Death is death, announced by Tweets or carrier pigeons

Barferio:

"Do you ever ask yourself: what is it like to be a complete fool?
Obviously you claim the rest of us to be such, but just as obviously you never ask it of yourself."

But then, how often do the mentally ill ask themselves what it is like to be mentally ill?

SECULAR - This forum is entitled "On Faith." Presumably one's religious faith and how it influences one's views on issues can be discussed here without either being insulted or one being told to remove references to their faith's beliefs from comments. I would hope that, unless the person presenting their faith viewpoint is uncivil, you could be civil too.

Peace.

IN REPLY
PSOLUS
"THE PURPOSE OF LAW"

Civil Law must be based on human nature, and when it contradicts human nature, it is not a law but an unjust imposition made by an unauthorized power of government that exceeds its authority.

"The real purpose of Civil Law is to guarantee an ordered social coexistence in true justice, so that all may "lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way" (1 Tim 2:2).

Precisely for this reason, Civil Law must ensure that all members of society enjoy respect for certain fundamental rights which innately belong to the person, rights which every positive law must recognize and guarantee.

"First and fundamental among these is the inviolable Right to Life of every innocent human being. While public authority can sometimes choose not to put a stop to something which—were it prohibited—would cause more serious harm, it can never be presumed to legitimize as a right of individuals—even if they are the majority of the members of society—an offence against other persons caused by the disregard of so fundamental a right as the Right to Life.

"The legal toleration of abortion or of euthanasia can in no way claim to be based on respect for the conscience of others, precisely because society has the right and the duty to protect itself against the abuses which can occur in the name of conscience and under the pretext of freedom.

"In the Encyclical Pacem in Terris, John XXIII pointed out that "it is generally accepted today that the common good is best safeguarded when personal rights and duties are guaranteed." Hence, the Founding Fathers wrote these guarantees into the Bill of Rights.

The chief concern of civil authorities must therefore be to ensure that these rights are recognized, respected, co-ordinated, defended and promoted, and that each individual is enabled to perform his duties more easily.

For 'to safeguard the inviolable rights of the human person, and to facilitate the performance of his duties, is the principal duty of every public authority'. Thus any government which refused to recognize human rights or acted in violation of them, would not only fail in its duty; its decrees would be wholly lacking in binding force."

IN REPLY
PSOLUS
“BELIEVING IN THE RIDICULOUS”
POSTED JUNE 28, 2010 6:41 AM

IRT:
“Another impotent, ignorant rant to no avail.”

ANS:
It’s said one who thinks everyone else is ignorant more than likely is the ignorant one.

Hmmm, I see, for you, it’s ignorant to believe that “settle laws” like Dred Scott, and Plessey v. Ferguson should not have been overturned. I hope you’re not Black because you would apparently hate your own self, that wouldn’t be uncommon for anyone who believes in the justification of murdering little children.

You also think that the Natural Law is superstition, because that is exactly what Abortion violates. Even more astonishing by putting down the existence of God, who is the author of the Natural Law, you impugned the bases for your inalienable rights.

Consequently, your rights would be only what the government says they are. Fortunately, Morality is determined by the NL and not man. If it were man, your rights would be determined by the facetious principle of “Might makes Right.”

While you’re trying to think what you've said, here are some of the Nutty Professors you’ve witlessly maligned as being ignorant because they thought Roe was nutty too. One is John Hart Ely. He is one of the most widely-cited legal scholars in United States history, ranking just after Richard Posner, Ronald Dworkin, and Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., according to a 2000 study in the University of Chicago's Journal of Legal Studies.

Of course, added on your list of ignorant philippic maunders of the law are the esteemed radical left-wing lawyers who think the Constitution is a living organism.

Though I can agree with you about the following liberals who put down “Roe” such as Laurence Tribe, Cass Sunstein, and Kermit Roosevelt are a bit kooky, the point is that not even the "off the wall" liberal lawyers who are esteemed in the Secular world could swallow this assault on the jurisprudence and the Constitution by the imbeciles who decided "Roe."

Psolus:

"...I have also met satan."

That's a lie - you have never met me; I would remember.
-------------------------
Always the smooth talker, eh, Satam? (Satan is you know--a great con man.)

"...I have also met satan."

That's a lie - you have never met me; I would remember.

barferio

You wrote, "There is no reason to take care, no reason to be ready, because your gods do not exist. They never have existed, they don't exist now, and they never will exist."

Not only have I met God, Who Is a Trinity, but I have also met satan.

So you just happen to be wrong in your "opinion" and that is what it is, your opinion, nothing more, nothing less.

You also wrote, "Do you ever ask yourself: what is it like to be a complete fool?"

No, but I have wondered why God chose me to be a messenger.

Then you wrote, "Obviously you claim the rest of us to be such, but just as obviously you never ask it of yourself."

I have never made that claim.

I have mentioned that I used to believe in God and that God "rewarded" my belief, which was a gift in the first place, with revelation that God Is.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Jihadist

Yes, we do have a choice of what we "access" but whether we access or not it is still out there, some of it being very much real and some of it being made up.

Ignoring the "real" does not make it any less real but acknowledging our capacity for our "inhumanity" to our fellow humans can be a way of seeing that the "world" is a mess.

Just because our own "backyard", so to speak, may not be too bad does not mean that there are not "serious" problems with the way we treat each other, this is nothing new by any stretch but what may be new is the quickness and thoroughness with which the accounts of our treating each other is spread around the world.

The "solution", as you put it, may not be to ignore any of it but to acknowledge it but ultimately it seems as if one would come to the conclusion that the only person one can change is themself.

I, personally, do not think that there is a "solution", that is why I am glad that God has a Plan.

Seems as if thru the ages, there have been many that have come up with a "solution" and usually these "solutions" involves the imposition of these "solutions" on others.

Your name on these postings, Jihadist, comes from Jihad, I would think, and I have heard that there are at least two meanings of Jihad: One being the person attempting to "improve" themself, the other being the "imposition" on others, is this not correct?

There is a "reason" for governments and laws and all that goes with this and it seems as if the main reason is for at least a "semblance" of civility, or whatever the right word may be, to reign in the world.

When Jesus said something to the effect, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you", He most definitely did not say that if you did this then others would follow suit, did He?

Jesus is not the only Person that has said something to this effect but this is not the only thing that He said.

The "world" is a mess and it has been and it will be and every day, every one of us has "choices" to make in our life.

There is a big difference between whether our "actions" come from within or are imposed from the outside.

Just because something is "legal" does not mean it is right and just because something is "illegal" does not mean that it is wrong.

Sometimes it seems as if some think of "virtual reality" as being more real than reality or more important.

Good to hear from you, wish you well.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

"IN REPLY TO (IRT)
PSOLUS
POSTED | JUNE 27, 2010 12:07 PM "

Another impotent, ignorant rant to no avail.

...
..
……………………
...................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ./
...................... . . . . . . . / . . . . . . /
...................... . . ./ . . . / . . . / . . / . . . . . . . . . /
...................... . . / . . . . . . . / . . . . . / . . . . . . /
...................... , ---------------------- . . . ... . ,.-,
.................... / . . . . . . ` --- . . . . . . \ . __ . / . |
.................. [ . by . K . A . F . i . R ... _|_ . . . |
.................... \ . . . . . . , --- . . . . . . / . . . . .\ . |
...................... `----------------------- . . .. ....`.-`
………………………………..............................
………………
…………
………
....................... ,--------------------,
................... ,' . . . . . . . . . . . . . .'|
................ ,' . K . a . a . b . a . '# | . . .Good Bye
............ ,' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '# # | . . . . Idols
.......... :---------------------- '# # # |
.......... | # # # # # # # # # | # # # |
.......... | # # # # # # # # # | # # # |
.......... | #ALLAH-aKBAR#| # # # |
.......... | # [ البيت المعمو ر‎] # |[ الكعبة‎].|
.......... | # # # # # # # # # | # # # |
.......... | # # # # # # # # # | # # # |
.......... | # # # # # # # # # | # # # |
.......... |_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_| \_\_\_\
.
..
...
Credits To "jj" http://onwapo.com

"K A F i R" (A NOne iShmaeli/Esaui iSlami?)

"K A F i R"

"Kafir" "Kafir"

W H A T -- AN -- U G L Y -- W O R D(s)! Racist!

"S A T A N i C -- V E R S U S" Yes? Or NO?

Worse Than The "N" Word That Was made NO Longer Usable in U.S.A Community (Ummah)et al.(Obscene like).

The (un) Holy Quran/Koran Needs To Get a Fixing, NOt only the Hadiths; 'aHaaBi-Bi's (Love's)! aye?

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
PSOLUS
POSTED | JUNE 27, 2010 12:07 PM

IRT:
“Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. No amount of ignorant ravings on your part will be able to take away a woman's right to choose. You are impotent in your attempts to force others to live in accordance with you ignorant, superstitious beliefs.”

ANS:
What you call ignorant superstitious beliefs, viz. that murder is illicit and proscribed by the Natural and Moral Law (N&ML) is an expression of your own ignorance of the N&ML and due to your bias.

There are no rights to murder irrespective of your beliefs; that is not rant it is the truth. Ranting is a distraught denial of the truth. It is empty because it has no rational defense for murdering and is empty rhetoric and denies the truth.

Further, there is no settled law for injustice. Law must conform to truth, not to injudicial impropriety. Was Plessey v. Ferguson settled law? Did “Brown v. Board of Education” overturn it? Was Dred Scott settled law and overturned?

Moreover, no one has a right to be immoral. Man is endowed with a free will, not to choose evil but to freely choose the good.

Now that might dishevel you a bit but you will have to live with it. Your belief is irrelevant as to its truth. Unfortunately, by not believing the N&ML the consequences that follow will be unpropitious to your life because consequences of the N&ML are uncompromisable.

Irrespective of the injudicious libertine Court, no one, not eve you, can claim a moral right to intentionally take the life of an innocent human, viz. to murder or infanticide.

All who rail against what you cannot understand are not ignorant or superstitious. Your harangue that abortion is a natural right is nothing more than an expression of ignorance of the Natural and Moral Law. To call these laws superstitions is the height of intellectual dishonesty.

Moreover, your rabble exposes your visible discombobulation for the truth and is a harangue in defense of murder. Further, it attends more to being an expression of neopagan iconoclastic narcissism. The indefensible defense for murder is nothing more than inconspicuous priggery apparently to defend one’s peccant indiscretions.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
SHORINBJ
“HATE ROE?”

IRT:
“You can hate Roe v. Wade all you want, just don't go around hysterically making bogus claims about what it said.”

ANS:
"To safeguard the inviolable rights of the human person, and to facilitate the performance of his duties, is the principal duty of every public authority."

To the Secularist, “hate” is telling the truth. The inconceivable, injudicious, and irrational impudent conclusion of “Roe” mocks judicial prudence, impugns the Constitution, imputes the inviolability of our inalienable rights, and transmogrifies all America.

Roe is the highest rank of contempt against the Natural Law and all humanity. This decision is so egregious that even the left-wing radical constitutionalists could not swallow it.

To defend “Roe” is evidence of one’s ignorance of jurisprudence and one’s sense of Law. Even the most obtuse liberal representatives in law conjoined with originalists against what these impudent libertine justices wrought in the fiasco of “Roe v. Wade.” Even Justice Burger, who voted for it, said it had to be reined in.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._wade

“In a 1973 article in the Yale Law Journal, Professor John Hart Ely criticized Roe as a decision which "is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be."

Ely added: "What is frightening about Roe is that this super-protected right is not inferable from the language of the Constitution, the framers’ thinking respecting the specific problem in issue, any general value derivable from the provisions they included, or the nation’s governmental structure."

"Professor Laurence Tribe had similar thoughts: 'One of the most curious things about Roe is that, behind its own verbal smokescreen, the substantive judgment on which it rests is nowhere to be found.'"— (Ibid)

Blackmun's smokescreen was a "penumbra" hidden in the Constitution used to supersede a Right to Life. This penumbra, as Tribe notes, was even unknown to the Founding Fathers, viz. it was pure fabrication.

"Liberal law professors Alan Dershowitz, Cass Sunstein, and Kermit Roosevelt have also expressed disappointment with Roe—(Ibid)."

Roe may be acceptable to you, viz. seven unelected justices rewriting law with impunity, trampling on our most treasured inviolable right, Life, the Fifth Article of the Constitution, and seditious rebuking the sense of representative government, annihilation without representation.

Reckless injustice won't always work for the few; eventually it will devour even those who have dramatized its embellishment.

Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land.

No amount of ignorant ravings on your part will be able to take away a woman's right to choose.

You are impotent in your attempts to force others to live in accordance with you ignorant, superstitious beliefs.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
SHORINBJ
“WE DON’T KNOW WHAT IT IS AND NEITHER DOES ANYONE ELSE”
POSTED JUNE 25, 2010 3:21 PM

IRT:
“The court DID NOT, repeat NOT rule one way or the other on whether a fetus, at any stage, is a person, although they did find that the Constitution didn't explicitly grant that fetus any legal standing.”

ANS:
To the "Roe Gang," the Constitution didn’t “explicitly” grant the “conceived” any legal standing because the “Roe Gang” denied the unborn was a “person.” While all the time claiming they would nor pronounce upon the question of whether the child was human or not because, in their unmitigated stupor, they believed no one could decide what the "conceived" was, however, by refusing to decide, they implicitly did decide.

What in God’s name did these injudicious effigies of egregious injustice think it was that a woman conceived if not a child? Was it a baboon, a medusozoa, a marmoset, a ring-tailed lemur, or was the conceived like the simpletons sitting on the Court judging it?

What profound crassness from these inane nincompoops; they had inconceivably refused to address the central point of which the whole trial revolved around, viz. was the "conceived" human. What kind of buffoonery is that?

Justice Kennedy, said if it was ever proven the "conceived" was human then "Roe" would have to be thrown out of Court. It has been proven, but "Roe," like a Phoenix rising from its ashes, though it had devoured itself, viz. hung itself on its own petard of irrationality, has managed to still be alive and aflammed.

This moronic Court, who saw no evil, spoke no evil, and heard no evil, in their mummified state of moral Secular blindness to all reality, claimed that the Constitution never mentioned the unborn and therefore the unborn could not be afforded rights.

Of course the Constitution never mention unborn, neither did it mention these imbeciles, or the rights of Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, or Madison; it said “people!”

The Founding Fathers (FF) assumed not all the American people were imbeciles. The FF assumed that when they spoke of “people” that included Jefferson, Madison, Washington, etc., and the unborn child and ever other human.

When the FF said all men are equal that included human babies until a moronic majority Court decided it could redefine humanity

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
SHORINBJ
“TRIMESTER / BLACKMUN’
POSTED BY: | JUNE 25, 2010 3:21 PM

[Blackmuns’s Theory concluded that the 'conceived' contrary to all modern Genetics, Microbiology, and Embryology was not a human but a 'thing' and that a woman was never pregnant with a child, because this 'thing' never became fully human until it was free from the mother.]

IRT:
Wrong. Blackmun wrote, "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.

ANS:
But that is exactly what the Court did, it speculated that the embryo was a potential human being, and not a human being and therefore it could be murdered.

In the last attempt to ban Partial Birth Abortion, , The Four Blind Bats of the Court, Stevens, Ginsberg, Breyer and Souter were debating how far out of the birth canal was allowed before the child could be murdered.

The purblind amaurotic Justices could not see a human child being born while a butcher, masquerading as a doctor plunged a surgical scissors into the back of a little child’s skull, with its arms flailing, to suck out its brains while it was gasping for its first breath of life.

Moreover, the Court, by claiming the unborn wasn’t a person, denied it was human, in the face of what every woman that has been pregnant knows, viz. that she is with a child growing in her and not something becoming a child.

What did this imbecile Court of anthropoids think that a woman was pregnant with? Duhh, it wasn’t a Blackbird she conceived. It wasn’t a small pachyderm, or a chimp or a Pongo pygmaeus that the misanthrope Secularists claimed it might be.

Oh, the conceived could have been any of those things according to the purblind Secularist Court who incredibly denied they knew what it was.

Hence, Blackmun invented the Trimester Theory, viz. because it was more difficult to justify the murder of the conceived as time passed, because it was inconceivable to say this child was not a human.

Tell us, Thomas Baum, why we should take care and be ready, any more than anybody has been in the last 2000 years.

why should this generation, in particular people like you, expect your jesus gods to show up during your lifetime, when all the other christian lifetimes since your god was born have been wrong?

There is no reason to take care, no reason to be ready, because your gods do not exist. They never have existed, they don't exist now, and they never will exist.

Do you ever ask yourself: what is it like to be a complete fool?

Obviously you claim the rest of us to be such, but just as obviously you never ask it of yourself.

Hello Thomas Paul Moses Baum,

We can already be either coarsened or numbed if we chose to watch movies showing excessive violence and too much foul language, listen to death rock, see newsclips of war and their victims (which are shown more freely on YouTube without editing by mainstream news media).

Take a simpler solution. Don't access, don't turn on feeds showing or blogging such, including in Twitter and YouTube.

Susan Jacoby

You wrote, "That we don't run a video of the execution on YouTube, which would be the modern equivalent of allowing cheerful, ale-guzzling sixteenth-century crowds to view beheadings in the spirit of a public holiday, does not change the nature of the act or its coarsening effect on society."

Who knows?

Maybe, hiding the "execution" rather than showing the "grusome reality" of it may be adding to the "coarsening effect on society", something to think about?

The old "out of sight, out of mind".

Some of the people that are the most against violence are those that have experienced it or have seen it first-hand.

Of course, there are also those blood-sucking ticks that can't get enough of it.

I do agree with you that sometimes we seem to avoid the serious for the trivial and meaningless, at least I think that is what you meant.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

The Tweeter designed and perfect for microblogging, is also perfect for soundbites - the equivalent of electronic bumper stickers such as:

- There is no God.
- There is no God, but God
- Jesus saves.
- Krishna is the original Avatar
- In God we trust.
- For God we execute.
- On God we twit.

don't pick on TWISTED too much now, this person, though truly deranged, seems to be able to spell well enough, and his/her use of grammar is quite well done.

Of course he (the ritual "he", I think he's a woman) is definitely lost in their arbitrary religious delusions.

In so many posts all over WAPO we see him quoting his favorite lunacies from his favorite books of myths ,,, and you can see him pounding the table with delight when he feels he has proven the truth to all of us.

TWISTED, one day you may mature to the point where you can hold the idea in your head that the religion infecting you as you were born is just chance, just a geographical randomnity.

What would you, with your level of religious delusion, be like in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan? Would you go to Moscow and kill 100 children because you believe your book of myths told you to do it?

Oh, and by the way, the Creator Thomas Jefferson wrote about in the Declaration of Independence was most certainly not the god (santa claus) you believe in. Though of course none of us expect you to be able to realize it.

poor, poor twisted. One flew over the cuckoo's nest.

"Blackmuns’s Theory concluded that the 'conceived' contrary to all modern Genetics, Microbiology, and Embryology was not a human but a 'thing' and that a woman was never pregnant with a child, because this 'thing' never became fully human until it was free from the mother."

Wrong. Blackmun wrote, "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."

The court DID NOT, repeat NOT, rule one way or the other on whether a fetus, at any stage, is a person, although they did find that the Constitution didn't explicitly grant that fetus any legal standing. Mostly they found that the woman's right to privacy extends to her right to make her own medical decisions.

You can hate Roe v. Wade all you want, just don't go around hysterically making bogus claims about what it said.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
SECULAR
“DENIALOF REALITY”
POSTED JUNE 23, 2010 1:54 PM

IRT:
“We act no more or less moral than you do. In short, your statement is blatant BS.”

ANS:
The Secularist’s biases obscure his vision of reality. The Secularists have elected an iconic Secularist President . He is an avid Partial Birth Abortionist .

Three attempts could not convince the Court’s four Secularist Justices Ginsberg, Souter, Breyer, and Stevens that the child being born was human. They were in a quandary as to when the child became human, and couldn’t be murdered, viz. the further the child emerged, the more human he became. So the child’s residency negated its humanity and they concurred the child could be murdered.

Obama denied the child’s humanity even after it was born. Hence, he voted three times to give a butcher, posing as a doctor, the right to murder the child after he botched the Abortion and the child survived.

The asinine cretinism of Secularists and their inconceivable adversity to reality was exhibited in “Roe v. Wade.” The inane Justice Blackmun, the master of Judicial buffoonery, created the Trimester Theory that redefined human nature. Secularist don’t believe in the Natural Law, and therefore believe they can redefine nature.

Blackmuns’s Theory concluded that the “conceived” contrary to all modern Genetics, Microbiology, and Embryology was not a human but a “thing” and that a woman was never pregnant with a child, because this “thing” never became fully human until it was free from the mother. Even free, to many Secularists, the child was still not human and could still be murdered, a.k.a. Obama.

Consequently, the kind of justices that Obama wants to nominate are those who have equated conjugal love to gay sex, denied the value of the Moral Law and claimed it was subjective and served no legitimate purpose to the State.

Moreover, though the Declaration declared that man is endowed by God with certain inalienable rights, the Court violated these rights by trespassing on the inviolable Right to Life and made all rights violable and subject to the Court.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
SECULAR
ABSURDITY BEGETS ABSURDITY”
POSTED JUNE 23, 2010 1:54 PM

IRT:
“As I mentioned earlier this conversation not be polluted with the godly nonsense.”

ANS:
I assume that your “Invisible Flying Pink Unicorn" that you claim to believe in isn’t fantasy but a reality. Your rhetoric has you running in circles.

IRT:
“Secular societies do just fine. We act no more or less moral than you do.

ANS:
So you see no difference between the Secular materialist States and those that recognized the fundamental inviolable Judeo-Christian rights of man.

Consequently, the human rights in the secular States of China, N. Korea, India, or in the terrorist nations of the Middle East and Far East are no different than the rights of the Free World . This is not only delusional but buffoonery.

The harmony of man’s integration into society is directly proportionate to his and society's adherence to the Natural Moral Law. This is the reason America is the greatest nations in history.

Unfortunately, as has Europe, America’s majority lamentably has opted to abandon its Judeo-Christian heritage. This heritage is inscribed in our "Declaration" and our Constitution’s "Bill of Rights." However, America has opted to commit social suicide by electing an admitted radical Muslim Social Communist for President.

IRT:
First of all there is no objective anything that your imaginary friend (IF) exists.

ANS:
Of course, in the Alternate World of Secularism, where up is down and down is up; good is bad and bad is good, it is impossible to be rational because its residents are in denial of reality.

Again, the Universe is ordered. Order, by necessity, presupposes an intellect. The Intellect that orders the Universe is Whom we call God. Subsequently, you must deny that the Universe is ordered to deny the existence of God.

If you admit the Universe is ordered but there is no God, you must explain how the Universe ordered itself, viz. that which has no intelligence created intelligence.

However, that is an irrational absurdity. Namely, you would have to believe that unintelligent matter, a rock (concentrated matter of the Big Bang) created your intelligence and gave you the powers of reason and free will that no other creature in the Universe has.

To deny the Universe is ordered, you would have to unwittingly deny the laws of Physics and all the Empirical Sciences. To do so is not only irrational but loony.

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ1, what is this nonsense NML you talk about. If you go by your damn book of fables, it would be OK for you to pimp your wife, if you feel your life was under threat. It would be OK to sacrifice your son because some voices in your head told you. If your child was a girl it would have been OK offer her up as burnt offerings just so you may win a stupid battle for your deity. This is what you claim is the NML? You can have that good for nothing SCAT of NML. For me I have much more virtuous laws made by rational people evolved over our history.

"Can you show where any society that permits or ignores lying, murder, stealing, cheating bribery, adultery, etc. does not have discord and strife?"

Can YOU show where any secular society permits this? You are attacking a straw man here. Discord and strife exist everywhere, to some degree or other.

In secular societies, murder and stealing are crimes simply because they have to be for a society to function. Think of it as natural selection applied to society. If a community has no laws, it can't last long, can it? In fact, you might say it isn't a community at all. But if some people get together and lay down some rules so they all can get along without killing each other, the society survives. The better they are at cooperation, the longer they last. Pretty basic.

F I F A - W O R L D - C U P - 2 0 1 0:
.
. Avidazane Germany, YA VOLE! Sun.May.27.10
..
...
.......... .. _ , ........ , _
......... .'@.. /~~~\ ..@'.
........ / /~~~\.___/~~~\ \
...... |@\___/USA\___/@|
...... |@/......\USA/......\@|
........ \ \___/ ~~~\___/ /
..........'.@...\___/...@.'
............. ` ". " ."." ." `
.................... |..|
.................... |..|
.................. / )..|___
.................. \...|..|..|..|
.................... \.........|
...................... \......./
...
..
.
...................... GOoooooAaaaaaaLL !!! U. S. A.!
. GOooooooooooAaaaaaaaaaaaLLL !!! U. S. A.!
....................... GOoooooAaaaaaaLL !!! U. S. A.!
. GOooooooooooAaaaaaaaaaaaLLL !!! U. S. A.!
.
. Credits to "jj" @ http://onwapo.com
.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
SHORINBJ |
“REALITY”

IRT;
[When the ML is eschewed, inevitable social disorder ensues.]

“This statement has no basis in reality.

ANS:
The Commandments are the fundamental basis of the Natural Moral Law (NML). They are based on the human nature of man, and therefore are applicable to all men. Thus, Murder, Thievery, Lying, Adultery and all their contingencies are morally illicit for all societies.

No society can maintain a harmonious social order that makes these iniquities licit. Governments cannot maintain the proper order that allows such iniquities except by force. Moreover this harmony is directly proportional to a government’s adherence to the NML.

God is the author of the NML that issues forth from His Natural Law (NL). Therefore, those who deny or distort God’s existence have no rational basis for Morality or “Inalienable Rights” because they would be given by man.” What man gives, man can take away.

Those who deny the efficacy of the NML, implicitly, the Commandments, are societies of social discord. Scripture foretells, the fate for those who violate the NML, viz. the coming of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse—Famine, Pestilence, War, and Death.

One needs only to contrast the governments who recognize the NML and those who ignore it, namely Secularist & Materialist governments to those based on the NL, to see the NML’s validity. Can you show where any society that permits or ignores lying, murder, stealing, cheating bribery, adultery, etc. does not have discord and strife?

Relying on our NML based on our Judeo-Christian heritage, the Founding Fathers wrote the Bill of Rights. Consequently, as America slowly turns away from the Founders toward Secularism, our social order begins to slowly deteriorate.

Because the Court, violated the 5th Commandment by legalizing murder of the unborn, we are slaughtering our posterity. Over 52 million have died. We are presently at three workers paying for one SSI recipient and are approaching 1 on 1 in the very near future.

Violating the Sixth Commandment we’ve become plagued with two of its Horsemen, Pestilence, and Death, a.k.a. AIDS, HIV, STDs. What family can ignore the precepts of the Six Commandment and permit any immoral and illicit sexuality without discord?

"Natural Moral Law (NML)"

That is a belief that you have mistaken for reality.

"God only gave Moses one set of Commandments..."

That is also a belief that you have mistaken for reality.

"In addition, God made Moses and His infallible Church the voice for their meaning because man is subject to error."

That is also a belief that you have mistaken for reality.

Actually, all of your comments consist almost entirely of your various superstitious beliefs, all of which you have mistaken for reality.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
SECULAR |
“POLUTING CONVERSATIONS”
POSTED JUNE 23, 2010 11:45 AM

“Can we discuss this without polluting the conversation with the stuff from those vile books of fables. Besides, it depends on which version of the wretched "ten commandments" you are referring to..

ANS:
Can one discuss Mathematics by claiming1+1=2 doesn’t exist? Only between Secularists is it possible to discuss Capital Punishment without relying on the Natural Moral Law (NML).

God only gave Moses one set of Commandments, not many sets that contradict each other. In addition, God made Moses and His infallible Church the voice for their meaning because man is subject to error.

Because of the Secularist's predispositions that are obstacles to his reasoning, the Secularist has no eyes or ears to see or hear God. Hence, it is written, "...thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them to little ones."--Matthew 11: 26.

Marx wrote the history of the world and then tried to make the world fit into what he wrote. Like the Marxists, the Atheist presumes Scriptures are false and attempts to prove his preconceived contentions irrespective of their reality.

God is Truth and Truth cannot contradict Truth, Moreover, since God is Omniscient, to avoid man’s subjection to error, God gave man His Church and made it infallible in its universal teachings and beliefs (cf. Matthew 16:18). Therefore, the Church is the official and impeccable judge of what are the moral binding truths of the Commandments.

Aristotle, the “Father of Logic” and the “Scientific Method,” proved that God exists from reason centuries ago; additionally, the Scriptures are valid records of God’s existence since the beginning of time by those who witnessed God’s intercessions in the history of mankind.

To the Secularists, ML is subjective, but subjective morality is meaningless and a contradiction because it makes human conduct, of which the ML is based upon, relative. Hence, the moral beliefs of Stalin are as licit as those stipulated by the ML. The ML proscribes murder; it makes murder universally illicit, but Stalin subjectively made murder licit.

Inviolable rights become relative as well. Namely, the ML gives man the Right to Life, Stalin denied man a Right to Life. Under the belief that the ML is subjective, both the ML and Stalin are right and what is moral dictated by “Might makes Right.”

"When the ML is eschewed, inevitable social disorder ensues."

This statement has no basis in reality. Actually comparing religious societies to secular ones gives the lie to your assertion. Secular societies do just fine. We act no more or less moral than you do. Europe has not devolved into the Wild West. In short, your statement is blatant BS.

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ1, as I mentioned earlier this conversation not be polluted with the godly nonsense. But you see to insist on that. May be because your delusion has gotten better of you. First of all there is no objective anything that your imaginary friend(IF) exists. So denying in IF is no more a violation of anything any more than, your denial of the existence of my favourite deity (IFPU) Invisible Flying Pink Unicorn. During the times of FF, although there were plenty of skeptics, amongst which FFs were too, there was no overwhelming evidence to simply do away with your IF. So the skeptics amongst the FFs compromised a bit and threw the bone to the theists so they can respond to the matters on hand, than be bogged down in futile arguments.

You also wrote: "Therefore, since the ML is a NL, man can no more change it than he can change the order of days, or make 1+1=3. Thus, the denial of God, lying, murder, stealing etc. are intrinsic moral violations against the social order of all societies." This is lot of rubbish. Of course we can change the order of the days, it just happened that we chose the order no body ordained, definitely not your IF. The Greek & Romans did not use the 7 days of the week at all. The hindus until about 1000 years ago did not either. Nothing happened to them. Again 1 + 1 = 2 was also agreed to, there is nothing prevented us from calling 1 + 1 = 3, as long as we were going to apply that consistently there forwards. There is no intrinsic value attached to "Two" or "Three", we the people have chosen to do what we have been using it for.

"That we don't run a video of the execution on YouTube, which would be the modern equivalent of allowing cheerful, ale-guzzling sixteenth-century crowds to view beheadings in the spirit of a public holiday, does not change the nature of the act or its coarsening effect on society."

Actually, I think it does.

Public executions treated the executee's death as worthy of being public sideshow entertainment, like the Roman Colesseum. Today's executions are conducted with as much solemnity as is consistent with safe prison practice.

The implicit message in an execution is "It's too bad our society still has people who merit capital punishment," not "Look who we're offing today!"

BTW, even if one opposes capital punishment, it's kind of hard to argue that Timothy McVeigh didn't deserve it.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
SECULAR
POSTED JUNE 22,

IRT:
“Farnaz:
You asked in your post if the capital punishment opponents would really oppose execution of a person who is 100% guilty. The right question really is "is it ok for all of us collectively to do a thing which we individually should not be doing?" So my questions would be to you, will you be willing to execute a person whom you know, without a shadow of doubt, is guilty? If you are not willing to do it, why would you be willing to do it along with 299,999,998 others?"

ANS:
The majority of Germany unwittingly agreed with Hitler and they, as well as millions who did not agree, suffered the tragic consequences of their concordance.

The Natural & Moral Laws are objective and universal. The Moral Law (ML) is based on the exigencies of human nature. The basis for the ML is embedded in the “Ten Commandments.”

Now, unless man ceases to be human, the ML is the universal authority over man’s behavior, as are the physical laws that govern man. The Natural Law (NL) and the ML do not depend on who believes them. The ML proceeds from the NL whose author is God our Creator.

Consequently, the Founding Fathers (FF) did not “give” man certain inalienable rights but “recognized” they were endowed by God explicitly in the "Declaration" and implicitly in the "Bill of Rights."

Since these rights are given by God and not government, only man can forfeit them by abusing them, as the FF noted in the "Declaration."

Therefore, since the ML is a NL, man can no more change it than he can change the order of days, or make 1+1=3. Thus, the denial of God, lying, murder, stealing etc. are intrinsic moral violations against the social order of all societies.

The ML is a gift from God that causes the harmony between man and society. When the ML is eschewed, inevitable social disorder ensues. Hence, the ML is not a matter of opinion, but is “de facto” an impending reality. Those who deny its efficacy deny their own dignity and sanctity although they have the free will to do so.

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ1, can we discuss this without polluting the conversation with the stuff from those vile books of fables. Besides, it depends on which version of the wretched "ten commandments" you are referring to. See you theists are not in agreement with the stuff in those books of fables. So lets not introduce this new controversy into the conversation that has been very polite and civil, so far.

The purpose of the death penalty is, and always has been, to assert the power and authority of the state, and to make people fear and submit to that authority.

That is why Jesus was executed by the Roman Empire, and that is why Mary Queen of Scotts was executed by the English Parliment, and that is why the King of France was executed by the Revolutionary Convention, and that is why all of the countless unlucky souls, guilty or innocent, have been executed since the times of the Phaorohs in Egypt.

So, do we really need to be executing people today, in twenty-first century America?

No, not really.

It is a useless, anachronistic custom, perhaps useful in North Korea, China, or Iran, but pretty much irrelevant, here.

THE LIFE & DEATH OF MAN and HIS SANCTITY.

http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02ev.htm

"From man in regard to his fellow man I will demand an accounting for human life" (Genesis 9:5): Human life is sacred and inviolable.

"Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves 'the creative action of God', and it remains forever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end. God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can, in any circumstance, morally claim for himself the right to destroy directly an innocent human being, not even in Abortion or Euthanasia.

Only God is the master of life! Yet from the beginning, faced with the many and often tragic cases which occur in the life of individuals and society, Christian reflection has sought a fuller and deeper understanding of what God's commandment prohibits and prescribes.

Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."

The Fifth Commandment forbids direct and intentional killing as gravely sinful. The murderer and those who cooperate voluntarily in murder commit a sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance The Fifth Commandment forbids doing anything with the intention of indirectly bringing about an innocent person's death. The moral law prohibits exposing someone to mortal danger without grave reason, as well as refusing assistance to a person in danger.

Farnaz:
I am also opposed to death penalty. The reason I posed the question, was just to get people to think. While I actually hold the position that what an individual is not allowed to do in a society, is most often we collectively allow ourselves to do. But we need to always ask the question though to make sure it does not become mobacracy.

In that light, death penalty is a punishment without any recourse unlike any other form of punishment. We the society cannot recompense if wrongly carried out. We can at least try to recompense for almost anything else but not for the wrong death penalty that is why I am opposed to death penalty. On the other hand if the law of the land allows for it then, I rather work to change the law than to frivolously try to keep postponing the execution. It is for the same reason or similar reason that I am opposed to the state run Lotto. So far knock on the wood I have not purchased a single lotto ticket in my 34 years of stay here. But I rather enoy gambling at Vegas. So I am not opposed to gambling, but I am opposed to all of us collectively becoming the house, so to speak.

Secular:

Another reply. Although I've used the argument you raise in your post, I'm not sure how logical it is. If capital punishment is murder, is imprisonment kidnapping?

It isn’t which side of an issue that the media takes which is the problem with society, but rather which issues the media takes that is the problem. This week, the Washington Post’s “On Faith” has decided to discuss the morality of tweeting rather than the morality of the death penalty.

Tweeting death doesn’t trivialize life, killing people rather than taking the time, money, and effort needed to overhaul our penal system to actually rehabilitate criminals trivializes life.

You can read the rest of my response to this topic:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-8928-Philadelphia-Atheism-Examiner~y2010m6d22-On-Faith-The-morality-of-tweeting-the-death-penalty

I will be responding to every issue posted in the 'On Faith' section. If you would like to be notified when my new response is up, please subscribe.

Secular:

Correction to post: I just realized I didn't post on my opposition to the death penalty here, but on Matthew Schmaltz's thread.

Secular:

Thanks for your reply! Actually, I oppose the death penalty for reasons I posted further down. I posted the question because I'm trying to clarify my own thinking. What about a case like that of Ted Bundy?

Do some who have lost loved ones to murder feel that when we do not draw on the death penalty, we place the life of the murderer above that of the victim? While the family of one of Gardner's victims did not wish him to be sentenced to death, another did.

What also about cases such as his, which represent a failure of the juvenile justice system (big surprise) more than anything else?

Ted Bundy?

Farnaz:
You asked in your post if the capital punishment opponents would really oppose execution of a person who is 100% guilty. The right question really is "is it ok for all of us collectively to do a thing which we individually should not be doing?" So my questions would be to you, will you be willing to execute a person whom you know, without a shadow of doubt, is guilty? If you are not willing to do it, why would you be willing to do it along with 299,999,998 others?

I would like to ask a question of opponents of capital punishment.

If we could be certain, beyond all doubt, that the convicted person was guilty, would you still oppose capital punishment?

If so, would your opposition extend to the likes of Ted Bundy?

twmatthews, I really do agree with Susan within the narrow sense in which the her comments were written. To the greater issue of death penalty, I am opposed to it steadfastly. But I am not with the people who prolong the episode for several decades. Once the accused is given a full and fair trial, I think that should be it. The frivolous manner in which the episode is prolonged is disgusting, and really thoughtless expenditure of resources, whatever they may be. The ant penalty folks do better to educate and try to change the law, if they can. I am all for that, but not the way it is carried on today.

To Secular,

I don't think you really agree with Susan. Her comments concluded that we are one of the few developed countries in the world that still executes prisoners. She indicated that the manner in which the execution was announced is irrelevant. The real discussion should be around the idea of the death penalty itself and not about whether the announcement should be twittered, emailed or broadcast.

For me, with the number of "convicted rapists" who have been freed now that DNA testing has become more routine, means that we cannot afford to permanently punish someone when we may find out later that they were innocent.

I agree Susan with your comments. I have a similar problem with death penalty cases being dragged on for decades. If the state is required legally to execute people after a fair legal process all attempts to thwart the execution should be abandoned. ALl these frivolous law suits do is delay the punishment. Lets get over with. If the ant-death penalty folks don't like the laws then elect people to change it but this dragging is really childish. If you cannot change,continue to change the law. I personally disdain the death penalty. But if it should be carried out then lets get it done, as long as the individual has not been railroaded. In most cases the scoundrels are in-despicable, so I do not loose sleep over them.