Here, starting at 41:09. The next witnesses, William Olson, also testified on Second Amendment issues. After that, the three Senators at the hearing (Schumer, Sessions, and Hatch) asked questions to some of the witnesses, including Olson and me.
Here, starting at 41:09. The next witnesses, William Olson, also testified on Second Amendment issues. After that, the three Senators at the hearing (Schumer, Sessions, and Hatch) asked questions to some of the witnesses, including Olson and me.
David Welker says:
I don’t really know if there is much value to having witnesses testify. I would rather hear more from the nominee.
It is sort of like the opening statements of Senators. It strikes me as mostly a waste of time.
July 1, 2010, 11:44 pmbee says:
I confessed I listened just to see whether Kopel would utter the phrase “the bigoted confines of an Upper West Side cocktail party in Manhattan” in Congress. I was disappointed he did not, but not surprised. Those bigoted Upper West Siders are a nefarious lot and would stoop to any low to exact revenge, right David?
July 2, 2010, 1:25 amlgm says:
You lost me when you complained that Kagan refused to treat the Declaration of Independence as US law the same way the Constitution is. You know full well it is not. Trying to confuse this issue on camera is sleazy, unless you don’t know better, in which case it’s incompetent.
July 2, 2010, 1:29 amBleh says:
Since the Declaration of Independence was written by British subjects… Isn’t it a foreign source?
July 2, 2010, 2:08 amChris W says:
YOU [lgm] lost me.
If I recall correctly SG Kagan said that, under certain circumstances, it is appropriate to look at state or international law to inform herself on how others viewed certain issues.
Many of the same people who wrote the Constitution had, just a few years before, signed the Declaration of Independence. My understanding of David’s argument was: shouldn’t the framers’ views on which rights they believed were “inalienable” carry at least as much weight?
July 2, 2010, 2:43 amS says:
What a vapid presentation.
July 2, 2010, 6:36 amGuy says:
I don’t understand why her hesitation to talk about natural rights hurts her. We’re talking about the foundational theory of SDP here, except from an extraconstitutional source, and her hesitation to embrace it as legally binding makes her nomination questionable?
July 2, 2010, 7:07 amGuy says:
Such as the definition of what an ambassador is or how to interpret the FSIA, I’m sure she thinks it can be useful in interpreting the Eighth Amendment, for example, too, but she can’t say that. She was being asked to choose between embracing a sweeping natural law theory of SDP (making her activist) and saying that RKBA is not such a right (also making her activist). In other words, the only smart option was to not answer.
July 2, 2010, 7:11 amKharn says:
If our founding fathers considered a right so critical they took up arms against the Crown to get it back, I’d consider it fundamental to American society.
July 2, 2010, 7:21 amORID says:
Except every President dates back their proclamations not to the Constitution but to the Declaration of Independence (I learned that from this website). Denying the Declaration of Independence is like denying the Federalist Papers. Sure, the Federalist Paper’s don’t secure rights, but they are a foundational document key to understanding the Constitution. The right to “life, liberty and property” is embedded in the 5th amendment. Coburn should’ve pressed her on that point as well. Additionally there is substantial case-law… I guess the Supreme Court doesn’t make “settled law”?
Can I present Meyer v. Nebraska (262 US 390 at 399):
Perhaps Yick Wo vs. Hopkins (118 US 356 at 370)
Why, here’s a dissent signed onto by Marshall (Paul vs. Davis, 424 US 693 at 722):
July 2, 2010, 8:30 amStrict says:
The Federalist Papers were indeed drafted by British “subjects.” I’m not sure if there was a legal difference at the time between being British “subject” and a British “citizen.”
However, opponents of any recourse to “foreign law” by American judges do not consider British law to be “foreign law.”
July 2, 2010, 8:50 amBama 1L says:
I date my age to my birthdate, but I do hope my acts for the first few years carry no weight as precedent!
July 2, 2010, 9:17 amDavid M. Nieporent says:
To be more precise, do not consider pre-revolutionary British law to be foreign law – just as 5th circuit decisions before 1981 are considered binding precedent in the 11th circuit.
July 2, 2010, 9:33 amDavid M. Nieporent says:
As usual, I could not disagree more with Welker. I would prefer we go back to historical custom of not having nominees testify at all. The nominee’s record speaks for itself (or ought to), and the nominee can’t/won’t answer specific questions about his/her intentions and views. (And if he/she did, those answers wouldn’t be binding anyway.) Any answers will just be self-serving anyway.
Having witnesses testify, on the other hand, can be quite useful, and is nothing like the opening statements of the bloviators. In theory, the purpose of a hearing is for the committee to learn something in order to help them make a decision. Their own statements do not serve that goal – but the testimony of actual witnesses (fact or expert) can.
July 2, 2010, 9:42 amORID says:
The witness list is missing a few people. How about Bruce Reed of the DLC. Kagan was acting as her assistance and was writing his memo’s. Why isn’t he going to testify on her behalf? How about the number of other Democratic political folk who worked under her at the White House? How about peers who worked at the OLC with her?
It’s clear the Democrats are white-washing her record… I suspect Republicans are going along with it because they like her views on executive power.
July 2, 2010, 10:09 amzuch says:
… which is a polemic (or maybe a diatribe). Not a legal document.
Cheers,
July 2, 2010, 11:13 amyankee says:
The Federalist Papers analogy sure isn’t getting you anywhere with me. The Federalist was a series of newspaper editorials designed to get reader to support the proposed constitution: essentially a sales document. It was written by people who were involved in writing the Constitution, and as such can be a useful source of insight in some circumstances, but it is hardly a “key” “foundational document.”
As for the Declaration, why would it be U.S. law in any sense? The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union were a foundational document in establishing this nation, but they aren’t law anymore because they were superseded by the Constitution. Why wasn’t the Declaration superseded by the Articles, and then by the Constitution?
July 2, 2010, 11:26 amlgm says:
Not exactly. Senator Grassley asked Kagan to say that the right to own guns is one of those “inalienable rights” in the declaration. He then asked whether that, rather than the second amendment, was the source of Americans’ right to arm ourselves. It seems that the wingnuts, Kopel included, are trying to give the Declaration the status of US law, which it doesn’t have.
July 2, 2010, 11:27 amyankee says:
I think the part of the document can be said to have legal effect:
Otherwise it’s all polemic.
July 2, 2010, 11:29 amNunzio says:
I don’t think the argument “Your honor, prohibiting me from smoking pot is an infringment of my inalienable right to pursue happiness” would get too far. But I’m all for trying.
July 2, 2010, 11:53 amKamal says:
It sounds like Kopel are trying to elucidate the fact that Kagan probably believes that it’s possible for us to gain knowledge over the centuries and that perhaps modern thinking of justice, be it international or local, carries more weight than less informed thinking.
July 2, 2010, 12:08 pmKamal says:
Or the argument that someone else’s happiness infringes on my happiness (DOMA).
July 2, 2010, 12:16 pmBarb says:
Good job, Mr. K.
Good grief! The nominee is going to be evasive and parse her remarks so that we think she never had an opinion on anything of controversy. I welcome witnesses like Koppel who know her opinions by her past advocacies and judgments –who recognize that a sense of humor shouldn’t be our first criterion for a life-time appointment to the court. We can bet anyone Obama appoints is a sure vote for gay marriage, abortion, and against gun rights –in any cases on these issues. We know she opposed ROTC on college campuses for no good reason.
Mr. Kopel’s linked testimony here is the first I’ve paid any attention to re: Kagan because it’s so frustrating to have the most pro-abortion pres. in Am. history (who even supports late term abortion) appointing judges with a democratic majority.
Some young conservatives and Christians I know let themselves be outnumbered in the last election–uselessly voting for 3rd party candidates, rejecting McCain as liberal himself, heedless of the impact on the Supreme Court for decades. Some didn’t bother to vote at all. Of course, my state was screwed up by election boards who lack honesty and a liberal sec’y of state in charge of all kinds of provisional and absentee ballot and “early voting” mess-ups. If the people in charge of our election boards don’t value honesty (and some don’t) we can’t guarantee honest elections.
If our judges don’t recognize the humanity and rights of the pre-born child (and the liberal ones appointed by Obama don’t), how can we call them “just?” The woman’s rights? She has rights and ways of preventing pregnancy, not a right to kill a child. The pro-abortion argument should be about abortion only for rape and life of mother. The original Roe of Roe Vs. Wade claimed to be a rape victim to get the sympathy of the court, and she was not. As for the unwanted infant’s life not being worth anything: People want to adopt them.
An adopted child now grown, businessman Iott, is running against Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur for Congress –who has presided over the continual economic slide of our region for too many years. I doubt Marcy ever ran a business or had a real job –it’s been too long ago, in any case.
July 2, 2010, 12:51 pmJoe says:
as to waste of time, the senators do have the final say here, so they are sorta important too. Witnesses are more pro forma — they were shunted to late in the day and few questions were posed (at one point, the senior Dem was the very junior senator from DE .. only Franken has less seniority). But, still a bit telling … Dems get Jack Goldsmith and some cute harbor master while the Republicans are back to guns, gays and abortion.
July 2, 2010, 12:52 pmKamal says:
And yet, why do I have a sneaking suspicion that you are fine with murdering people once they leave the womb by denying them public health care. How can we call you just, or Christian?
July 2, 2010, 1:10 pmBarb says:
The right to bear arms, the right to life, and the decency of society founded by hetero couples as parents of children –the indecency of sodomy which is so often perpetrated on youth in formative years thus addicting more men to the gay life…
all trivial issues, of course, in a society that thinks “anything goes” except preaching morality and defending yourself against criminals and tyrants in gov’t.
July 2, 2010, 1:12 pmKamal says:
Also, if you are a Christian that believes ‘faith’ is an essential quality to being Christian, then you must accept there is a chance you are wrong (otherwise, you have certainty, not faith). If you accept that there is a chance you are wrong, then you need to understand there are many highly intelligent, rational, kind, moral people who don’t think that the moment a cell begins dividing a ‘soul’ immediately enters the organic material.
And, apropos of that: “If you’re so pro-life, don’t lock arms and block medical clinics, lock arms and block cemeteries. Let’s see how committed you are to this premise” – The Almighty Bill Hicks
July 2, 2010, 1:22 pmKamal says:
I initially got enraged by this, and want to make sure that everyone else keeps their cool by remembering that people like this dinosaur (though I understand people like him don’t even believe dinosaurs really existed) are dying out, and not to worry.
July 2, 2010, 1:23 pmBarb says:
I certainly do not believe in denying people health care. I just prefer private insurance to cover most of us because they’ll invest the money to cover us –whereas gov’t collects from us and doesn’t multiply the money–thus indebting our gov’t more and more. I want a system whereby everyone gets all the care they need.
But my husband will tell you how certain groups who pay nothing into the system will insist that everything extraordinary be done to extend life, regardless of cost because it’s “free” to them — for Gramps who’s out of his mind, suffering, terminal and ancient –perhaps they are able to keep collecting his social security, so they won’t let him die a natural death. Whereas people who do not live off of gov’t. DO let their loved one die even though his care isn’t coming from their pockets either, since all the elderly ARE on medicare (I don’t mean by starving or some variant of active euthanasia either.)
July 2, 2010, 1:27 pmKamal says:
A good argument for allowing abortion, and not forcing women to bear the cost of raising a child.
On another note, after peeking at your blog, you really should read the terms of blogspot:
July 2, 2010, 1:33 pmJoe says:
K. is write that such views — see Ted Olson — are out of date, but they are still held and gays etc. are still hurt. So worry we must.
To repeat something people refuse or can’t understand, no one is saying these things are “trivial.” Abortion is not trivial. It still remains an act of personal conscience.
July 2, 2010, 1:34 pmBarb says:
Faith is not a matter of uncertainty–it means I believe something to be certain though I cannot prove it to you. Once a pregnancy can be determined, it is CERTAINLY, FACTUALLY, an early stage human life that will, barring accident, develop into a child outside the womb. What good reason is there for not allowing the child to grow and be born? Not any good enough reason. We don’t even consider it a “shame” anymore to be unwed and pregnant, so what’s the reason now? Inconvenience of the 9 months? The woman doesn’t want to go through with it? The man doesn’t want to support it? They should have thought of that before they did IT –because the child has a right to life. They don’t want to raise it? There are people who will be delighted to adopt it.
July 2, 2010, 1:38 pmL says:
Does anyone else here subscribe to West’s Headnote of the day?
Today’s:
The Declaration of Independence does not have the force of organic law.
July 2, 2010, 1:38 pmFilan v. Martin, 684 P.2d 769 (Wash. Ct. App. 1984)
Kazinski says:
I don’t think you understand the issue. The First Amendment doesn’t give us the right of free speech. We already had that right before the Constitution was promulgated. The amendment merely says that Congress shall make no law to try to abridge free speech. Similary the 9th amendment was put in because many thought (and they were right) that listing some rights in the bill of rights would then leave the impression that other rights were unprotected.
The reason that Heller went so deeply into historical analysis of the common law right to keep and bear arms is because the 2nd amendment doesn’t confer that right to us, it like the first amendment, merely protects that right from future infringement.
I hope you can see the issue now, or are you going to tell us that their is no right to privacy because it isn’t enumerated in the Constitution? I think most would agree that it is one of the “unalienable” rights that Jefferson referred to.
July 2, 2010, 1:38 pmKamal says:
By that logic, masturbation should be just as illegal as reckless endangerment is.
July 2, 2010, 1:44 pmPlugInMonster says:
Yeah it does.
July 2, 2010, 1:45 pmBarb says:
to Joe: While the quote you cited is mine –I was being sarcastic in calling these issues trivial. Maybe you could tell- I wasn’t sure what you meant. They are not trivial to me –and obviously not to those on the other side of the aisle either. Great pressure is on the republicans and conservatives and the church to give up their social concerns to get more votes away from the left –in other words we should move left to accommodate the left –ironic when you consider that the other side won’t give up their push for gov’t funded abortions all 9 months, their push for gay marriage and gay adoptions, their push to stifle all religious preaching against gay behaviors and gay marriage, calling it “hate speech.”
July 2, 2010, 1:49 pmKamal says:
Barb, I really hope your over 50. I hope America doesn’t have to put up with another generation of young people filled with your venom.
July 2, 2010, 1:49 pmBarb says:
http://cspan.org/Special/Supreme-Court-Kagan-Senate-Confirmation-Hearing-35006.aspx
Talk about a box of rocks….
Barb, I really hope your over 50. I hope America doesn’t have to put up with another generation of young people filled with your venom.
I’m over 50 –but passing on my views as fast as I can!! But it’s not venom you detect. I get that from you, however.
July 2, 2010, 1:51 pmKamal says:
Do you agree women should be able to be sold into slavery? That you should be put to death for planting different crops together, or wearing fabric of more than one type of cloth? Do you slaughter bulls because it’s pleasing to the lord? Or do you just selectively pick what you want to? Do you think the earth is really 12,000 years old and that god put dinosaur fossils here to test our faith? I’m curious, how do you decide what parts are valid? You must have a pretty strong rational to be able to call people murders and deny them the rights of freedom.
July 2, 2010, 1:54 pmKamal says:
Thank the gods that you’re failing miserably, and will loose: http://baselinescenario.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/age1.jpg
July 2, 2010, 1:58 pmhttp://contexts.org/socimages/2009/11/05/support-for-same-sex-marriage-by-age-and-state/
PlugInMonster says:
According to liberals, our rights are only those granted by the Constitution. They fail to understand that our rights are naturally endowed by God, and the Constitution is simply the last line of defense against government.
July 2, 2010, 2:00 pmBarb says:
The right to free speech is lost if I can’t write about sexual orientation in a way that you don’t appreciate –and likewise if you can’t write to disagree with me or criticize my religion.
My goal is not to hate or promote hatred, however. No one could feel more compassion than I do for homosexuals and those with GID who desire to transgender. Child development and education for normalcy are big concerns of mine –have been ever since I was a mother of 4. I really believe parents are very influential –and that there are ways to help kids be normal and feel normal and end up normal –in their sexuality. Just as I believe there are ways to help kids avoid addictive drugs, alcoholism, nicotine addiction, and the loss of their religious faith. The first rule is to never say never –never say it could not happen to “my kids.” Temptation abounds and all people have clay feet. But we can help our kids enjoy “the good life” –the life of faith in a God who saves us.
No, it’s not a good argument for abortion –because others are willing to pay to deliver and raise that child if she doesn’t want the cost –and as it is, we are helping such women bear the costs and keep their children, too.
July 2, 2010, 2:04 pmKamal says:
Wow, completely wrong. Liberals don’t think the Constitution is the limit of our rights, they believe the constitution is a pretty good starting point. We of course feel that we should create far more rights – the right to have property (not just to protect those that already have all of it) – the right to health care – etc. We create rights by decision and enforcement. If the gods endowed us with these rights, we wouldn’t need them protected or enumerated, and we wouldn’t have spent the majority of human existence (millions of years, sorry Christians) without them.
July 2, 2010, 2:04 pmPlugInMonster says:
Truly frightening. Now I know why the liberals need to be stopped this November!
July 2, 2010, 2:06 pmKamal says:
You really need to respect that not everyone believes in your fairy tales.
July 2, 2010, 2:08 pmBarb says:
And our nation’s founding fathers understood this, too. That “the nation is blessed whose God is the Lord.” Or as written in our National anthem, 2nd verse:
“Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just, and this be our motto: ‘In God is our Trust.’” Not, “in the constitution is our trust.” They have twisted the constitution to include a right to privacy that includes a “right to do wrong–in private.” Hardly what our forefathers had in mind.
July 2, 2010, 2:09 pmJoe says:
to Joe: While the quote you cited is mine –I was being sarcastic in calling these issues trivial. Maybe you could tell– I wasn’t sure what you meant.
You cited my unedited response but either way, I didn’t say YOU think they are trivial; I suggested you or others think people who disagree with you on the substance think the subjects are. And, and I said, they do not. They find them very important, they just have different ideas on the merits.
Great pressure is on the republicans and conservatives and the church to give up their social concerns to get more votes away from the left –in other words we should move left to accommodate the left
They are plenty of ways for R/C to stay consistent and join with the Democrats (loads of whom are in no way “left” — Ben Nelson, Lieberman, et. al.) to stay consistent with their “social concerns.” Thus, Hatch worked with Kennedy, and people are joining across the aisle to find ways to deal with various social concerns.
the other side won’t give up their push for gov’t funded abortions all 9 months
Democrats readily allowed the Hyde Amendment to continue to focus on other things. If you don’t want to provide funds to a poor woman who would die w/o at abortion at 6 months, that’s your call.
their push for gay marriage and gay adoptions, their push to stifle all religious preaching against gay behaviors and gay marriage, calling it “hate speech.”
nearly every state, including some quite conservative, allow same sex adoption. Putting aside Ted Olson, Richard Cheney et. al., this is not simply a “left” issue any more. Sorry if this upsets you.
“the left” readily allows religious preaching of all types, though they — like “the right” — do criticize hateful speech when it arises. I think they do so because free speech isn’t “trivial.”
Anyways, I will leave it there.
July 2, 2010, 2:12 pmlgm says:
Whatever. The Declaration does not have the force of law. Kopel was trying to pretend otherwise.
You may have a point that the Declaration might help us understand the ninth amendment better. If the Declaration said “…life, liberty, automatic weapons, and the pursuit of happiness…” one could make a case that the ninth amendment protects gun ownership. Maybe you want to follow Grassley to say that since the right to own guns was given us by G-d (He knows this somehow.), the phrase “endowed by their creator” refers to guns.
So here we are. Kopel wants a religious oracle on the court. If the oracle knows G-d gave us the right to pray in schools, own slaves, or kill non-believers (as was done at Jericho), poof, it’s in the Constitution.
July 2, 2010, 2:15 pmBarb says:
Actually, this is extremely rare, is it not? It IS the exception I said should be where the pro-lifers and pro-aborts debate. Some will say God’s sovereignty should mean no abortion at all –others, like me, will say there should be choice in cases of rape or life of mother. But both of these are RARE RARE reasons given for abortions actually done. As for who pays, if a mother will die without an abortion, it’s a medical procedure to save her life. HOwever, in the last half of a pregnancy, they can probably save the baby, too. Whatever agency pays for her health care should cover an abortion for the life of the mother –which would hardly ever be the case.
July 2, 2010, 2:31 pmBarb says:
well, I believe you are mistaken about what the left wants to DISallow –if England and Canada are any examples. Preaching the Bible on homosexuality is not allowed on the air in Canada –and not in certain national churches in Europe –and not on the street (or in church? ) in England –and the church adoption agencies are closing rather than be forced by gov’t to adopt to gay couples.
Correct me if I’m mistaken.
Furthermore, Kamal above, says Blogger disallows disagreement with/criticism of homosexuality –which he says should apply to my blog. He’s perfectly comfortable with denial of free speech for me and people who hold my religious views on sexuality. I know many liberal blogs which do not allow free speech. I only moderate my blog because I have a pro-gay troll/spammer who publishes people’s whole names, addresses, photos of their house, etc. and assumes their identities as a blogger.
July 2, 2010, 2:38 pmFûz says:
Kazinski said,
Another reason the 9th and 10th were added was because many thought that listing some rights in the BoR would leave the impression that one or more of those rights could be written back out by an amendment.
July 2, 2010, 3:10 pmjab says:
Kamal & Joe,
While I am quite impressed with your willingness to attempt to thoughtfully engage
the Christianist nutjob that is Barb, I bet your blood pressure would be lower and
your overall happiness would increase if you just ignored her.
Not to mention, that if she is ignored, maybe she will go away and find her way back
to World Net Daily or FreeRepublic.
As the wonderfully GAY Barney Frank once said:
July 2, 2010, 3:21 pm“Trying to have a conversation with [her] would be like arguing with a dining room table.”
Kamal says:
Thanks, you’re right of course, but it’s hard to listen to someone who thinks they are a good person spew so much hate and not see the irony.
http://teapartyjesus.tumblr.com
July 2, 2010, 3:26 pmKamal says:
Barb, just as you are more concerned about the well being of a hypothetical being (dividing cells) than you are about the women holding such cells, I am more concerned with protecting the freedom of living gay people than I am concerned about offending your dead god.
July 2, 2010, 3:30 pmKamal says:
In addition, blogspot is owned by google, whose support of homosexual marriage and equality is unwaivering. Do you think that they should be forced to supporting your hate speech?
July 2, 2010, 3:32 pmRPT says:
As far as I know, I am the only occasional commenter here who has “outed” himself as a CLS member. My problems with your apparent partisan approach are two: (1)the R/Con/Libert political leaders and philosophers here advocate “anything goes” in the business and economic realm, and (2) the same R/C/L’s refuse to condemn the same conduct you condemn when it is practiced by their own fellow partisans: Gingrich, Vitter, Mary Cheney, David Dreier, etc. How do we deal with this?
July 2, 2010, 4:03 pmRichard Johnston says:
Barb: Honest and sincere question follows: Why, given your apparent views, would you countenance an exception for rape? Life of the mother I get — there you’re in the very difficult position of an unavoidable choice of one life over another. But why would, to use your terminology, a pre-born child which is, through no fault of its own, the product of a rape, be any less entitled to be born on that score?
Is that not a very extreme example, from your point of view, of punishing the child for the sins of (one of) its parents? It is clear you see adoption as a viable alternative, and that you do not see the nine months of pregnancy the rape victim would have to endure as a sufficient counterweight to the right of the pre-born child to accomplish post-born status. I also presume, given the very significant weight you attribute to the right of the pre-born child to become post-born, that the mother’s emotional turmoil inherent in carrying such a child to term, difficult though it may be, doesn’t suffice either. So what is the source of that sufficient counterweight in the case of a rape?
July 2, 2010, 4:22 pmArthur Kirkland says:
Good point. I was actually fearful at one point that the nominee would claim that she not only has not formed an opinion concerning Roe v. Wade, but would actually declare that she can not recall ever discussing the issue with anyone else.
July 2, 2010, 4:53 pmArthur Kirkland says:
Overcoming the indoctrination of children by adults thinking for themselves . . . bug or feature?
That’s as tough a call as Joe Pesci’s Vinny confronted when pondering the choice between submitting to a good ass-kicking or collecting his girlfriend’s two hundred dollars:
Vinny Gambini: I understand you played a game of pool with Lisa for $200, which she won. I’m here to collect.
July 2, 2010, 5:12 pmJ.T.: How ’bout if I just kick your ass?
Vinny Gambini: Oh, a counter-offer. That’s what we lawyers – I’m a lawyer – we lawyers call that a counter-offer. This is a tough decision here. Get my ass kicked or collect $200. Let me think… I could use a good ass-kickin’, I’ll be very honest with you… nah, I think I’ll just go with the two hundred.
J.T.: Over my dead body.
Vinny Gambini: You like to renegotiate as you go along, don’t you? Well here’s my counter-offer… do I have to kill you? What if I were just to kick the ever loving shit out of you?
J.T.: In your dreams.
Vinny Gambini: Oh no no… in reality. If I was to kick the shit out of you, do I get the money?
J.T.: You . . . kick the shit . . . out of me?
Vinny Gambini: Yeah.
J.T.: Yeah. you get the money.
Vinny Gambini: So, here are my options. Option A: I get my ass kicked or Option B: I kick your ass and collect the 200. I think I’m gonna go with Option B: Kickin’ your ass and collecting $200. [Takes off his jacket]
J.T.: We’re gonna fight now?
Vinny Gambini: Yeah. But first, show me the money.
J.T.: I have it.
Vinny Gambini: You have it, then show it to me.
J.T.: [pause] I can get it.
Vinny Gambini: You can get it? Okay, get it. Then we’ll fight.
Pat H. says:
The Declaration of Independence IS a legal document, it is the secession document of the free and independent states FROM Great Britain. It has the weight of law in America.
Of course, most progressives (fascists) hate the Declaration of Independence for what it says.
The Federalist Papers is regarded as the “Owners Manual” for the Constitution and as such has been cited by SCOTUS a number of times as weighty documents, too bad the Ant-federalist Papers aren’t viewed as equally valid.
What most of you progressives (fascists) need to reconcile yourselves to is that we Americans are done with your experimental philosophies, either you need to make changes or leave America.
July 2, 2010, 5:36 pmKamal says:
LOL@ The my cousin Vinny reference. I love that movie.
As to your first point.. yes, thinking for yourself is a bug or defect in many people’s mind because their moral masters want it that way. As Timothy Leary states lucidly:
July 2, 2010, 5:37 pmKamal says:
That’s okay, we’d rather take option C: wait for your kind to grow old and die. If you aren’t good at looking at long-term trend lines, let me sum it up for you; your loosing – bad. The reality is we gain knowledge, and as such our policies should reflect this new knowledge. Pretending the ancients knew everything is as simplistic as it is incorrect.
July 2, 2010, 5:38 pmBarb says:
I guess Blogger can take a position of opposing free speech if they want –but the internet in general must not do this or we do not have a free society –and Blogger shouldn’t set the bad example.
Can’t your advocacy for your gay lifestyle (if, indeed, it is yours, which i believe it is) hold up under scrutiny, criticism, debate? Apparently not?
It’s not hate i spew when I say that sodomy is not good for the body or for a society when men are addicted to it.
July 2, 2010, 5:39 pmjab says:
Wow… so now we got Christianists calling people gay because they happen to believe in equla treatment under the law… get a clue Barbie, there are plenty of straight people who support equal rights for gays. As Kamal said earlier, fortunately your ilk are dying out… and America will be better for it…
July 2, 2010, 5:51 pmKamal says:
No, setting a bad example would be allowing sites like yours to be affiliated with Google.
Your not scrutinizing or debating anything, you are regurgitating a small selection from your religion’s myth while ignoring substantial other portions. You haven’t told me if you think it’s okay to sell people into slavery, as Leviticus permits.
July 2, 2010, 5:52 pmPat H. says:
You don’t have an option “C”, only “A” or “B”. First, there’s more young people that hold my position than there are people my age, second I’m very likely to live at least 25 more years, perhaps more. That’s the average number of years left to my current age cohort, so you’d best pack more than a lunch.
There are no new discoveries being made about human philosophies, the current ones have been around for over 2000 years. There’s no expected change. We in America decided long ago to reject the top down European model.
Scientific discoveries aren’t relevant to political philosophies in any way, any notion that they are is worse than ignorant, it’s silly.
As for me, my goals are to see the American Revolution restored onto the track it originally set out to achieve, in order for it to achieve all of its potential that was thwarted by the Constitutional Convention, a restoration of the Articles of Confederation will do.
I’m sure that will make all progressives (fascists) shorts knot up.
July 2, 2010, 5:56 pmKamal says:
Thanks for the backup jab.
July 2, 2010, 5:58 pmBarb says:
O brother –and the result is rejecting the natural use of women and preferring sex with your own sex –using body orifices designed for other purposes?? Come to think of it, that’s exactly what Romans 1:18-32 describes.
the only hatred I see spewed here is from your side of the aisle, Kamal: when you guys look forward to the opposition dying off –when you insult the opposition as ignorant, incapable of reason –when you say we have no right to free speech on this subject and our blogs should be shut down –when you think you have a right to undermine our teaching of our children on this subject through education and media –can’t you be content with one partner? do you really need all the younger generation to desire homosexual activity and approve it? Would it really be so terrible if parents, educators and psychs got a clue and figured out how to raise their kids with normal GID and orientation?
I’m not saying the child of rape has less right to life than any other –I’m just saying that’s where the argument should be. right now, we hear rape and life of mother used as the rationale for ALL abortions –which is ridiculous. I do see rape as a “foreign invasion” –I do imagine a very young innocent child and consider whether she, as a pregnant rape victim, should be forced to go through with delivery –imagine it were your own pure and sweet and innocent daughter. Pregnancy is no picnic for anyone–much less the very young girl. I feel it should be HER choice in that situation –and she may very well be convinced that her baby has a right to live regardless of the father’s rape of her. I would want her to know of all the famous, successful, happy, contributing citizens who are products of rape who are out there. –and the fact that some women only have one chance to have a child –for various reasons. But if I were her mother, and I knew about the rape right away, I’d send her to the hospital for the start of her period, treatment for STD’s, ‘the rape kit.” And not wait until we knew fertilization had occured. It doesn’t always occur right away–but could. And ask God to forgive us if that were wrong. I’m not a Calvinist/fatalist. I believe God’s relationship to us is dynamic, day by day –that the future has not yet been experienced –even though God sees what He plans to do in the future –but I’m not one who theologically believes that everything that happens to us is God’s will, even the bad things. I think I hold a combination of Weslyan and Open theism in my views. I believe that “In everything give thanks, for this is the will of Christ Jesus concerning you” when things happen but i’m not fatalistic about what the result should be. And I don’t believe the verse means, “FOR everything give thanks” –but “In.” The devil is at work. I wouldn’t give God credit for his doing nor gratitude for Satan’s doings. I remember my grandfather, a Christian ed department chair at a Weslyan seminary, saying he didn’t like that “Kay serah” (sp?) -song “what ever we’ll be, we’ll be –the future’s not ours to see, kay serah serah.” back in the 60′s or late 50′s. He felt we were to be more active than passive in our choices and outcomes. There is a time to rest in the Lord –and a time to take action.
July 2, 2010, 6:07 pmKamal says:
Okay, let’s test this line of thinking. Imagine we get replicators that can make matter out of energy (like from star trek), robots/machines capable of handling all physical labor (harvesting crops, building other robots, fixing themselves, building buildings, mine resources, etc). Got that scenario down?
If we allow your view of liberty, the creators of these could hold the entire human race in servitude, because they would not need employees anymore. Since no land is left for us to make our own, and we are forced to work for companies in the hope of one day earning our freedom, this would (under you political views) bond us into slavery.
In Summa: Your main desire to believe that freedom is as simple as ‘people not working together’, the truth is that people working together will eventually give us our first taste of freedom – a freedom to live without first being a slave for almost an entire lifetime to earn.
I understand that your philosophy is charmingly simple, I was a libertarian for 25 years, but given resource scarcity you really need to reexamine the consequences of such views.
July 2, 2010, 6:12 pmKamal says:
Verifiability incorrect. This is one of the easier points to disprove.
July 2, 2010, 6:15 pmNatural is defined, of course, as ‘in accordance with nature’. For your statement to be correct, you would need to show that in nature, homosexuality does not occur. It’s very daunting to disprove that something doesn’t occur, so lucky for you we have TONS of evidence it *does* occur in nature, making your otherwise endless search for something-not-occurring much shorter.
Kamal says:
http://www.nytimes.com/1991/12/17/science/gay-men-in-twin-study.html if 52% of genetically identical twins are gay then unless people with your beliefs suddenly become genetic scientists, I don’t fear you being able to stop people from expressing who they are.
Since you are trying to eliminate an entire class of people… pot.. kettle?
July 2, 2010, 6:20 pmRichard Johnston says:
I’d have to say I’m on Kamal’s side of the aisle. Hope you not discerning hateful stuff coming from me. I really am interested in how you arrive at your positions. Appropos of which:
See, that’s where I fail to see the principled basis for your views (which is not to say there isn’t one, that’s why I’m asking). It sort of sounds here like carrying the child to term is a sort of a punishment for the mother who conceived in a non-approved way, and that the mother of a child conceived through rape gets the choice to have an abortion or not because the pregnancy isn’t her “fault.” I’m attempting a paraphrase so of course you can correct me where I am wrong. But it really sounds like this:
Rape victim: gets to choose, because you “do imagine a very young innocent child and consider whether she, as a pregnant rape victim, should be forced to go through with delivery.”
Non-rape victim: no choice, should have kept her legs together, and she should “be forced to go through with delivery.”
And the respective pre-born children have nothing to do with either the rapist’s or the non-raped mother’s choice.
July 2, 2010, 6:24 pmBarb says:
Of course not. There are alot of things about ancient cultures, including Jewish culture, that we know better than to condone today. About slavery, it was world-wide, a part of man’s depravity–it was a way some people survived –being slaves. The strong ruled the weak.
I’m certainly glad we aren’t under Old Testament rabbinical laws. I believe those laws had their purposes –teaching purposes about purity –but the New Testament is more practical for today–totally relevant and understandable in our modern culture that was influenced very much by the New Testament. The new covenant is not about keeping OT law –but about being saved in spite of our innate sinfulness –through Christ’s atonement –and we are called to holiness –Jesus said “perfection.” Attainable only through God’s grace, his covering of our sins, the enabling presence of the Holy Spirit reminding us of what is right and what is wrong. The Ten C’s of the OT are relevant and valid (except we do make images of ourselves, don’t we?) but it’s clear we are not to worship ourselves but remember that “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.” God fearing people will strive to be moral, honest, compassionate, merciful, generous and forgiving.
July 2, 2010, 6:28 pmRichard Johnston says:
BTW does this mean you are OK with, say, a morning-after pill which prevents conception? Or with any other abortifacient so long as it’s employed before we know whether there’s a pregnancy or not? I mean, in every case where there is a pregnancy you’re killing the pre-born child, by definition. Does it really make a moral difference if you arrange things so that you insulate yourself from knowing the actual consequences of your acts?
July 2, 2010, 6:31 pmKamal says:
It’s hugely amusing that you put so much stock in the truth of these words. Especially considering that there is a version to it (New International Version). Why not King James? Why not look at the dead sea scrolls? Why all these editors? “I think what God meant to say..”
Your basing this hate that is contrary to nature on words written long ago, and revised over and over again, with commentary edited out when it didn’t fit the times. Your far too easily convinced. There are many other gods to believe in, why did you choose this one? I’m guessing it correlates with your parents beliefs. If they were Hindu, i’m sure you still would have found The Truth though, right?
Oh.. and from that particular passage (Galatians 5:19–23), does that mean you actually believe in witchcraft too? (that it exists)
July 2, 2010, 6:35 pmRichard Johnston says:
I think I misspoke there. It’s my understanding that morning-after pills generally prevent implantation. Likely relevant to Barb’s view of things. Rest of my previous question still makes sense, I believe.
July 2, 2010, 6:36 pmBarb says:
With rape, you can go straight to the hospital for the kit. With consensual sex, people wait until they know they have a baby to kill.
I do believe you make your bed and lie in it. The rape victim didn’t make her bed and I can see justice in her cleansing of the foreign invasion, hopefully before there is a fertilized ovum. But in either case, a child IS a delightful result of intercourse and not a punishment–though young single mothers would often advantage their children more by adopting them out.
July 2, 2010, 6:37 pmPat H. says:
That’s a fantasy, it has no relevance to reality. Get a grip.
The reality is that people working together VOLUNTARILY is freedom.
What a bizarre post. You’re using a fantasy TV show, which I liked for its entertainment value, it was a statists dream unfortunately but nothing more, to color your notion of what life should be like.
Are you even finished with your schooling? If you aren’t, please read more, if you are, you may wish to ask for your money back.
July 2, 2010, 6:37 pmKamal says:
This reminds me a little of mental reservation. You know.. a priest is on trial (let’s say, for molesting a young boy), and they need to find a way to convince a nun to say nothing happened, while not lying in front of god. So.. the nun says “I did not see anything happen” while in her mind thinking “I saw this happen”. Since god knows what’s in your mind, your okay.
July 2, 2010, 6:39 pmBarb says:
I think morning after pills as routine birth control are probably bad for one’s health. I don’t know much about that pill, however. I’m not Catholic, so I’m not against birth control/family planning. I do think people should be willing to receive more babies than they typically are doing these days. I think we need children to balance out our aging population –and God tells us to ‘be fruitful and multiply.” Grandchildren really do help us older folks grow old with contentment and enjoyment. And they love us like no one else.
July 2, 2010, 6:41 pmBarb says:
Where do you get such whacked-out theology? Is that what the Catholic church teaches? The nun is lying, pure and simple.
July 2, 2010, 6:43 pmRichard Johnston says:
Hopefully? You’re willing to roll the diced on killing a pre-born baby on “hopefully”?
Conception, as opposed to, say, implantation, occurs immediately, does it not? I mean it’s not like there’s a three-day delay after egg and sperm meet before fertilization occurs. I don’t think you’re likely to get yourself to a hospital for the rape kit thing before fertilization has occurred. You’d have to cleanse that foreign invasion a lot faster than that.
July 2, 2010, 6:43 pmKamal says:
Exactly, glad you understand. In a democratic republic, people choose what they will work together on VOLUNTARILY, by electing representatives, and should not be restricted in those things they choose to work together on, such as healthcare.
Are you the type of person still fascinated by moving pictures? Nothing I stated is magical or unreasonable. If you want links to scientific articles showing the hurdles (and how they will eventually be overcome) then Google it.
Given your denial of reality, I’m assuming you’re of the judeo-christian perspective. If that is the case, please take the ‘You’re using a fantasy..to color your notion of what life should be like’ and reflect on that for a minute.
July 2, 2010, 6:47 pmKamal says:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine_of_mental_reservation
July 2, 2010, 6:49 pmKamal says:
When you say things like this.. does it even cross your mind that a very large percentage of the world has a different god than you?
July 2, 2010, 6:50 pmBarb says:
Since you asked. My understanding is that the NIV is translated with the latest scholarly understanding of ancient languages (scholars benefiting from the Dead Sea Scrolls)–and using the oldest Greek manuscripts available –and knowledge of Hebrew and Aramaic languages –and putting all into today’s English.
All the versions seem to get the same points across.
Of course there is witchcraft today. If you mean, is there power in witchcraft? then I can only say that I think there is a lot of fakery in the occult world –but I also have heard of genuine supernatural experiences of an evil nature. Read Joanna Michaelson’s “Beautiful Side of Evil.”
July 2, 2010, 6:55 pmBarb says:
No –because they don’t. We all have the same Creator-God. They just are ignorant of him and worship gods of their own making. Only one god visited the planet, did miracles and rose from the grave –and really did bring enlightenment to the world. Look at that scripture I posted. Look at Christ’s teachings. Do you really argue with most of it? Do you really champion those sins listed above?
July 2, 2010, 6:58 pmKamal says:
Wow! Really? I thought that belief died out a long time ago. That’s kind of cool. Do you worry about Vampires and Wear-wolves too?
Alright then.. can you show me where Christ, who was from all recorded accounts (be they literary or historical in reality) a very loving person and opposed to hate, said homosexuality is a sin, or is unnatural? Christ loved everyone except those with money (it’s easier for a camel to fit through an eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven), so i’d be surprised to find out that he, and not a fallible human commentator said this.
Speaking of which.. given that Christ is explicitly against wealth, I’m assuming you spend at least as much time rallying against them as you do gays, correct?
July 2, 2010, 7:04 pmBarb says:
I haven’t been reading up on conception lately, but scientists used to say conception can occur within hours or a few days of intercourse.
So, if YOU believe ALL abortion is legit, then why would you object to a rape victim having an abortion within a few hours of rape –not knowing if conception took place or not yet –not waiting around for it to happen?
The pro-abort side is really insincere –wanting all this compassion for victims of rape, incest and life threat to mother — along with convenience abortions for everybody for any reason who just prefers not to bear the child conceived from her consensual sex or let someone else adopt it. You suggest that if it’s ok in my mind for a young previously virginal, innocent, delicate, vulnerable rape victim to cleanse her womb after the rape, all abortions should be justified. LOGIC???
July 2, 2010, 7:07 pmKamal says:
Sorry Barb, I don’t have a god, but I do find much of what is attributed to the character Christ as being very good and moral. Admiring that morality is a choice though.. it’s up for debate. There is no independent way to confirm, and since if there are gods they gave us rationality for a reason and i can’t in good conscience believe in yours. It’s not science, unlike homosexuality being natural, which is.
July 2, 2010, 7:09 pmBarb says:
Well, I certainly give a lot of money away. I say that not to boast and we are far from alone. John Stossel’s study of charity in America found that the religious were the biggest givers to all charities. And the biblical churches do indeed preach against excess and selfishness –and in favor of compassionate generosity. Our church just sent 7 guys to Haiti –they gave of their vacation time and money to work along side the Haitians repairing a roof, and building a building with welded ceiling girders and a cement floor –to house twenty some people who teach in our church schools down there. We just funded 45 kids to church camp at 226 bucks piece for most of them –134 for the younger ones who attend a 3 day camp. ALmost none of them could have afforded to go otherwise. My husband is what the Bible calls “a cheerful giver.”
What Jesus said about sexuality was this, “A man should leave his parents and cleave to his wife.” and “God hates divorce –but allowed it for the hardness of your hearts.” And he says people who divorce someone for any reason other than the spouse’s unfaithfulness cause that spouse to commit adultery (presumeably if they marry again–which was generally economic necessity for women.)
Jesus didn’t mention sodomy –because his audience were Jews –and they didn’t believe in homosexuality. But Paul mentions it when he goes to Rome –where both idolatry and homosexuality were rampant.
Here’s what Jesus DID say:
Or if you prefer the KJV:
July 2, 2010, 7:21 pmjab says:
Is this a LIBERTARIAN-leaning blog??
July 2, 2010, 7:22 pmI swore I just walked into Christianists Today.
Barb says:
As I’ve said before, the dog humping your leg is natural–doesn’t mean we should encourage him.
Fidelity to life-long mates IS found in the animal kingdom, but we also find a lot of animal behaviors that humans do NOT want to emulate –like eating our young or our mates after intercourse. But Jeffrey Dahmer did it. And some other famous homosexual serial killers also did some very animalistic things. As do heterosexuals commit sins of all sorts –in imitation of animals. Doesn’t make it good.
We are called, not to be “natural” like animals –but to be “supernatural” in imitation of Christ. Forgiving, kind, compassionate, self-controlled, sober, faithful to hetero spouses for whom we are designed to have sexual union , submitted to Christ as Lord and son of the most high God.
July 2, 2010, 7:28 pmBarb says:
oh –are only libertarians welcome here? Are there no liberals –I surely think there are. So why not a few conservative evangelical Christians? Should we not want to hear from all perspectives?
July 2, 2010, 7:32 pmRichard Johnston says:
My wife tells me you are correct about how long it might take to conceive — I honestly did not realize those little guys could swim around for three days in there before something happened. Back to high school biology for me.
In any case I do not “object” to a rape victim having an abortion; I am, as you surmise, pro-choice. I think it is your side, which seeks to ban abortion but generally makes exceptions based on rape (and often incest) which is logically troubled.
Perhaps I have been unclear. I was trying to ascertain the logic for your own views, and what you have apparently taken as my views were derived from an attempt to paraphrase what you were saying. I do not understand how it is intellectually consistent for those who would outlaw abortion to believe it is murder but make exceptions for rape (or incest for that matter). A pre-born baby of rape or incest is a pre-born baby no less than any other. I understand the politics — an intellectually consistent position, which would not admit of those exceptions, wouldn’t generate much public support. But I find no logic in it.
You want my views? I think most abortions are tragedies. I think because women contemplating an abortion go through an agonizing decision-making process, in consultation with those people or sources of information which they believe to be the most valid for them, it is very very presumptuous — far too presumptuous to be a valid basis for public opinion — to assume they need the state to tell them what to do. I do not buy this canard that millions of women decide to abort on a whim or out of mere convenience to any material extent, and the considered, agonizing decisions about their own unique circumstances and lives are precisely the type of decision with which the law should not interfere.
/soapbox
Wasn’t this thread supposed to be about Kagen?
July 2, 2010, 7:32 pmRichard Johnston says:
Shoot. I meant public policy. Public opinion is … just opinion.
July 2, 2010, 7:38 pmKamal says:
We also shouldn’t claim it’s unnatural, which was your point about homosexuality earlier. Also, a more apt example would be a male dog humping another male dog, which -as with human homosexuality- doesn’t affect you, and doesn’t need to be discouraged. Actually.. you just gave me a great idea for a comedy: Christians going out in nature to convince animals their homosexuality is an abomination.
Don’t worry, i’ll give you credit.
And yet you still have not provided evidence that Jesus would say homosexuality is wrong, or evil. All you have shown is that he encourages love. In fact, one need only look to Mary Magdalen and see the purported extent of Jesus’ love for her despite his disciples shock. Considering Paul was one of his disciples that found this shocking, that should give you pause on Paul’s infallibility that you seem to believe gives him the right to deem homosexuality a sin despite jesus never saying so.
July 2, 2010, 7:53 pmNewby says:
Barb,
Are Catholics Christians according to your beliefs?
July 2, 2010, 8:05 pmBarb says:
If they believe that Jesus Christ is God’s Son –if they seek to follow Him as His disciples. Matthew 25 says He will own us if we feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit prisoners, etc. –in other words we need to be compassionate and forgiving people if we would call ourselves Christians –but our faith is what saves us –our works are the evidence of our faith.
so yes, i believe Catholics are Christians –but not by being Catholic. Just belonging to a Christian church does not save us –we need to believe, receive and follow. But our sins and imperfection don’t disqualify us for salvation if we are truly remorseful. Because we have an advocate with the Father God in Jesus, our defense attorney: “if we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.’ Confession needs to include remorse and desire to change –repentance is turning away from our sin and going a new direction.
NIce try, but lame.
Do you mean the woman caught in adultery? I’m not sure she was Mary Magdalene –but the one who “wasted” the expensive ointment on his feet was Mary, I believe. I’m a little rusty on her –just know that lately scholars say that Mary Magdalene was NOT the prostitute. He was compassionate to both Mary and the adulteress.
You gloss over what Jesus said about God’s creation of male and female for one another –”let no man put asunder what God has joined together.’ He alludes to creation and God’s design of the woman for the man –male and female in HIS image created he them. The one flesh unit is a man and wife –not man and man–not woman with woman.
you can’t get around the fact that what homosexual males do is unseemly –and unnatural for what their bodies are designed for. Yes, you find all sorts of BAD behaviors among the animals —-but people have brains and choice beyond what the animals have.
You are right that God shocked the disciples in his attitude toward fallen women and other sinners –he forgave them –but as He said –He didn’t change the law to accommodate their sins. He didn’t pronounce adultery as good and harmless –but reinforced lifetime fidelity between man and wife. he never suggested that sodomy was just fine or that men should marry men and women marry women. But every repentant, contrite heart, God will forgive if one asks. He didn’t change the definition of sexual morality as liberal church folks are trying to do today.
July 2, 2010, 8:24 pmKamal says:
Newby, they aren’t her beliefs, they are god’s!!!
July 2, 2010, 8:32 pmBarb says:
Any thread about the Supreme Court nominees will no doubt touch on abortion–because it was SCOTUS who made it legal in the US in 1973 –based on a fraudulent rape case that wasn’t a rape. So every Supreme court justice is of interest to the pro-abortion/pro-life advocates.
Perhaps not –but I wonder what percentage of women abort today because their boyfriends insist on it? It would seem to be a man’s form of birth control because he neither wants to marry nor support nor use a condom–and that is all evil on his part.
July 2, 2010, 8:36 pmNewby says:
Barb is too funny. She can mandate what women should be allowed to do with their bodies, but can’t even pay attention to some of the most important women in the NT.
That tells you that her whole theology has been given to her by men, interpreted for her by men, and enforced in her life by men.
Bet she hasn’t had a unique thought in her life.
July 2, 2010, 8:40 pmKamal says:
I have to tell you Barb, I find the acts quite enjoyable and not unseemly at all. I do find vaginal intercourse quite disgusting but I wouldn’t be impious to the point of declaring it an immoral act. You’re not the one who gets to judge Barb.
It’s obvious the continuation of our species rests on reproduction. Saying vaginal sex is required to continue our species does not mean that homosexuality is bad. I am not advocating for you to munch carpet, or for your husband to enjoy sodomy. I am saying that perhaps you shouldn’t be telling other adults what to do, considering that jesus supposedly came here from a higher astral plane to deliver his message, and no where did he say homosexuality is a sin, unlike having money.
July 2, 2010, 8:43 pmKamal says:
That’s not fair completely fair. It’s not her fault that she was raised to believe that her god is bigger and better and more real than everyone else’s god. It is tragic, but it’s mostly tied to the period she is from.
July 2, 2010, 8:48 pmKamal says:
Anyway, it’s interesting that even though this appears to have gone off topic, we did avoid running into Godwin’s law. Barb’s views do tie in to the psychology that most originalists have which is that there is a clearly discernible truth to this world which they know, and which we are mistaken about. They deny that knowledge can increase our understanding of liberty, freedom, and good vs. bad. It’s a fundamental difference, but one that’s becoming easier to discern.
July 2, 2010, 8:54 pmNewby says:
Kamal,
I think I’m her age or older and raised in the Catholic Church (still attend but with many reservations). As someone said, it is a community and humans need community.
I also looked at her blog. Beyond the Bible, James Dobson and Narth are her gods. And she has memorized (but not seriously critiqued) everything they spew.
It is a pity that she has wasted so much of her intellectual ability – because she does have it, she just doesn’t use it.
July 2, 2010, 8:57 pmPat H. says:
Um, no, since the health care bill was and remains an area outside the enumerated powers, congress cannot enact constitutional laws for it. It makes no difference if a majority wishes it or not, it’s unlawful to enact such a law.
But, you’ve digressed. The subject in this commentary section is Kagan’s monumental level of unqualification for the SCOTUS.
In what way is your post stating Kagan’s qualification for SCOTUS?
I have no idea what knee-jerk fugue you’re engaged in, but here’s the reality. It won’t matter, really, what Kagan says or does. We Americans will have our way, we invented this country, we can cancel it at any time.
Now, I know you won’t understand that idea, and that makes no difference whatsoever either.
July 2, 2010, 9:39 pmjab says:
Pat,
What exactly do you mean by “cancel it at anytime”?
And by the way… “We Americans” include people like me, Kamal, Kagen, Obama, those of us who live in San Francisco, and NYC, and Los Angeles, and Boston… etc.
July 2, 2010, 9:52 pmJoe says:
Since we are spending here debating the Bible, I’d thought I’d toss this in:
http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1970/1970_120
Rehnquist’s one oral argument in from of the Supreme Court (according to Oyez).
Seems not really germane, but more useful.
July 2, 2010, 10:41 pmL says:
It’s a threat of violence. I think it’s veiled with some kind of attempt at plausible deniability or something, but it’s not plausible.
The question is whether Pat means what s/he says. If not, then it’s classic weenie Internet Tough Guy. If so…
This is an example of two people trying to have a discussion and using the same word to mean two different things. When Pat says “American,” s/he does not include anyone remotely on the left. When you use it, you probably mean you’re probably talking about citizens of the United States. When Pat uses it, it means something much narrower. “The question is, which is to be master–that’s all.”
July 2, 2010, 11:03 pmArthur Kirkland says:
No. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
July 3, 2010, 1:46 amBarb says:
O goodness! Is he your hero? the congressman with the gay brothel in his basement?
July 3, 2010, 1:57 amBarb says:
Lame. I’m really not telling other people what to do. I’m telling people what the Bible says –what Jesus says about marriage. It’s clear to me, that if he disapproved divorce except for adultery, and refers to Genesis and the first couple as the model for all others, then he is certainly not going to say when the topic comes up, “O by the way, God doesn’t care what portals of the human body you use for intercourse, nor if you marry a man or a woman, just so you love each other.”
He didn’t say it–and you can’t put those words in His mouth. What he DID say is very pro-heterosexual marriage –and the basis is “from the beginning” Creation of male and female in the image of God –and the two shall become one flesh–and what God has joined together let no man put asunder. No STeve. Just Eve. And he does not give procreation as the reason, though that’s an obvious conclusion from “design.” When Paul goes to Rome, he makes it very clear that God has not changed His mind about same-sex relations since Leviticus.
I know all about the shellfish and pork arguments –but they aren’t strong enough rationale that Bible-believers should do what you wish and condone same sex unions.
Yes, I know not everyone believes the Bible. I respect their/your right to disagree and to have whatever private life you want with consenting adults –but that’s a legal right and not a moral right. There is no such thing as a divine right to do wrong. We choose our attitudes and conduct–but a wrong choice is just that.
July 3, 2010, 2:13 amBarb says:
You are right. I shall not be your judge. The Bible says Jesus Christ will judge all of us and separate us like sheep from goats –the sheep are those who believed Him and repented of sin and the goats did not.
To find normal sex repugnant, I believe you have to be damaged between the ears. I bet you have a story of early experiences–but you won’t tell it.
July 3, 2010, 2:22 amBarb says:
No, NARTH and Dobson are not gods, nor my gods. It’s interesting you say that I memorized their spewings — With Dobson I share background. We both come from families who know the Bible, from Weslyan-type evangelical churches, Nazarene in his case. If my views resemble his, it’s because we have the same influences and source-book. It’s basic Bible. I did look to his books for practical guidance in raising children. Not everyone with a Biblical world-view and knowledge automatically has wisdom in rearing children. Dobson helps people apply Biblical principle to the process. However, even without Dobson, I still think God has given me a lot of common sense and insight about kids–and memories from my youth. I think I have God-given empathy and sensitivity re: children, I enjoy a child who is a challenge, and I have every confidence that he/she can come to abide in God’s love, be secure in faith, and have a love for righteousness, too. But a parent is not the only influence on a child; a healthy church community is the village that helps to raise the Christian child. Tragic when there are wolves in sheep’s clothing in the church (or schools, etc.) who molest children, inclining them toward homosexuality. Tragic that our public schools sometimes undermine parental religious teaching –and that media is so corruptive today, cultivating shallowness and immorality.
People who apply the Book to life’s dilemmas and controversies come up with similar responses. We share the same world-view. I go to NARTH if I need some research data –because what they have found out about homosexuality is what one would expect if the Bible is true about it–that it is not a birth defect, but a result of wrongful influences during formative years that have affected gender identity, self-image and/or orientation –and for some, it may well be a result of self-indulgent activities, as Paul suggests, without the restraints of teaching, parenting and chaperoning –or in rebellion to those restraints against activities that become addictive and preferable to normal relations with the opposite sex. NARTH therapists/researchers are not necessarily Christians or Bible-based in world-view, though some of them would be.
I believe in a literal Satan –because Jesus met this spiritual being and was tempted by him offering him earthly power. Jesus also said Satan would appear as an angel of light to deceive many –I believe that’s the Moroni of the Mormons and Mohammad’s Gabriel. Those religious founders both single-handedly wrote books which “changed” and “added to” the essential Gospel about Christ, who He was and what He did for us. E.G., the Mormons reportedly believe Jesus was Satan’s brother. That’s not in the original scriptures which were authored by many inspired writers, not just one. And it is intriguing that Jesus Himself wrote no books but left it to others to write about Him through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit –the record-keeping of physician Luke and other Gospel writers. We have a treasure trove of wisdom in the letters to the early churches. All relevant today –and good in their results when studied and applied to people’s lives. The Bible has been good for American culture –making us the most self-critical, compassionate, generous, and even honest and humane culture in the world –granted, exceptions–like lying presidents and politicians and corrupt Catholic priests (whose corruption was in the church long before the protestant reformation.) And like every nation, we have criminals. For every corrupt capitalist, we can find several businessmen who have used their gains for good for others, for jobs, pensions and healthcare plans and charity for their employees.
I read that China was tolerant of Bible studies in their corporations because they made for productive, honest workers.
I recognize when I’m off topic, but I follow you there.
July 3, 2010, 10:31 amBarb says:
Beware of prostatitis –one homosexual male I just heard about committed suicide recently, presumeably because of this painful condition. The pain meds weren’t helping. The Bible says we receive the “recompense (for homosexuality) in our bodies.”
I appreciate the tolerance here for the discussion which we have exhausted. I understand the usual vitriol expressed by homosexuals for people who believe as I do about a condition that you believe to be innate to who you are. But don’t think the solution to your discomfort is to stifle the Bible believers/preachers. The solution lies in God’s truth about repentance, submission to God’s will, agreeing with Him about our sins, and His forgiveness and the NEw Birth. You can be “born again.” Jesus went to the cross to give us a fresh start –out from under the curse of sin and death. Grace –unmerited favor for all of us.
July 3, 2010, 11:20 amjab says:
Barb said:
Wow… that is just… wow… no self awareness there at all… LOL
As you can see Barb… you have single-handedly driven everyone from the thread.
Let’s just hope that not every thread you enter becomes Christianist hour with Barb.
July 3, 2010, 2:55 pmBarb says:
You are so right –no self-awareness. Should I have that? Is that really a good thing? As it is, I spoke truth about the vitriol of gay defenders toward all who disagree with them. And except for some derision like yours, the Volokh bloggers are a lot more reasonable and tolerant of diversity of opinion than the run of the mill.
Seems to me there are quite a few threads at Volokh C. with far fewer comments –so what makes you think I drove people away from this one? Seems that’s a judgment you can’t prove. As I said, I felt the topic was exhausted in MY opinion. Both sides have said all there is to say and no body’s going to budge.
The truly vitriolic and intolerant want opposing (socially conservative and religious/traditionalist) views banned on the topic of sexuality. I don’t mind being ignored –or “passed over” by readers –or mildly ridiculed –but banning is “unamerican.”
July 5, 2010, 10:56 pmzuch says:
Huh? Under what laws did it have any weight? What legal system? Do I get to draw up my own “declaration of freedom from taxation” and have it given the weight of law? Do I have to shoot some rev’nooers to have it take effect legally? Important questions….
Oh. So progressives are fascists, eh? Why do you claim I (or “most” of us) hate the DoI? What evidence do you have for that?
Cheers,
July 6, 2010, 3:18 pm