sodomite Marriage are Jewish (atheists?)!

Who knew?

Does ANY American think that having 4 out of 9 Supreme Court judges
be Jewish , (that is, 45% of the Supreme Court is now Jewish),
is fair representation of the demographic of the USA?

With maybe 3 to 6 million Jews in the USA, and a population of 320 million,
its safe to say that less than 1% of Americans are Jewish.

In Israel, the law still stands that it is actually ILLEGAL for Jews to marry
non-Jews.

It is likely that these 4 judges would uphold a religious right to
insist on that law for the Jewish community in the USA.

That is, if Jewish religious leaders refused to marry Jews to non-Jews,
these four would uphold their religious freedom to refuse performing the marriage.

Question: So why can't both states and individual ministers refuse to marry Sodomites,
on the basis of religion?

Answer: Your religion isn't Judaism.

 

[Nazaroo]

That's a bumper sticker, not an argument. Here's the problem with your advance: people differ, often strongly, on what constitutes morality in its particulars. So the law may be perfectly moral in the eyes of any number of people and a mixed bag to others.

The court is concerned with rights. Morality is mostly about what we do with them, within the context of what is legally permissible.

I for one understand your viewpoint, i.e., the viewpoint of a lawyer:
However I can't agree with the idea that
lawyers (and legislators who are also lawyers) decide what is "legally permissible",
and then the rest of us are supposed to exercise our 'freedoms'
and behave ourselves
within the boundaries that lawyers have set for what is 'legally permissible'.

I think Jesus utterly condemned lawyers in His own time,
precisely because they imposed impossible burdens upon ordinary people,
then didn't lift a finger to help them in their plight,
but even worse, were hypocrites to boot,
having many clever loopholes to acquire for themselves freedom,
including the freedom to rob widows of their property.

I'm just not convinced and ready to believe that lawyers
should have this kind of power to lord it over the rest of us.

I'd rather round them up, investigate them,
and put most of them in prison for their crimes against humanity.
.
I'm sure you would be found mostly innocent of the most egregious crimes,
however, so don't worry.

I rarely trust the reasonableness of anything that follows "always" when what follows it is a complaint.

Since you feel confident enough to so qualify you should have little trouble enumerating a handful of similar experiences or be more careful with language that offers insult or vague insinuation.

I vote to let that rest as an expression of my exasperation
with having a lawyer on the forum who seems to avoid many
important legal issues.

I can accept your explanation below:

But to be kinder in response and on the point, an expert in that area of the law would and should be expected to find it interesting and to be familiar with it. The Alabama bar tests for tax law. Many bars don't. Most lawyers have little to nothing to do with it and the law covers so vast an intellectual terrain that if you tried to keep abreast of half of it you'd end up being passably conversant in some of those areas and unworthy of reliance and/or employ regarding any.

I'm sorry you feel that should interest me and that among the numbers of issues and opinions I should have held it as a thing apart, but sadly, on the point of inquiry, I didn't.

The reason I feel that perhaps as especially an American lawyer,
knowing what you know about the system,
that you should take a personal interest in Kent Hovind's case,
is that he is a Christian, who has in fact done no harm to anyone,
but has been put in prison for 9 years already on bogus charges.

Your empathy would be most appreciated,
and your applied expertise in law could be most useful here.

I was only just thinking that same thing.

 

[Stripe]

That's a bumper sticker, not an argument. Here's the problem with your advance: people differ, often strongly, on what constitutes morality in its particulars. So the law may be perfectly moral in the eyes of any number of people and a mixed bag to others.

People differ. Therefore, something. :idunno:

 

[Stripe]

If by agenda you mean civil status and equality before the law.

All people already had the right to get married.

 

[Nazaroo]

Let Brother Nathaniel explain the backers behind the Supreme Court Tyranny:




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVKlZRWeDI4

 

[Town Heretic]

I for one understand your viewpoint, i.e., the viewpoint of a lawyer: However I can't agree with the idea that lawyers (and legislators who are also lawyers) decide what is "legally permissible", and then the rest of us are supposed to exercise our 'freedoms' and behave ourselves within the boundaries that lawyers have set for what is 'legally permissible'.

Then welcome to social Darwinism and/or anarchy. Our republic is founded on the notion of equality before the law, of rights that aren't subject to the whim of the majority and have been established and balanced to allow us to exercise as much freedom as we can within the context of the next fellow's right to do the same.

I think Jesus utterly condemned lawyers in His own time...

For particular reasons, not because of their office. In the same way he didn't have much good to say about religious leaders. But he created them in the apostles and sent them out among men.

Power or authority or wealth or any combination thereof are essentially corrupting absent vigilance. That's why it's harder for the rich man to enter heaven, though God has bestowed wealth upon some he loved, like Job.

I'm just not convinced and ready to believe that lawyers should have this kind of power to lord it over the rest of us.

Lawyers are a powerful group, but they are officers of the court and the court serves the law that protects your right, among them the right to speak against anything that offends you. They are restrained by the same Constitution that restrains you. Powerful? Sure. So are doctors. It's in the nature of what they preserve and protect.

I'd rather round them up, investigate them, and put most of them in prison for their crimes against humanity.

Then thank God you aren't empowered to work that wrong and to act as judge and jury.

I'm sure you would be found mostly innocent of the most egregious crimes, however, so don't worry.

I'm sure I don't need a defense or suspension of judgment against the lack of any charge. Mostly? Good grief.

I vote to let that rest as an expression of my exasperation with having a lawyer on the forum who seems to avoid many important legal issues.

I respond, this time more strongly since you avoid my challenge on point in my last while raising the level of accusation, that this is an empty and unworthy charge without merit or reason.

Provide the many. We have one example that wasn't avoided, but was simply something I was honest about not having a particular knowledge of...real damning stuff.

I've confronted the most pressing legal issues of the day here and often with the certain knowledge that doing so would invite a mostly negative response by people who would, without benefit of the education to qualify their opinion, launch into mostly errant and hostile objection.

Which is why I asked you, given the ease with which you set the charge, to sustain it with a number of examples.

I can accept your explanation below:

What's the alternative? So don't act like you just did me a favor. You want to do both of us a favor, stop launching charges you can't sustain. It's bad enough I have to listen to this horsefeather anti lawyer business in general, but you want to get particular with me you need to stand behind your own words and actions.

I'm more than willing to stand behind mine.

The reason I feel that perhaps as especially an American lawyer, knowing what you know about the system, that you should take a personal interest in Kent Hovind's case, is that he is a Christian, who has in fact done no harm to anyone, but has been put in prison for 9 years already on bogus charges.

Here's the problem, if I'm unfamiliar with the case then I'm not going to be familiar with the particulars, from his religion to the justification or lack of justification relating to the actions of others.

I vaguely recall something on it. Maybe here, maybe elsewhere about money transactions. Limitations and the triggers to catch people attempting to avoid transactions that would trigger reporting income....something like that. :idunno:

Your empathy would be most appreciated, and your applied expertise in law could be most useful here.

Let me tell you, the way to attract that isn't by first telling me that you'd imprison most of my profession and then repeatedly say I'm avoiding something I haven't.

 

[seehigh]

Meanwhile, it will interest many that allowing Sodomite marriage
would not have been possible without Obama appointing two new judges,
and I also think it is surprising and disturbing that
4 of the 5 judges allowing Sodomite Marriage are Jewish (atheists?)!

Who knew?

Does ANY American think that having 4 out of 9 Supreme Court judges
be Jewish , (that is, 45% of the Supreme Court is now Jewish),
is fair representation of the demographic of the USA?

With maybe 3 to 6 million Jews in the USA, and a population of 320 million,
its safe to say that less than 1% of Americans are Jewish.

In Israel, the law still stands that it is actually ILLEGAL for Jews to marry
non-Jews.

It is likely that these 4 judges would uphold a religious right to
insist on that law for the Jewish community in the USA.

That is, if Jewish religious leaders refused to marry Jews to non-Jews,
these four would uphold their religious freedom to refuse performing the marriage.

Question: So why can't both states and individual ministers refuse to marry Sodomites,
on the basis of religion?

Answer: Your religion isn't Judaism.

Bet there's not a prejudicial bone in your body, right?

 

[Nazaroo]

Then welcome to social Darwinism and/or anarchy. Our republic is founded on the notion of equality before the law, of rights that aren't subject to the whim of the majority and have been established and balanced to allow us to exercise as much freedom as we can within the context of the next fellow's right to do the same.

The above is obviously a theory about law and history and the American system of government.

One which I cannot hold to,
and one which I believe you as a Christian should not accept.

on Jesus condemning lawyers:

For particular reasons, not because of their office. In the same way he didn't have much good to say about religious leaders. But he created them in the apostles and sent them out among men.

Power or authority or wealth or any combination thereof are essentially corrupting absent vigilance. That's why it's harder for the rich man to enter heaven, though God has bestowed wealth upon some he loved, like Job.

You seem upset that I would quite naturally dismiss lawyers generally
with both suspicion and accusations of corruption and evil.

But while your basic position here is sound in principle,
in my view it does not take Jesus' actual position, judgement, and condemnation
seriously.

That is, your statement is a good starting point for understanding
the sayings of Jesus regarding the RICH, and also Lawyers,
but it doesn't acknowledge the actual judgement Jesus handed down.

In other words, you, like many others, want to limit Jesus' statements
to local events, and His own peculiar time and circumstances.

I find this especially in the case of the RICH,
an absurd exercise in excuse-making for modern rich people,
who are most certainly not going to heaven and are most certainly
condemned on the same basis that ancient rich people were.

There is no evidence that rich people today are any different.

The question of lawyers is intriguing, since we have suffered a unique
phenomenon, namely the establishment of semi-Christian nations
which originally at least based their laws on Biblical teachings.

I'm finding the post-Christian West far less credible on this front however.

And I think that lawyers today will largely find themselves back in the
same position that the ancient lawyers in Jesus' day were:
Evil and condemned by God.

Lawyers are a powerful group, but they are officers of the court and the court serves the law that protects your right, among them the right to speak against anything that offends you. They are restrained by the same Constitution that restrains you. Powerful? Sure. So are doctors. It's in the nature of what they preserve and protect.

I also find doctors a largely immoral and non-credible group of powerful
evil elitists, who exploit the naive.

So the analogy only reinforces my view of lawyers.

I think the performance of both groups is based not so much on the
nature of what they preserve and protect,
as on the nature of fallen, corrupted and compromised men,
who have willingly joined secretive societies of elite oligarchies.

Then thank God you aren't empowered to work that wrong and to act as judge and jury.
I'm sure I don't need a defense or suspension of judgment against the lack of any charge. Mostly? Good grief.
I respond, this time more strongly since you avoid my challenge on point in my last while raising the level of accusation, that this is an empty and unworthy charge without merit or reason.
Provide the many. We have one example that wasn't avoided, but was simply something I was honest about not having a particular knowledge of...real damning stuff.

I think its not necessary to produce more "examples",
in part because of the futility caused by the nature of the "evidence".
Normally I don't pursue what looks like avoidance behaviour.
I look for responses, and make requests, which are often ignored,
not necessarily by you personally.
In terms of the nature of the evidence here, people are free to edit their posts,
and they often do retroactively to cover up or soften mistakes, claims,
and exaggerations.
Unless one has an agenda of entrapment, its not worth the effort to
hunt down examples of any kind of past bad behaviour here.

You as a lawyer would be the first to point to the fact that evidence here
vanishes, and/or is often tampered with.

But you are in part cleverly diverting the discussion here, by continuing this tack.

I am glad to offer you any apology you wish, in any form you wish,
and acknowledge that my remarks were more hyperbolic than literally
intended. If my porcupine nature has soiled your reputation or esteem
in anyone's mind I retract all claims.

I've confronted the most pressing legal issues of the day here and often with the certain knowledge that doing so would invite a mostly negative response by people who would, without benefit of the education to qualify their opinion, launch into mostly errant and hostile objection.

Which is why I asked you, given the ease with which you set the charge, to sustain it with a number of examples.

I'm holding no charges against you.

In fact I don't doubt that in your own mind at least,
you have "confronted the most pressing legal issues of the day here",
at risk of personal attacks.

But please don't expect your idea of "the most pressing legal issues"
to be virtually identical with my idea of "the most pressing legal issues".

I think its reasonable for you to admit that they will differ,
and so I will be disappointed when you and/or others don't
respond to issues that I think are "the most pressing legal issues".

Don't fault me for that divergence.

What's the alternative? So don't act like you just did me a favor. You want to do both of us a favor, stop launching charges you can't sustain. It's bad enough I have to listen to this horsefeather anti lawyer business in general, but you want to get particular with me you need to stand behind your own words and actions.

I'm more than willing to stand behind mine.

I have to agree that I haven't really done you any favours,
other than my goodwill, agreement on key points here,
and my prayers for you and your family on many occasions.

I'm not really in the position to do you favours: such is life.

I doubt you will convince me not to essentially hate lawyers,
and all that they do, given both the plain statements of Holy Scripture,
and my own personal experience, which has been 100% negative,
and when I say negative, I mean significantly and damagingly negative,
in the most vile and evil manner.

In my view the majority of lawyers are evil criminals,
because in my personal clinical experience ALL the lawyers I have had to
deal with were evil criminals.
Also, much of the secondary evidence also points to the fact that
if all lawyers are not evil criminals, then certainly most of them are.
At my age, neither my personal experience nor additional data
is likely to significantly alter that opinion.

The fact that my opinion appears in harmony with Jesus the Christ
is merely a bonus.

Here's the problem, if I'm unfamiliar with the case then I'm not going to be familiar with the particulars, from his religion to the justification or lack of justification relating to the actions of others.

I vaguely recall something on it. Maybe here, maybe elsewhere about money transactions. Limitations and the triggers to catch people attempting to avoid transactions that would trigger reporting income....something like that. :idunno:

I'm actually encouraged that you are taking the case itself seriously,
at least enough to maybe check it out on a basic level.

Please understand that cases like Hovind's are absolutely convincing
to most ordinary Christians that all governments including the USA
are corrupt, evil, and under the control of Satan.

If you seriously wanted to make an impact on that view,
you would have to:

(1) Demonstrate that not all lawyers are vile crooks and homosexual pedophiles.

(2) Demonstrate that a good lawyer could actually make a difference
in a system which is obviously corrupt, apparently beyond repair.

Let me tell you, the way to attract that isn't by first telling me that you'd imprison most of my profession and then repeatedly say I'm avoiding something I haven't.

I understand your sentiment,
but I would point out that strictly speaking,
your goodwill and integrity should not be at all dependent upon
the supposed misunderstanding, ignorance, or bigotry of Christians like me.

I would be the first person to cheer you, support you, and assist you,
were you to take on cases like Hovind's and turn them around,
exposing them for what they are.

That would accomplish two things:

(1) I would believe that some lawyers were trustworthy and reliable.

(2) I would believe there might be some point in working within this corrupt system, rather than just shooting all lawyers and judges,
and starting again without that profession.

 

[Nazaroo]

Bet there's not a prejudicial bone in your body, right?

As a Jew, I'm quite willing to admit I have quite a few biases.

But being an anti-Semite is not one of them.

Your innuendo would have been more credible
had you accused me of being an anti-Muslim, which I am,
and using the thread below to demonstrate that:


Fun Facts: Moses vs. Mohammed

Fun Facts: Satan vs. Allah

Fun Facts: Jesus vs Mohammed


As a Jew, I can certainly tell you honestly that
there are too many (atheist-liberal) Jews on the Supreme Court.

But this isn't the fault of Jews, but rather the fault of a small group
of powerful banksters and liberal perverts.

Jews didn't vote for members of the Supreme Court.

These are appointed without any democratic control by jerks like Obama.

And if Jews HAD voted for members of the Supreme Court,
the would have controlled 1% or less of the votes.

 

[Town Heretic]

The above is obviously a theory about law and history and the American system of government.

The first was a cautionary note about the alternative and the latter an explanation of what our compact is and isn't. It is a protector of right and an instrument to protect one from another's overstep.

One which I cannot hold to, and one which I believe you as a Christian should not accept.

Then either you don't understand me or you have a little explaining to do about what it is you feel should be the form of government.

You seem upset that I would quite naturally dismiss lawyers generally with both suspicion and accusations of corruption and evil.

Rather, I found the sentiment and expression an offense against good reason, which always offends my sensibilities and more so when I believe the speaker should know better. But then you go beyond that in a way that worries me for you.

But while your basic position here is sound in principle, in my view it does not take Jesus' actual position, judgement, and condemnation seriously.

Where I'd say you're attempting to take a particular criticism of a particular group and make of it something unintended. In a minute I think you'll let everyone know what is at that root.

re: the still unsupported charge concerning my alleged avoidance of many legal issues

I think its not necessary to produce more "examples",

More? You didn't produce one while laying claim to a near habit.

You as a lawyer would be the first to point to the fact that evidence here vanishes, and/or is often tampered with.

Threads get pruned and deleted. I tend to keep the odd thread in support of a position that changes my opinion of a poster's method or character. I never make an accusation that touches upon something of that weight without having support for it within reach. It's too easy to yield to the temptation to let our momentary feeling overwhelm our good reason and see a rule where none can be sustained.

But you are in part cleverly diverting the discussion here, by continuing this tack.

No, I'm not. I called on a point of reputation. You were too easy with mine.

In fact I don't doubt that in your own mind at least, you have "confronted the most pressing legal issues of the day here", at risk of personal attacks.

Ground zero, Islam, abortion, gay marriage, the nature of rights. Sure. And I don't doubt in the least that in your mind that qualified statement you made feels fair to generous. But to my mind it's neither.

But please don't expect your idea of "the most pressing legal issues"to be virtually identical with my idea of "the most pressing legal issues".

I mostly will, being the only lawyer on the boards here (though a few have come and gone) and not having any real and demonstrated reason to think else by anyone, including you. :idunno:

I doubt you will convince me not to essentially hate lawyers,

I doubt a man acting or believing irrationally can be reasoned out of it.

...my own personal experience, which has been 100% negative, and when I say negative, I mean significantly and damagingly negative, in the most vile and evil manner.

I think that explains the nature of all that blood clouding your eye.

I've worked with people up to their necks in debt to offer quality services and protection for people who couldn't afford it else. People with degrees from some of the better law schools in the country, working for less than most teachers make to make a difference among the poor.

I know that in my state we have a vital pro bono through the Bar that sees ample participation by the best of our profession and that the involvement goes well beyond a bar mandate. A profession with as much power as the law has will attract sociopaths and scoundrels too, but they aren't the rule and the rule deserves a better repute than too many give it from an anecdotal disappointment or a general ignorance.

In my view the majority of lawyers are evil criminals,

I believe you. It's simply not a reasonable position to take.

because in my personal clinical experience ALL the lawyers I have had to deal with were evil criminals.

Whose numbers don't begin to scratch the surface of the numbers toiling daily to the best of their ability in the service of the law.

That's a shame. I could name lawyer after lawyer in my personal experience who were good men and women of character and conscience. I've met knaves, but fewer and far between.

The fact that my opinion appears in harmony with Jesus the Christ is merely a bonus.

Rather, you read too broadly from your hostility, evidenced by your satisfaction in the application and as I said, when reason isn't at the root of a thing reason will not be at the heart of its removal.

If you seriously wanted to make an impact on that view,
you would have to:

(1) Demonstrate that not all lawyers are vile crooks and homosexual pedophiles.

(2) Demonstrate that a good lawyer could actually make a difference
in a system which is obviously corrupt, apparently beyond repair.

No. I'm sorry for you, but no. I'd have to find the charges in some part reasonable or credible to then believe I had any chance of reasoning you out of them, but the first is so outside of either it speaks to a mindset that I don't believe is capable of seeing anything I might offer. In a small way, Naz, you're a bit mad. The second is saddled with a premise I'd reject, the obvious bit on. But given the first, there's literally no profit in the attempt.

No, I think you'll likely continue to think as you will and you'll either make me an exception in your mind or quietly wonder if I am and there's nothing for it.

That would accomplish two things:

(1) I would believe that some lawyers were trustworthy and reliable.

Naz...it's irrational not to believe that to begin with. As worrisome as someone who believes that all policemen are untrustworthy and corrupt because the police in their town were. Not some or most, but all or all but a few who might be something else...I don't even know how to approach thinking that finds that sustainable.

By that I mean on the point. I had a great aunt who thought people could see her through her television so she'd drape it when she wasn't watching it. Otherwise she was sober as a judge.

(2) I would believe there might be some point in working within this corrupt system, rather than just shooting all lawyers and judges, and starting again without that profession.

And that's worse, given the violence you couple with that marred and untenable prior conviction makes it unutterably tragic for you.

Or, as I said, thank God the law restrains your personal power and you have my prayers.

 

[Nazaroo]

Dear TownHeretic:

If I may sum up:

(1) I believe the majority of lawyers are corrupt criminals.

You believe the majority of lawyers are honest upright good guys.

(2) Your clinical experience informs you that in your area there are
many altruistic 'pro bono' lawyers working for the public good,
motivated by their yummy goodness.

My clinical experience informs me that in my area there are mostly criminals, motivated by money and even less savoury intent.

(3) You rightly called me on some sarcastic hyperbole intended to
guilt you into looking at the Hovind case.

I apologize for the treatment, which as you pointed out is also counterproductive.

(4) We can both concede that it would be difficult to change my opinion of lawyers.

However, you view my opinion as emotionally based rather than clinically based,
and I view myself as open to new evidence, and view my opinion as evidence-based.

(5) Its also my view however, that my personal opinion of lawyers is not
a brush to paint 'innocent' lawyers with, or to condemn any individual lawyer out of hand.

My observations of you and your moral behaviour and approach
inform me that you are a remarkable person, and I have difficulty
believing you actually are a lawyer.

If I thought you were corrupt, or beyond reach morally, I wouldn't be
asking you to look at the Hovind case.

(6) We also have I believe a slightly different view of the function of emotion,
and even outrage and anger over moral crimes.

You seem convinced that emotional response is generally bad,
based on the belief that it clouds reason.

I believe that reason for humans must be integrated with emotional responses,
because it is too often the case that the lack of emotion is a cover for
what can only be sociopathic and antisocial and criminal behaviour.

For instance, Nazi doctors justified human torture for the purpose of
acquiring scientific knowledge.

Nazi soldiers excused criminal behaviour on the basis that a 'good soldier'
obeys orders.

To me these are dyslexic malfunctions of human beings,
and any real fully functional human being must also feel compassion,
empathy, and emotional attachment to the innocent, the vulnerable,
the suffering, the marginalized, just as your apparent 'pro bono' lawyer-volunteers
apparently do.

I also believe that the same fully functional human being will have
a shock, repulsion, and anger response to criminal evil, and those who
intentionally do evil and promote evil.
It seems to me to be impossible to sympathize with victims,
and not feel equal anger and hatred toward culprits.

I don't believe my emotional responses cloud my thinking at all.
They do help me however to choose how I will devote my time and resources.

(7) I must also thank you for the surprising and unusual amount of time and effort you have made to personally respond to me.

I think it may be a record!

I have thoroughly enjoyed hearing your thinking and agree with much of
what you have said.

Its even fair to say that your extra effort has given me pause in regard
to some of my core beliefs about lawyers (a minority of them at any rate).

I would say that although you sound pessimistic about your efforts,
they are not a waste of time if others can also make independent judgements
of various points.

Although I can imagine your time and effort is valuable and shouldn't be wasted,
I personally appreciate your attention.

I don't crave attention of others normally, only the attention of good people,
and people whom I can recognize as positive contributors to our world
and the kingdom of God.

I hope that ending on this note will encourage you to continue!