Well seeing as you can't know if a slippery slope is indeed a slippery slope until after it happens it's always going to be a logical fallacy and hindsight will always be 20 20.
True, true, true. And men having gay boy lovers predates Western civilization. But we are supposed to be the people of Judaeo Christian values which sought to overthrow these pagan values. Now we are returning to them.
We are supposed to be a people of Freedoms, one of which is Religious Freedom. Note that the Constitution does not say Christian Religious Freedom , or Judeo-Christian Religious Freedom.
I'd tell you to go look at the post where I already addressed this, but there is little doubt that you wouldn't bother, so I'll just repost it here for you so you don't have to go hunting back one page to find it.
That might depend upon the state and their willingness to enforce any given law. For example, in many states or lower levels of government there are still laws on the books making witchcraft illegal. Wiccan are witches and practice witchcraft. No, not necessarily that which Hollywood and other fictional sources put out. As such should they wish to, they could charge Wiccians with the crime of witchcraft. Mind you, such a charge would be quickly rendered moot and illegal under the First Amendment. Likewise there are states where a combination of laws could allow them to legally punish polygamy. Utah is one such state and actually went to court over it. Utah is a common law marriage state (not all states are). As such the state could declare that a poly unit is now covered under bigamy, even though they did not seek multiple licenses from the state or multiple states. The lower courts rules that such forcing of the legal status, unsought after, forcing people into an illegal status, was unconstitutional. The interesting thing is a higher court over turned the case, but not because they said it was actually legal to do so. The case was overturned because the people who brought the case before the court did not have the law applied to them. In other words, because they were not charged, they had no legal basis to challenge the law in court. At that point, their legal recourse was to get the law changed or removed in the legislature, not the judicial.
In this case it's not about religion per se, but about behavior which has been learned through religion.
If this general good behavior is religion independent then there would be no need to cite any religion, especially not the need to specify Judeo-Christian, as was done.
Well our country was built on judeo-christian values and I believe that. But it was never intended to be the law of the land it was supposed to be the heart of the land and I think that's a good idea.
Dude all you ever do it's play semantics games and find the most ridiculous exceptions you can to something it's not a good argument and I'm not going through this **** with you again
True, but the heart is gone. Even the remnant churches today are theologically gutted. The heart of Western civilization during the great wars was no longer Augustine, Luther or the Gospels, but Marx, Darwin and Nietzsche. I recall how people saw the "clash of civilizations" in the 1950's and 1960's as the war against a "Godless Communism." After this period there was no more reference to any Godless enemy - we had become that ourselves. People from 1900 would see our society as some dystopian science fiction.
No one makes you reply. But the reality is if the laws exists, it can be applied. And while it can be reasonably overridden and declared unconstitutional, the person it was applied to still has to go through a world of grief to deal with it. As the above example shows, a law can't just be challanged before the courts until it is applied to someone. And if they don't challanged it, the judiciary can't simply overturn it just because.
The moral standards are set by your leader. It's apparent that our leader has pretty poor moral standards.
I'd say that is largely the fault of the religious. They had to be so rigid so unyielding and now they have been discredited. If the town isn't big enough for the gospels and Darwin, one must leave. It's a pity. They'd likely had seen the 20s that was as well. Seeing as currently we share much in common with that era.
Yes, the so-called "roaring twenties" was itself a manifestation of what I am saying. We pay a price for our way of living, but people generally don't reckon on that - they see freedom as coming to them freely. For instance, arranged marriages are no longer acceptable - but such marriages are considered to be more stable. And feminism has eroded the notion of motherhood that was so intrinsic to us - and the inevitable demographic collapse. And the end of "religious wars" has seen the rise of the secular wars, and gulags, killing fields and final solutions on a scale vastly worse and prevalent than religious conflicts.
Well, I agree feminism has eroded the concept of motherhood and family. But Im not understanding the religious and secular war analogy.
Lennon's "Imagine" imagined a world without religion, a world of peace and brotherly love. You can say that the last Century saw an end to religious wars. At least 85% of all the great killings of the 20th Century were of a secular nature with little if any religious element, ie WWI and WWII, Bolshevism, Maoism etc.. About a million people died in the great medieval inquisitions, over a period of about 600 years. A million secular deaths in the 20th Century wouldn't bat an eye lid. The casting off of religion didn't result in brotherly love, quite the contrary - it released even more constraint on human nature.
Do the math. Compare any century since the Roman Empire to the 20th Century. To be fair technology played a part in the carnage, and it's hard to tease out this effect. But most of the 150 to 200 million dead can't be blamed solely upon the mechanization of death - but to deeply philosophies about Darwinism and class struggles. Communism alone took between 100 and 150 million deaths. All of the monsters of the 20th Century were either formerly religious people, or came from religious backgrounds, ie Stalin studied for the ministry and Hitler's mother was devout Catholic.
In a world, yes, the world without religion (sans the Muslim world) is, statistically speaking, a far more violent place. But then, even in the bad old day, religion wasn't usually the reason for wars, just another handy excuse for it. At least religion offered a bit more civility to combatants.
The democrats pretend to care about people by tossing them crumbs (welfare and hand outs) to entice them to buy votes and to create government dependency. In the meantime passing rules and laws that allow them (democrats) to enrich themselves. In the end, we have a society where a significant portion of people are dependent on government hand outs to survive and have difficulty coping with the real world.
Feminism started on the "bad" marriages, then progressed to the "good" marriages. There's something about a marriage that offends feminism. Yes, your marriage can be "good" but you're still under a man, still a domestic.
