Victim Disarmament Zone; The Law Be Damned

The State of Oregon is somewhat unique among most “shall issue” states. Their statute specifically states that concealed handgun permit holders may carry on a university campus. ORS 166.370 states;

166.370 Possession of firearm or dangerous weapon in public building or court facility; exceptions; discharging firearm at school. (1) Any person who intentionally possesses a loaded or unloaded firearm or any other instrument used as a dangerous weapon, while in or on a public building, shall upon conviction be guilty of a Class C felony.

Simple enough. But as with pretty much every other statute ever written, definitions are important.

166.360 Definitions for ORS 166.360 to 166.380. As used in ORS 166.360 to 166.380, unless the context requires otherwise:…

(4) “Public building” means a hospital, a capitol building, a public or private school, as defined in ORS 339.315, a college or university,…

So, you can’t carry on campus, right? Well, just like every statute has definitions, they have exceptions too.

(3) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply to:…

(d) A person who is licensed under ORS 166.291 and 166.292 to carry a concealed handgun. (emph. mine )

Now even a “functionally illiterate” redneck like myself can understand that.  So why am I boring you with this elementary lesson on Oregon law? Because even as simple as that law is, it appears it is a bit beyond the comprehension of the intellectual elite of Oregon academia. A Marine Corps veteran, and Oregon CHL holder, was arrested on the campus of Western Oregon University for “illegal possession” of a derringer.


LEBANON — Jeffrey Maxwell, a 30-year-old student at Western Oregon University who served in the Marines, always carries a loaded two-bullet derringer in his front pocket that’s so small it looks like it could be his keys.

He has a license to carry and conceal the gun, but he never takes it out or talks about it on campus because he doesn’t want to scare anyone. It’s only for protection, he says.

State law allows him to carry his gun in most public places. But the university says he can’t carry it on campus — license or no license. Maxwell’s case might finally settle the long-standing conflict in court for all seven public universities in Oregon.

Not much to settle. The law allows CHL holders to carry in public places, period. And not by oversight or exclusion, but through specific inclusion of an exemption. There can be no misinterpreting the wording. So any university administration which prohibits a CHL holder from carrying his firearm is not only infringing his civil liberty, they are breaking the law.

When Maxwell told officers he had the gun and knife in his pocket and an unloaded rifle in his truck, he was handcuffed and taken to the Monmouth Police station, where he was cited for possessing a firearm in a public building.

The Polk County district attorney later determined he had not committed a crime and didn’t charge him.

First off, sounds like the local PD cut him some slack by citing him rather than actually booking him into jail. Secondly, and more importantly, the DA knew the law and didn’t charge him. Remember pups, an arrest is one thing, having charges pressed is another. The university however feels it is above the law and knows better.

But a student judicial panel suspended him through the end of the spring term under a student conduct rule banning the possession or use of firearms and other weapons.

Yep, student handbooks carry more weight than state statute in these deluded little punks’ brainwashed skulls full of mush.

To re-enroll, Maxwell has been ordered to get a mental health evaluation and write a minimum 10-page paper on following the law, accepting responsibility for his actions and “recognizing the impact possession of weapons on college campuses has on others.”

A Marine Corps veteran must have a psyche eval for daring to exercise his God given civil right? Can you say “fuck you and the syphillic horse you ass raped on the way in” boys and girls? I knew you could.  As to following the law, it’s the snot nosed “student judicial panel” that is sorely in need of a basic course in the law and reading comprehension. I heartily suggest that they also ponder the “impact possessing weapons” has on the soft sensibilities of others. As in there being at least one non-victim available to save their worthless cowardly assess the next time a psyCho decides to pull a Virginia Tech. It is hard to argue with reasoned arguments and discourse such as this though;

Senior Alecia St. Germaine said her first reaction to the situation was fear.

“My stomach started turning and I wanted to leave,” she said.

In addition, knowing an armed person could just walk onto campus makes her feel a little uneasy.

Rest easy my sheltered little darling. Your university has ensured that you are completely safe helpless. No evil guns are allowed. Your delicate lil tummy can stop it’s churning, the big bad Marine and his scary gun (which you had no idea he had until the farce of a wrongful arrest) aren’t allowed here. They made him go away and now he has to go to sensitivity training so he won’t ever skeer you ever, ever again.

Maxwell had a valid permit for possessing concealed weapons; however, the permit does not allow people to bring weapons inside public schools, private schools or courthouses.

“Even if you have a concealed weapons permit, you can’t have a weapon concealed on your person if you’re going to be in any buildings on campus.” Dorn (Sergeant Kim Dorn with Monmouth PD) said. “In this instance, he just didn’t know.”

No Sgt. Dorn, in this instance you “just didn’t know” the law, as evidenced when the DA tossed your arrest. I could expect that from a rookie, but not from a sergeant who should at least have a working knowledge of a pretty important piece of legislation.

Hutchinson said Western firearm and munition policies are administrative and correspond to Oregon University System policies, which are not necessarily the same as state regulations.

“We go one step further and say, look, no weapons are allowed on campus, period,”Hutchinson said.

Regardless of what the law says; right, you arrogant piece of filth? This episode is a prime example of the arrogance epidemic in the liberal view of firearms. They don’t care what the law, or the Constitution, says. They are going to impose their will. If you don’t like it, or dare to have the temerity to exercise your 2nd Amendment rights, they will see to it that you are ostracized (as in Mr. Maxwell’s suspension) unless you grovel and beg their forgiveness through a ten page written mea culpa showing you have been enlightened and “accept responsibility for your actions” and the impact on the “feeewings” of others.

In true Marine fashion, Mr. Maxwell is not bing kowtowed and has gone on the offensive. So is Oregon Firearms Federation, who are just a tad livid over the situation.

The WOU student who was falsely arrested and charged with possession of a firearm in a public building, had all his criminal charges dropped by the Polk County DA tonight.

The DA admitted no wrongdoing on his part, or on the part of the police who arrested Jeff Maxwell for a “crime” that does not exist.

In a statement released to OFF’s attorney, the DA said “I believe the Monmouth Police Department issued the citation in good faith and that there was an arguable violation. However, a careful reading of the statute and the facts led me to conclude the charge was not in the best interest of justice.”

“Not in the best interest of justice.”  There was NO CRIME. But it gets worse. Much worse.

The college still got to “try” Jeff Maxwell. And they did tonight.

The tribunal that tried Marine veteran Jeffery Maxwell laughed after suspending him from Western Oregon University and sentencing him to:

a “psychological evaluation stating he is not a threat to himself of others” and

a mandatory “ten page paper” ” with references, “citing, but not limited to:

1) the importance of following the law,even through civil disobedience.

2) the importance of accepting responsibility for one’s actions

3) and recognizing the impact possession of weapons on college campuses has on others.”

So, Maxwell has been told his lawful possession of a firearm on campus is evidence of mental illness and he must “confess his sins.”  Welcome to the new Politburo. Maxwell may as well been judged by the Hitler youth for his “thought crimes.”

Jeffery Maxwell’s “jury” were four unnamed students and one staff member of WOU.

The “prosecutor” was Patrick Moser moserp@wou.edu “Acting Coordinator of Campus Judicial Affairs”

Maxwell asked to have his “trial” open to the public, which is his right, but was denied.

The tribunal was told repeatedly that they lacked the authority to impose a rule dealing with firearms. But the children who sat in judgment of the veteran were not interested in the law or the facts. They were only interested in attacking and embarrassing a man who had committed no crime but had chosen to exercise his right to protect himself and others.

The “trial” was a sham. No one present even seemed to know what the “charge” was. When confronted by the fact that the school has no authority to make rules about firearms, they said that was “not relevant.” Then they said they were not charging Maxwell with having a firearm. When asked what they WERE charging him with, they seemed to not know. They then said they were charging him with having a “knife and a rifle in his car.”   When told they had no authority to make rules about guns in his car, they said THAT was not “relevant.”

The children who sat on Maxwell’s “jury”  and their staff advisors seemed to have no idea what they were actually charging Maxwell with. But they had no problem sentencing him. Gun owners, and all Americans should be outraged.

OFF is committed to continuing Maxwell’s defense. We are shocked and disgusted by the treatment he received by the staff and the students of WOU,

We ask your continued support of our legal battle for Jeff Maxwell. We promised Jeff what he promised the men he served with. We will not leave him behind.

OFF and Mr. Maxwell have been joined by some Oregon representatives in their legal fight against the university systems blatant assault on the lawful exercise of the 2nd Amendment. Just like the Heller case, the law is on the side of the lawful firearm owner. This case may be the cassus belli necessary to finally establish that a persons rights do not end when a Politburo of academicians say they do. University beaurocrats can not, and will not, override the law of the land. It is a fight long in coming, and one worth fighting.

(Massive h/t and much thanks to LC Mike M for the heads up and extensive background, as well as the link to the Oregon statutes.)

138 comments

  1. 51

    Interpretive Clog Dancer sez:

    And yet all I keep hearing is that this is a Christian nation and that we’re not secular and so on. So if I’m subject to Christian “inspired” laws and values, then how am I free from it as a religion?

    because they are inspired by the 10 Commandments which, if you’re open minded enough to view them as the good rules of living that they are, aren’t really that difficult to abide by. Don’t kill, Don’t cheat on your mate, Don’t bear false witness, honor your mother and father…..you don’t really find those things that objectionable do you? You don’t have to practice the religion, there’s no law that mandates that….unless you live in one of the sharia societies where it’ll cost you your life….you know, the ones that you godless lefties keep trying to “dialogue” with.

  2. 52

    And yet all I keep hearing is that this is a Christian nation and that we’re not secular and so on. So if I’m subject to Christian “inspired” laws and values, then how am I free from it as a religion?

    And the historically correct answer was that the nation was founded by people of a Christian extraction who rightly feared the installation of any one sect of Christianity as the state-sponsored religion, but there was never an intent to deny Christianity’s role in forming the mores and culture which we shared as a people, or respecting the role of a Creator and his providence in the establishment of this nation and the guiding of its destiny.

  3. 53
    Cricket says:

    The Judeo-Christian laws and way of life that inspired the founders did separate one’s duty to God and one’s duty to the state. You don’t have to go to church; you don’t have to pay a church tax like they do in some countries in the EU, and you are not fined or assualted for speaking your mind about religion or the exercise of your conscience. However, the right to carry firearms has a historic precedent as the Consigliori pointed out. Not only that, the right to carry arms was to protect the citizens from rapacious government.

    I believe the difference between what you want to accomplish is by arbitrary laws being forced on people by consensus rather than by the informed consent of the governed. That would call for due process.

  4. 54

    Mike, that letter is certainly damning, isn’t it? I wonder if it will get “memory-holed” in the coming days.

  5. 55
    Interpretive Clog Dancer says:

    Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere sez:

    That sounds nothing like what I learned in my Philosophy of Law and History of Law courses.

    You can’t have it both ways. Either stop ridiculing college as a place of indoctrination, or don’t cite it.

    Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere sez:

    Of course, it is also contrary to most of the governing documents and compacts which predate the Constitution and Bill of Rights, as well.

    That wasn’t actually a response to my argument, but kudos for changing the subject. I was saying that laws don’t have any intrinsic value beyond what is assigned to them by man. Without our backing they are nothing but worthless words. What you are saying is that because there have been laws like ours before ours, then the laws do have intrinsic value, that they are somehow built into our system. But I merely point to previous examples of prejudice on this site that Islamists are born murderers. Either admit that Muslims are not automatically evil, or repeal the insinuation that people are automatically against murder. The stigma against murder is a result of a value system, not an automatic occurrence.

    Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere sez:

    Of course, if you want to go on denying history and fact, you can always rely on the empiracal empirical evidence that demonstrates a history of people risking EVERYTHING to come here and live under our system of law.

    You assume that I deny history if I read it as different then you. You see the fact that murder has been outlawed in nearly every governing document as evidence that human beings have a built in moral block against murder. I see it as evidence of a logical conclusion of humans everywhere that, in the interest of self-preservation, it is prudent to outlaw murder; if there are repercussion against your neighbor for killing you and taking your land, then your neighbor is less likely to do so.

    Our different ways of viewing history come up again in the way we interpret your empirical evidence. Although there is no such thing as empirical of people “risking EVERYTHING to come here.” What you’re thinking of is actually anecdotal evidence, but I digress. You claim that they come here to live under our system of law, but that is a one-sided view of things. Of course that view applies; the refugees from various oppressive regimes throughout history and the world that have fled here strongly support that view. But economic pressures have always played just as much of a part. The Irish Potato Famine springs to mind. Additionally, we need only look to our Southern border to see that economic pressures have always played a part in the flood of immigrants to America (Although this site never seems to be terribly supportive of their slice of the pie). And dare I bring up African slaves? I’m just asking for trouble, but it seems that a fair portion of our current population are descended from unwilling immigrants.

    Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere sez:

    The denial by man of natural and inalienable rights is a direct cause, and the fact that such rights exist unfettered here is why the constant immgration immigration from all the cesspools of the world to our verdant shores.

    This is yet another example of the sense of superiority that is so prevalent here. We may be the best; that’s subject to argument, based on what criteria you rank as the most important. But there are plenty of people who are able to come to America, but they stay put, for some reason.

    Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere sez:

    Undoubtely Undoubtedly, you would have found life in the nation’s early years simply intolerable.

    You assume that I would be exactly the same person. I am a product of my era. 230 years ago I would have been raised differently, been subjected to different environs.

    Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere sez:

    However, you are free to cast of the oppressive chains of this country’s freedom and exchange them for real oppression anywhere in the world.

    Thanks for the offer, but I think you’re confusing me with someone who is in favor of oppression. I don’t even know where you got that.

    Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere sez:

    With fewer fools attempting to change the blessing of liberty that so many of us were born into or set ourselves subject to, we would be free to enjoy those blessings and continue to be the shining city on the hill that you refuse to acknowledge and fail to understand.

    There’s that superiority cropping up again. I especially like the “shining city on the hill” bit. Once again, you assume that I’m anti-liberty based on the fact that I don’t believe it is inherent. If it was so inherent that people believed in what we believe, then why do your immigrants that you referred to earlier have to come here? Wouldn’t their country inherently be like ours?

    Jaybear, Colonel of Imperial Ancient Artillery sez:

    because they are inspired by the 10 Commandments which, if you’re open minded enough to view them as the good rules of living that they are, aren’t really that difficult to abide by. Don’t kill, Don’t cheat on your mate, Don’t bear false witness, honor your mother and father…..you don’t really find those things that objectionable do you? You don’t have to practice the religion, there’s no law that mandates that….unless you live in one of the sharia societies where it’ll cost you your life….you know, the ones that you godless lefties keep trying to “dialogue” with.

    I’ve more or less dealt with this already, but I want to reinstate that I don’t believe that the 10 Commandments are Christian. They are the logical conclusion derived from years of seeing what it is like when people do murder each other, or do steal. Additionally, you may want to recant your statement about our laws being based on the “10” Commandments, given that a couple of them are basically demands that we worship the Judeo-Christian god.

    Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere sez:

    And the historically correct answer was that the nation was founded by people of a Christian extraction who rightly feared the installation of any one sect of Christianity as the state-sponsored religion, but there was never an intent to deny Christianity’s role in forming the mores and culture which we shared as a people, or respecting the role of a Creator and his providence in the establishment of this nation and the guiding of its destiny.

    This is a somewhat unclear post, but I can guess that the “founder’s” you refer to are either the Puritans or the Founding Fathers. In the case of the Puritans you’re simply wrong. The Puritanical “Blue Laws” pervaded American life for decades, and still do to some amount, i.e. Sunday drinking laws. If it is the Founding Fathers that you refer to, the why call for the separation of Church and State? It seems odd to base a government on a Church, and then disown it. Unless, of course, you realize that allowing religious ideologues to be part of a government is a bad idea.

  6. 56
    L.C. Mope, Imperial Offsetter says:

    Here’s the windup… and the pitch…

    Clod The Dancer-

    The stigma against murder is a result of a value system, not an automatic occurrence.

    Some one want to take this softball?

  7. 57
    LC FreedomFighter says:

    So what else is new? Is this really a surprise to anyone?

  8. 58
    Interpretive Clog Dancer says:

    L.C. Mope, Imperial Offsetter @:

    Hypothetical situation; your parents condone murder. Your religious group condones murder. The environment you live in encourages and rewards murder. Do you think you would be a murderer?

    These situations don’t appear, because a society like that would fall apart faster then a Sarah Palin interview. So instead we have a society that is the exact opposite. And it perpetuates itself. If I changed condone to condemn, reward to punish, replaced “en” with “dis” and asked the same question the answer would be no. So our stigma against murder is not inborn (there may be some partial genetic coding that encourages it, but certainly not enough that it can’t be overcome be environment), it is absorbed. And the whole thing started because, like I said, societies that didn’t promote this fell apart.

  9. 59

    Interpretive Clog Dancer sez:

    The stigma against murder is a result of a value system, not an automatic occurrence.

    Sorry, but you’re wrong. I’d refer you to the numerous works of COL Grossman, but he too has his data from somebody else. I’d dig out the references if I had the time or energy, but I don’t (got transferred to the real early shift for a while).

    The summary of it is, however, that the unwillingness to kill a member of your own species is something that is hardwired into us. It’s even hardwired into animals.

    Until the military became aware of this (they didn’t really until after WWII), soldiers of all people, individuals with all the training and every possible excuse in the world for killing the other (he might kill them back if they didn’t), wasted the majority of their ammunition deliberately missing their targets because of this, if not failing to open fire at all.

    It was quite the revelation at the time.

    As a result, training was worked over from the bottom up and years were spent trying to find out how to “short” that hardwiring in order to create better soldiers.

    So no, it’s got nothing to do with a “value system.” It’s the “value system” instilled in modern soldiers through rigorous and carefully designed training that allows them to kill with any sort of efficiency at all.

    Next.

  10. 60
    L.C. Mope, Imperial Offsetter says:

    Idiotarian Clod-

    Hypothetical situation;… blah blah blah…

    Here’s a hypothetical situation- You have a post discussing moron that don’t trust a Marine and you want to talk religion. There is a OPEN thread above. Which pejorative should I use to describe such a moron?

    Mebbe I should get a consensus.

  11. 61
    Contrarian Dutchman says:

    Mike M @:
    thanks! that does answer my questions, although there is apparently no definitive case law yet the university is on very thin legal ice.

  12. 62
    LC Gonzman says:

    If it is the Founding Fathers that you refer to, the why call for the separation of Church and State?

    Please cite for me, in the governing documents extant from the time of the founding of this country (1776 – 1792 A.D.) where that clause appears.

    I’m not finding it.

    I do find a reference in the Constitution, Amendment I, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof” but the plain language of that is that “Congress shall not establish a National State Church, nor acknowledge an existing religion as the ‘Official” state religion, nor shall it prohibit the peaceable exercise of any Religion.”

  13. 63
    LC Gunsniper says:

    Hypothetical situation; your parents condone murder. Your religious group condones murder. The environment you live in encourages and rewards murder. Do you think you would be a murderer?

    I’d probably be a Trans-Jordanian Palestinian. No hypotheticals there.

  14. 64
    Interpretive Clog Dancer says:

    Emperor Misha I @:

    But then why are there murderers? Why are there honor killings? The simple answer is that there are ways to short the hard-wiring in the brain you were speaking of. Indeed, you stated that this is part of modern warfare. Anger, social context, etc., are various reasons that killings occur. If humans all had the same hard-wiring against murder then our murder rates should be uniform, or close to. But they’re not. My argument is that this has to do with the environment that people are raised in. Some cultures, even in America, simply cannot accept certain wrongs, and someone has to die. The discrepancies between them have to do with their value system.

    Additionally, I would argue that we have been promoting that value for so long that the hard-wiring in the brain that goes against killing another human has been selected for. Killers tend to get killed, so their DNA is selected against. Peter and Rosemary Grant have documented clearly that intense evolutionary pressure can create a dramatic shift in a population over a short period of time. Human’s have most definitely been selecting against killers for long enough to create this hard-wiring that you speak of.

    Lastly, (and this was just a little goodie that fell into my lap by accident) if the Armed Forces have trained their troops to be able to short this hard-wiring, then why would we not be afraid of them? After all, they no longer have that predisposition not to kill.

  15. 65
    Interpretive Clog Dancer says:

    LC Gonzman @:

    It’s a convenient phrase derived from Article Six, the First Amendment, and Thomas Jefferson.

    It’s been dealt with in numerous court cases, none of which ended in the government and the church being more involved with each other.

  16. 66

    Dutchman

    1. Are the university grounds public space or are they private property?

    They are public institutions.

    2. If the latter, could the university expel a student citing it’s rights as the proprietor of the grounds to bar access to anyone, similar to how a homeowner can deny access to anyone? Or would the permit law override such authority?

    If they were solely private, yes. Private property trumps in this situation. The owner has the right to determine who is or is not, and under what circumstances are, allowed in his property.

    3. If the university is a public body, would it have authority to “legislate” on a mattr like this? It seems well outside of the scope of theie activities.

    They don’t, and it is. They would though, if the statute didn’t explicitly say that CHL holders could carry on campus.

    4. If the university does have the authority to “legislate” this, how does that relate to state law, which is presumably of higher authority?

    It’s illegal. Now it’s time for them to have that lesson rammed home, painfully, so that they don’t forget it, and others can learn from their impaled heads lining the Apian Way example.

  17. 67

    Interpretive Clog Dancer sez:

    t’s a convenient phrase derived from Article Six, the First Amendment, and Thomas Jefferson.

    IIRC, the “separation of church and state” came from a letter Jefferson wrote to the Danbury baptists. That doesn’t make it law.

    Our founders knew the tyranny of a “state” religion…hence, CONGRESS shall make no law…

  18. 68

    Interpretive Clog Dancer sez:

    Lastly, (and this was just a little goodie that fell into my lap by accident) if the Armed Forces have trained their troops to be able to short this hard-wiring, then why would we not be afraid of them? After all, they no longer have that predisposition not to kill.

    If you had ANY inkling of what the military do, you wouldn’t even ask this question. I don’t fear OUR military. They will not fire on their own people, unless the need arises. I suspect that on 9-11, even the most gung-ho of our military would have had a difficult time shooting down an American airliner full of civilians. He would have, however, if necessary.

  19. 69
    Mike M says:

    Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere @ 54:

    that letter is certainly damning, isn’t it? I wonder if it will get “memory-holed” in the coming days.

    It probably would have, BisW, save for a couple of legislators who have picked it up and are using it as a cudgel…

    Hanna and Thatcher noted there have been several opinions issued by the Legislative Counsel’s Office in the past few years which show the University System is violating state law. One of those opinions from 2004 explained the Oregon University System does not have the authority to prohibit a person from carrying a permitted weapon on the campus of such schools, colleges, and institutions.

    Between their efforts and the stated intention by the Oregon Firearms Federation to test this rule with a federal lawsuit, this whole affair looks to be far from over.

  20. 70

    Lastly, (and this was just a little goodie that fell into my lap by accident) if the Armed Forces have trained their troops to be able to short this hard-wiring, then why would we not be afraid of them? After all, they no longer have that predisposition not to kill.

    You’ll have to read Grossman for the detailed answer, but the short version is that the rewiring overwrites the inhibition to kill in a combat setting, where it is morally acceptable and justified. The inhibition still exists, it’s just overcome in the specific case of armed conflict.

    As to your blather about the inhibition being a result of environmental conditioning, not so much. It exists in almost every species, regardless of environmental conditions. One thing Grossman points is out however is that some of the techniques which can overcome the inhibition are prevalent in today’s popular culture.

    It’s a convenient phrase derived from Article Six, the First Amendment, and Thomas Jefferson.

    It is a convenient phrase which is taken entirely beyond it’s context and meaning. It is used by libs to say that religion (lower case) can have no part in or impact on government, which is utter bull. Note that the Founders used Church (capital C) not church (lower case). They meant specific denominations or branches, not religion as a whole. The were all deeply devout people and their religious beliefs were paramount in shaping their philosophies. To assert that they would craft a founding socument completely void of the prime source of their beliefs is ludicrous. Beyond the direct reference in the Declaration to the Creator and Nature’s God, you need look no further than the signature page of the Constitution itself (The Founder’s own writings and their countless references to Divine Providence notwithstanding).

    “Done in Convention, by unanimous consent of the States present, the seventeenth day of September, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-seven…” emphasis mine.

  21. 71
    LC FreedomFighter says:

    I believe (in my opinion) that the disscussion between hard wired and values is really a non-issue. If you and you brother were born in a cave and had no knowledge of your parents, then you would most likely live peacably as most animals do. But in the event that your brother threatend your survival by stealing your food you might be inclined to kill him to ensure your food source as many in the animal kingdom have and contine. I believe that in todays society the natural survival rate has diminished due to the increase in civilized survivability. Then you have religion, yet not all religion condems the killing of your brother. Look at the myans who believed that their gods demanded sacrafice. Therefore religion only plays a small part in the moral obligation to not kill for food.

  22. 72

    You can’t have it both ways. Either stop ridiculing college as a place of indoctrination, or don’t cite it.

    Whoa! Did I touch a nerve there, Sparky? Try this one on for size. I took the courses not at college (which I never attended, BTW, I went to a university) but at law school, which is not the same thing. Its harder to divorce the subjects taught from reality, unlike colleges and universities, where instructors never have to give a thought to the consequences of their actions or of the policies they advocate.

    That wasn’t actually a response to my argument, but kudos for changing the subject.

    Yes, actually it was a response to your argument. You said:

    There’s no reason why any law is more inherently natural or inalienable than any other.

    I pointed out that your assertion was not true. Any serious study of the philosophy and history of law will provide you with proof. A simple reading of the various compacts, charters, and foundational documents spell it out very clearly. When I return from my appointment this evening, I will answer the rest of your rebuttal, and provide you with a few chewy morsels to work on. In the meantime, I’ll ask you to clarify what you meant by your reference to Thomas Jefferson in your comment to Gonzman above.

    And thanks for correcting my spelling. Its always nice to know that while I wouldn’t trust most students today with anything resembling responsible uses of real power, analysis requiring serious thought, or the proper use of dangerous instrumentalities, at least I know I can always hire one to proofread what I write and correct the spelling. :em02:

  23. 73
    Interpretive Clog Dancer says:

    LC 0311 crunchie I.M.H. sez:

    As to your blather about the inhibition being a result of environmental conditioning

    I said it was affected by it, not a direct result of.

    LC 0311 crunchie I.M.H. sez:

    It is used by libs to say that religion (lower case) can have no part in or impact on government, which is utter bull.

    NOT. I’ll go ahead and play on the prejudice against Muslims that pervades this site. According to Islamic law, honor killings are legit. So in a Muslim majority, their version of justice includes honor killings. So if they wrote out a Constitution and its based on Islam then honor killings are legal, even if the church and State are separated, or what have you, in the tradition of America that you advocate. And that’s why religion in government is bullshit. The zealots go crazy with it.

  24. 74

    Interpretive Clog Dancer sez:

    Emperor Misha I @:

    But then why are there murderers? Why are there honor killings? The simple answer is that there are ways to short the hard-wiring in the brain you were speaking of.

    Thank you for answering your own question. There are outliers. Outliers do not disprove the norm. I’m sure you’re aware of that. The second group you refer to, honor killings and suicide bombers to mention a few examples are, as you say, the result of conditioning. Just as the modern soldier’s ability to do his duty in spite of his natural hardwiring is the result of conditioning, albeit in a much more honorable way. Not to mention efficient and nuanced, or we’d have millions of vets rampaging through the streets murdering everybody on sight.

    But I fail to see your point, since you’ve just re-iterated mine: Aversion to killing is the natural state, not something that society teaches us as you started out saying. Animals don’t, as a rule, kill their own. They have no societal norms or higher thinking to teach them.

    The willingness or even desire to kill is either a result of psychosis or conditioning. Heck, even teaching somebody to kill in self-defense requires conditioning.

    Interpretive Clog Dancer sez:

    Additionally, I would argue that we have been promoting that value for so long that the hard-wiring in the brain that goes against killing another human has been selected for. Killers tend to get killed, so their DNA is selected against.

    Who came first, the hen or the egg?

    I’d counter-argue that killers, the most efficient ones, tend to be the only ones coming out on top. The dead ones who couldn’t aren’t around to procreate. So it would seem to me that the very best killers would end up ruling the DNA pool.

    Yes, killers get killed at times. But only by killers that are even better at killing. They certainly don’t tend to end up dead at the hands of people who hesitate when their finger is on the proverbial trigger. The latter tend to be very dead before they ever make the decision to kill.

    For your DNA selectivity argument to make sense, we would have to assume a long line, from the most primitive humans right after Creation up until now, where the weakest, most hesitant, most pacifistic members somehow won the Survival of the Fittest Contest against individuals who could kill without hesitation and remorse. That just doesn’t make sense.

    On the other hand, you could then forward the argument that, according to my theory, we ought to be a planet filled with natural born killers by now, which we plainly aren’t. I don’t honestly know how to answer that one, because it’s a good point. A trait, willingness and lack of remorse at killing, somehow lost to the opposite, a hardwired aversion to same.

    The only explanation I can find is that it’s outside of the realm of DNA traits, it’s just something that we’re born with regardless of our parents. It’s an unwillingness to eliminate what is considered “same” that we can’t help without later conditioning. Possibly because we, after we’re born in our vulnerable phase where we cannot care for ourselves, bond so strongly with our caretakers who are “same.”

    It’s a fascinating subject to be sure.

  25. 75
    Interpretive Clog Dancer says:

    Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere sez:

    Whoa! Did I touch a nerve there, Sparky? Try this one on for size. I took the courses not at college (which I never attended, BTW, I went to a university) but at law school, which is not the same thing. Its harder to divorce the subjects taught from reality, unlike colleges and universities, where instructors never have to give a thought to the consequences of their actions or of the policies they advocate.

    Can you say semantics? Technically speaking, I’m at a University, but the point holds for “Institution of Higher Learning” in general. Don’t pull College vs. University vs. Grad School, their all taught at the same place.

    Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere sez:

    I pointed out that your assertion was not true. Any serious study of the philosophy and history of law will provide you with proof. A simple reading of the various compacts, charters, and foundational documents spell it out very clearly.

    And I responded to it. I said:

    Without our backing they are nothing but worthless words. What you are saying is that because there have been laws like ours before ours, then the laws do have intrinsic value, that they are somehow built into our system. But I merely point to previous examples of prejudice on this site that Islamists are born murderers. Either admit that Muslims are not automatically evil, or repeal the insinuation that people are automatically against murder. The stigma against murder is a result of a value system, not an automatic occurrence.

    I stand by it. I expand upon this answer by saying that charters and compacts only occur when there is a society to make them. In the type of society that would be disinclined to make a compact or a charter (Huns, and so forth) such laws would likely be less popular. Your serious study can’t study that which isn’t there.

  26. 76
    Princess Natasha, Uber-Whore of Zion says:

    Oh my fucking God but this kommunisticheskii parashnik is about to piss me the hell off. What is so difficult to understand about the right to life being the foundation for all other rights and laws? You cannot have, or impose, or obey any laws or enjoy any other rights if your ass is not alive. All other rights should be subordinate to it.

    However, and that is what brings leftards and psycho splodeydopes together: these abysmal retards do not think that life is a fundamental right. They presume, for one stupid reason or another, that they are at liberty to dispose of others’ lives, not in retaliation for actual INITIATION of force, but in accordance with some made-up rules, be it the vacuous postulates of Marx or the insane ravings of Mohammed.

    You, my little liberal pizdyuk, do not seem to distinguish rights from laws. Nor can you distinguish the fundamental from the derivative. Nor can you figure out that ANY collectivist dogma, be it religion or otherwise, will land you in exactly the same place: some form of a killing ground. A mass one. The zealots do indeed go crazy with it. Just look at your beloved commies.

  27. 77
    Princess Natasha, Uber-Whore of Zion says:

    WTF do these kids major in, anyway? It sure as fuck isn’t Engineering. And thank God for that!

  28. 78
    Interpretive Clog Dancer says:

    Princess Natasha, Uber-Whore of Zion sez:

    What is so difficult to understand about the right to life being the foundation for all other rights and laws?

    do not seem to distinguish rights from laws.

    Yes, that is what I’ve been saying. These rights were derived from a collective need to survive, not an inherent right. There are no rights so far as natural selection is concerned. Natural selection has selected for them, not because it was destiny, but because it offered the best chance for survival.

    WTF do these kids major in, anyway? It sure as fuck isn’t Engineering. And thank God for that!

    This made me especially chuckle, since I’m majoring in Civil Engineering. Although I am thinking of switching to Mechanical.

  29. 79
    LC hilljohnny says:

    Interpretive Clog Dancer sez:

    That wasn’t actually a response to my argument, but kudos for changing the subject. I was saying that laws don’t have any intrinsic value beyond what is assigned to them by man.

    ICD actually you started by talking about rights. the amendments to the constitution are not law but the basis for law. rights are what you may not be forbidden, laws are what you may not do. you have the right to speak your opinion, it is against the law to lie ( libel, slander). it is your right to defend your person and to have the means to do so. you have the right to any religious belief you choose. you have the right to assemble (though how one person can do this is beyond me?? christmas toys??). laws that violate our rights are the problem.

  30. 80

    Mechanical engineers build weapons, Civil engineers build targets :em93:

  31. 81

    Interpretive Clog Dancer sez:

    Technically speaking, I’m at a University, but the point holds for “Institution of Higher Learning” in general. Don’t pull College vs. University vs. Grad School, their all taught at the same place.

    Um…wrong again. You can have a two-year college (as in a community college), a four-year college, a four-year university (can you tell me the difference between college and university without looking them up?), a law school, a medical school (both specialty schools). Then you have graduate school, which cannot be taught at a two-year college, btw.

  32. 82

    Technically speaking, I’m at a University, but the point holds for “Institution of Higher Learning” in general. Don’t pull College vs. University vs. Grad School, their all taught at the same place.

    Oh, and let us not forget doctoral programs, and now we have distance learning, where students never need to grace the doorway of a classroom. Those can also be 2-year or 4-year, and they can also include grad school, and post-grad.

  33. 83
    Interpretive Clog Dancer says:

    LC SkyeChild G.L.O.R., Imperial Grammar Hun @:

    Yes, a University has a grad program. I got curious about that years ago. My point is that if I was at a four year college, or if I was in a grad program, you would still say I was in an indoctrination program. That’s why its all semantics.

  34. 84

    Interpretive Clog Dancer sez:

    My point is that if I was at a four year college, or if I was in a grad program

    You are not making yourself clear. These are two entirely different beasts.

    And, yes, depending on which college or university you attend, you ARE being indoctrinated. A university such as the one I work at is far more conservative than, say…Berzerkeley…

    Also, not only do universities offer graduate programs (and some, doctoral programs), a university (if it’s a true university, and not some uni wannabe) consists of various colleges (College of Arts and Sciences, College of Business, College of Engineering, etc.)

  35. 85
    LC Fmwoods01 says:

    Semantics be damned Cloggy, Perhaps the the whole point boils down to the “discipline” encouraged by the higher institutes of learning. The hand-wringing intellectuals with a liberal discipline vs the fist-pounding intellectuals with a conservative discipline vs the grenade throwing intellectuals with a hard knocks discipline.

    Amuse me a little, if you will. Awhile back I came to your defense with the following statement:

    LC Fmwoods01 :
    January 29, 2009 at 8:46 am

    ICD was tedious back when he called himself Halliburton. I have noticed some maturity over a short period of six months. If he is fresh out of the librul indoctrination center as he claims, then credit must be given for attempting to seek out Right-Wing blogs for an alternate opinion. When one wears the librul issued rose colored glasses and realizes that life is not as it appears to be, it may take a little while (and a fisking or two) to nudge the clue bereft back to reality. We can’t change their world view on a mass level, but if they come here for sincere intellectual debate it should be our goal to accommodate them unless they prove to be too dense to grasp simple concepts.
    Perhaps a probationary period under BC’s tutelage in the Imperial Dungeon is in order. ICD, to argue for the sake of arguing gets old quick. It is a typical ploy of the libtards when they don’t have a dog in the hunt. Sorry about your Baltimore upbringing. You should be praising all that is Holy that you were blessed to be born in the greatest place at the greatest time in the world. For that, you can thank conservative values, for they shaped what the left so fervently is trying to destroy.

    My vote: present

    D’

    Pick this apart for me.

    D’

  36. 86
    LC Gonzman says:

    Interpretive Clog Dancer sez:

    LC Gonzman @:
    It’s a convenient phrase derived from Article Six, the First Amendment, and Thomas Jefferson.

    In other words, not actually there, though cited like sacred writ by libtards such as yourself.

  37. 87
    Sir Guido Cabrone. LC, M.o.P. says:

    Boss,

    On the other hand, you could then forward the argument that, according to my theory, we ought to be a planet filled with natural born killers by now, which we plainly aren’t. I don’t honestly know how to answer that one, because it’s a good point. A trait, willingness and lack of remorse at killing, somehow lost to the opposite, a hardwired aversion to same.

    Just a thought on this. For an example, consider Theodore Bundy, conscienceless killer, apparently from an early age. He never fathered a child, (as far as anyone knows, at least), until he was imprisoned and sentenced to death. Mostly because he tended to kill off his sex partners…

    Now, for my logical jump. (Don’t ask me to leave a trail of logical breadcrumbs from there to here, the drugs are affecting my thought processes too much…)

    A “born killer”, would tend to destroy his/her own offspring, (or potential parent of said offspring), at an early age, thus preventing any gene combination which might make such behavior inherent from being passed on to succeeding generations.

    Just a thud.

  38. 88
    Sir Guido Cabrone. LC, M.o.P. says:

    Only one edit, huh? Didn’t know that!

    A “born killer”, would tend to destroy his/her own offspring, (or potential parent of said offspring), at an early age, thus preventing any gene combination which might make such behavior inherent from being passed on to succeeding generations.

    This does, of course, only apply to the male side of the species. The options for a female would, of course, be different. (Witness the Black Widow spider and Praying Mantis for examples.)

  39. 89
    LC Spare Parts says:

    Intentional Crap Duplicator and his ilk can’t stand the irrefutable Fact that all life is based on Competition. It is niether easy nor pleasant. So his government is attempting to make it all better by replacing it with a nursery school sandbox. He will have his pail filled with taxes confiscated from the minority of adults who are competent because subsidy of his deficiencies by others is his due. Jean Jaques Rousseau said so. That’s what is taught in universities.
    The professoriat and their colleagues in D.C. are extremely pleased with themselves as they shove socialism down our throats and insult us. We’ll see who is laughing when they discover that no level of taxation can ever pay for their profligacy, and nobody can afford the luxury of believing the infantile bilge enemating from their lecture halls and the committee rooms on Capitol Hill. No institution can repeal Reality; nihilists notwithstanding.
    A college degree is a ticket of admission to the managerial class of the labor market. It has no other value. Were this not true, why would Mr. Maxwell et.al. waste the time and money?

  40. 90
    Interpretive Clog Dancer says:

    Emperor Misha I @:
    Sorry about the delay on this one. I somehow completely missed the post.

    Emperor Misha I sez:

    Thank you for answering your own question. There are outliers. Outliers do not disprove the norm. I’m sure you’re aware of that. The second group you refer to, honor killings and suicide bombers to mention a few examples are, as you say, the result of conditioning. Just as the modern soldier’s ability to do his duty in spite of his natural hardwiring is the result of conditioning, albeit in a much more honorable way. Not to mention efficient and nuanced, or we’d have millions of vets rampaging through the streets murdering everybody on sight.

    I wasn’t advocating outliers. Obviously there are going to be outliers. I was pointing out that if the military can short this hardwiring, then so can other people. A culture can do it, no indoctrination center necessary. Suicide bombers come from somewhere. So the opposite can be true as well. If we are born with a certain amount of predisposition against killing other human beings the environment we are placed in can affect whether that will be amplified or diminished. Our society amplifies it, that is obvious. But we could just as easily erase it, thus proving my original point; laws are a human contraption that we, as a society, decide to follow.

    Emperor Misha I sez:

    But I fail to see your point, since you’ve just re-iterated mine: Aversion to killing is the natural state, not something that society teaches us as you started out saying. Animals don’t, as a rule, kill their own. They have no societal norms or higher thinking to teach them.

    The willingness or even desire to kill is either a result of psychosis or conditioning. Heck, even teaching somebody to kill in self-defense requires conditioning.

    I’m just saying it again for redundancies sake. Our natural aversion to killing can be perverted dependent upon what we are exposed to.

    Emperor Misha I sez:

    Who came first, the hen or the egg?

    I’d counter-argue that killers, the most efficient ones, tend to be the only ones coming out on top. The dead ones who couldn’t aren’t around to procreate. So it would seem to me that the very best killers would end up ruling the DNA pool.

    Yes, killers get killed at times. But only by killers that are even better at killing. They certainly don’t tend to end up dead at the hands of people who hesitate when their finger is on the proverbial trigger. The latter tend to be very dead before they ever make the decision to kill.

    For the record, I’ve always held that it was the egg.

    You say that killers only get killed by better killers, but that only takes into account a 1v1, winner takes all environment. Humans are social creatures, and it was the rare one that could survive on its own. If one tribal human kills another in the tribe just for the hell of it, the rest of the tribe is naturally going to get a little nervous. The killer can probably expect some repercussions. This is the kind of thing that selects against murder.

    Emperor Misha I sez:

    For your DNA selectivity argument to make sense, we would have to assume a long line, from the most primitive humans right after Creation up until now, where the weakest, most hesitant, most pacifistic members somehow won the Survival of the Fittest Contest against individuals who could kill without hesitation and remorse. That just doesn’t make sense.

    Of course you’re right, if that was what I was saying. If there are two strong humans in a small group, one of which has a tendency to kill, on of which does not, then the one that kills may end up being an outcast, or have deadly repercussions brought against him by the tribe, thus ensuring to some degree that he will not reproduce. A tendency to kill is not exclusive from bad traits, and a tendency to be strong does not necessarily match with that tendency to kill. The normal course of human evolution can take part without including this “killer” tendency, especially as it gets more and more weeded out.

    Emperor Misha I sez:

    On the other hand, you could then forward the argument that, according to my theory, we ought to be a planet filled with natural born killers by now, which we plainly aren’t. I don’t honestly know how to answer that one, because it’s a good point. A trait, willingness and lack of remorse at killing, somehow lost to the opposite, a hardwired aversion to same.

    Sir Guido Cabrone. LC, M.o.P. actually already handled one possible reason for this, although I mentioned a different one above. There’s most likely a multitude of reasons.

    Emperor Misha I sez:

    The only explanation I can find is that it’s outside of the realm of DNA traits, it’s just something that we’re born with regardless of our parents. It’s an unwillingness to eliminate what is considered “same” that we can’t help without later conditioning. Possibly because we, after we’re born in our vulnerable phase where we cannot care for ourselves, bond so strongly with our caretakers who are “same.”

    It’s a fascinating subject to be sure.

    I just fail to see how that’s possible, unless you consider some universal epi-genetic cover. Like if breathing oxygen, or drinking water turns on certain transcription factors that block the manufacture of some protein that causes us to kill (or the other way around). But your point about us bonding with people who are “same” was something I was saying, that it is culturally inherent, not all humanly inherent.
    And it is very fascinating indeed.

    LC Fmwoods01 @:
    I’m sorry, I just don’t know what you’re asking me to do.

  41. 91

    Interpretive Clog Dancer sez:

    I’ve more or less dealt with this already, but I want to reinstate that I don’t believe that the 10 Commandments are Christian. They are the logical conclusion derived from years of seeing what it is like when people do murder each other, or do steal. Additionally, you may want to recant your statement about our laws being based on the “10? Commandments, given that a couple of them are basically demands that we worship the Judeo-Christian god.

    well technically you’re right as Christ wasn’t born when Moses received the tablets with the Commandments on them…..The Christian church didn’t come into being until much later.

    As for them being a logical conclusion derived from human experience……can we re post them in courtrooms and state offices now?

    I won’t recant my statement, as I didn’t say that our laws were based on the 10 commandments. What I said was:

    because they are inspired by the 10 Commandments which, if you’re open minded enough to view them as the good rules of living that they are, aren’t really that difficult to abide by.

    inspired by….not based on….neither the old English system that our laws are based on nor our Constitution use the Commandments for a foundation….but God given rights are addressed in both the Magna Carta AND the US Constitution. Our entire legal system and our democratic/Republic form of government runs on that system.

  42. 92
    Darth Bacon says:

    Just out of curiosity, Infernal Clod Dumper, since you are arguing against the existence of certain types of genetically-inscribed traits…

    Are you one of the people who thinks certain traits like the so-called ‘fight or flight’ reflex, or say, the urge to bear children, are learned? Would you make the same dispositive argument concerning gender or sexual orientation?

    Just wonderin’ what flavor of Kool Aid they’re feeding you down on campus these days…

  43. 93
    Interpretive Clog Dancer says:

    Darth Bacon sez:

    Just out of curiosity, Infernal Clod Dumper, since you are arguing against the existence of certain types of genetically-inscribed traits…
    Are you one of the people who thinks certain traits like the so-called ‘fight or flight’ reflex, or say, the urge to bear children, are learned? Would you make the same dispositive argument concerning gender or sexual orientation?
    Just wonderin’ what flavor of Kool Aid they’re feeding you down on campus these days…

    Argh, I was arguing nothing so simplistic. There’s two sides to the coin. Nature and Nurture both have legitimate, scientific claims to explaining people’s behavior. I’m saying that certain instilled Nature’s can, in fact, be overridden by the Nurture portion. Fight or Flight and the urge to bear children are so basic that they are affected much less by Nurture. But then, stuff like liberalism vs. conservatism has little grounding in the genetic code, that’s mostly learned behavior. As for sexual orientation, I’ve heard some evidence for both sides of the coin. It’s been noted that the further down the line you get in terms of sons, the more likely they are to have a flipped orientation (i.e. son 5 is more likely to be gay than son 1), but that is actually more environmental then genetic.

  44. 94

    Clod Humper

    You’ve said several times that laws are a man made construct that we choose to live by, when your original spew was against “God given rights”. As has been said by a few posters, laws and rights are not the same. Rights pre-exist and are God given. They are not granted by a government, a tribe, a society. They can not be taken away. Laws are man made. They can infringe on a mans free exercise of his right, but they can not take that right away. Rights trump laws. Laws can therefore be immoral, regardless of whether a society agrees to abide by them or not. The Enabling Acts and the Holocaust, as well as Stalin’s purges and Pol Pots genocide were all legal, allowed by laws their respective societies agreed to abide by. That does not make them moral. The Constitution codified the pre-existence of God given (Inalienable as stated in the Declaration) rights, and the immorality of laws which deny them. It restricts the government from infringing on them. A law passed by man that infringes on those rights therefore becomes not only immoral, but illegal as well. The Constitution creates a system of government that acknowledges the simple truth that there is a higher power than man and mans constructs, and that even governments must suborn themselves to that power, to God, by the act of allowing man the exercise of his free will, unimpeded by immoral laws.

    That is the Judeo-Christian philosophy which the Founders enshrined in our Constitution. That is not my beliefs influencing my reading of the Constitution, that is the Constitution and the historical fact molding my beliefs. Your ignorance of this concept will prevent you from ever understanding the true beauty of our grand experiment, the inherent superiority of our Republic. Until you can understand that, then you will continue to be deluded and mislead by the liberal academicians which you have turned your critical thinking over to.

  45. 95
    Interpretive Clog Dancer says:

    LC 0311 crunchie I.M.H. sez:

    Rights pre-exist and are God given.

    Herein lies the crux of the argument. If these rights really do pre-exist and are god given, as you say, then why do we need laws to protect them? If our country really is nothing more then a bunch of Judeo-Christian philosophies “enshrined in our Constitution” then why are we any better then a religious state? I believe that America is based on the rights of man as defined by man, in order to protect man. I hate to think that we do what we do because we think we are beholden to some higher power.

  46. 96
    Darth Bacon says:

    Dungbeetle,

    You argue for the influence of both genetics and environment.

    What you avoided, in my last post to you, was to address the notion (you instead chose to erect and demolish the straw-man issue of the origin of these rights- i.e. from where they originate) of inalienable rights.

    The point- your avoidance notwithstanding- was that our rights (what you might even call ‘human rights’) exist as distinct from any mere statutory construct. They are our due, and are immutable.

    You may have noticed- but I wouldn’t be surprised if you had not- that rather than the Constitution and Bill Of Rights proscribing certain things, they are in fact affirmative documents. Affirmative of man’s immutable rights. How those rights are described, and which are given primacy, is in fact an act of man. But the rights themselves are external to governments and legislatures.

  47. 97

    If these rights really do pre-exist and are god given, as you say, then why do we need laws to protect them?

    You didn’t read my comment did you? Laws don’t exist to protect our rights. They exist to make the immoral act of infringing on our rights illegal. We are responsible for protecting our rights. Our laws are written to prevent a tyrannical government from creating laws which allow it to do as it pleases. You yourself said that laws have validity because people agree to abide by them. By making immoral government acts illegal, we as a people said that we agree not to participate in a government which will trample our rights. Because they are God given does not mean that man, and mans institutions, can not use their free will and decide to deny those rights.

    If our country really is nothing more then a bunch of Judeo-Christian philosophies “enshrined in our Constitution” then why are we any better then a religious state?

    We ARE a religious state. Except that I know that you are implying that a religious state is a bad thing, such as the Taliban where people are dictated to and told how to worship. No, the United States are not a religious state where the government dictates our worship. But, yes we ARE a state founded on, and guided by religious concepts. That is not a bad thing as you imply.

    I believe that America is based on the rights of man as defined by man, in order to protect man.

    There is the fundamental fallacy of your argument. If the rights of man are defined by man, then they can be redefined by man. They are then not rights, but privileges granted by man (acting through government). Privileges granted are privileges which can, and will be taken away. Rights can not be taken away. Infringed, trampled, yes. Taken away, never.

    I hate to think that we do what we do because we think we are beholden to some higher power.

    Why is that Clod? I really don’t believe that you are that arrogant as to believe that we; mankind, with all of our imperfections and failings, are the sole arbitrator of all things.

  48. 98

    To expand on my last point, if man is the sole arbitrator of right and wrong, and is not beholden to a higher power, than any atrocity, no matter how evil, is justified if man says it is. Man is way to fickle and predisposed to evil to possess that kind of power.

  49. 99
    Mike M says:

    Interpretive Clog Dancer @ 95:

    I hate to think that we do what we do because we think we are beholden to some higher power.

    You made me think of this, performed for outspoken Iraq Liberation critic Pope Benedict on the occasion of his visit to the White House. I’m sure the choice wasn’t made randomly. It was one of GWB’s finest moments.

  50. 100
    Darth Bacon says:

    Infinitesimal Clown Dingleberry says…

    If these rights really do pre-exist and are god given, as you say, then why do we need laws to protect them?

    Eternal vigilance, price of freedom, etc.

    Y’see, some basis is necessary for all systems. Equality of man being one of those little issues the Framers allowed themselves to be “distracted” by (that’s what your sides calls ‘debating’, now. Distractions.) by, we need a framework upon which to base the legal system, so that it may be applied with some measure of consistency.

    If our country really is nothing more then a bunch of Judeo-Christian philosophies “enshrined in our Constitution” then why are we any better then a religious state?

    Are you hinting at the ridiculous college-kid notion of “The Christian Theocrats are just as bad as the other (obviously Moslem) Theocrats!1!”?

    It’s really quite simple, Gumby. In our ‘religious state’, plurality, equality, and tolerance are enshrined in law as a result of those Judeo-Christian influenced policies. You know, those things you liberals pretend to be so concerned with?

    Other religious states- the benighted Moslem ones, to be more specific- are characterized by a violent intolerance of plurality and equality, as enshrined in their religiously-influenced documents of state.

    See what I did there, Junior? I made a dreaded ‘value judgement’!

    That’s right- I said one set of beliefs is superior to another. How can I do such a thing, you’re probably asking? Simple. One set of beliefs- while it’s implementation may not always live up to its ideals- is good. That set of beliefs holds that all are due the same consideration under the laws of society. The other set of beliefs holds the opposite. In fact, it holds that one set of believers within that system are superior to another, in spite of shared belief. One system gives birth to the society that has cured more diseases, designed more computers, and generally extended life for all mankind. The other, by stark contrast, confers upon it’s hapless minions a world of limitation and privation. It dictates that they adopt the clothing, names, and religious custom of 7th century Arabs. It dictates that they pray in Arabic. It even dictates that they point themselves toward Araby as the most basic part of worship.

    Don’t play bullshit games, kid. We’ve played ’em all and won.

    I believe that America is based on the rights of man as defined by man, in order to protect man.

    Nice knack for the obvious, kid. Did you attend the Barack Obama Academy Of Moving Your Lips Without Saying Anything? Actually, man is to protect himself. Our founding documents were meant as a bulwark against an encroaching state.

    I hate to think that we do what we do because we think we are beholden to some higher power.

    Yes, I’m sure you would. I would love for it to be so, even if only for the sake of annoying evangelical atheists like yourself.

    What you’re unable or unwilling to understand is that even though our laws are undeniably Judeo-Christian in nature and origin, that it’s not because of anyone’s allegiance to a religion that they would uphold those things.

    It’s out of allegiance to the rule of law, you brainless assloaf. The Framers, in acknowledging the origins of their philosophies, were doing just that. If, as you seem to be worried, they were somehow weaving it in for the sake of establishing their religion as official, then they would have done so with the same excruciatingly precise language that they did everything else.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.