$1M Alligator Shoes Please
- Thread starter Jefferson
- Start date
- Status
You should. You're enjoying the benefits of other people's taxes. The law is stealing for you. Stealing is immoral.
The Bible commands only 3 forms of punishment. Restitution (usually double restitution for theft), corporal punishment (ie. flogging) and capital punishment (public stoning by the citizen community). There would not be our current massive (expensive) prison system draining the public funds which could be spent on more useful pursuits.
So the owner of the company who skrimmped and saved and did without for decades in order to finally have enough savings to start a business to give jobs to those childish ingrates is now penniless. You think thats fair?
If eating food God declared to be "clean" symbolized partaking in the life of God, then eating "unclean" food symbolized rebellion against the same.
The New Testament shows that symbolic laws are no longer in effect now that the substance of those symbols (Christ) has come.
The police and the courts.
Sure, logic is probably a better word. It is logical to extrapolate fences around swimming pools from fences around roof tops.
Reminds me of Jimmy Carter.
No one ever makes anyone else repent.
Ever seen the movie, "The Madness of King George?"
Primarily national defense and enforcing laws designed to prevent the strong from abusing the weak and to prevent the majority from abusing the minority.
Zakath
Resident Atheist
What about basic "slaughter"? Joshua, I Kings 18, I Sam. 15, etc.
Precisely which of the 630+ laws are no longer in effect? The distinction between "symbolic" and the other seems to vary from Christian to Christian. If it was so emminently clear then why can't you people seem to agree on them after almost 2,000 years?
Greywolf
New member
I didn't say I didn't pay taxes, just not income tax. There's no income tax in my state.
How would that guarantee a low percentage of murder and violent crime?
Nope. I was just trying to point out (and doing a bad job of it) that the employees probably wouldn't do something like that.
How do you know which laws are symbolic laws?
If they're pulling their laws from the same source as the church would be, what's the difference?
Reminds me of your proposed system.
Then what would keep the king from acting immorally?
Nope.
Why do we bother with one now? It can be, and is, ignored just as easily. The difference is, at least the world can point the finger at the guy who is responsible for changing it. That's more than can be had with the current situation.
No, it has a real function because there is only one person that can change (or ignore) the constitution in a monarchy, unlike the unaccountable faceless group that changes (ignores) our constitution today. A sop would be something like the vote that people who are in the Constitution Party have.
Actually, I'm just limited on time. But I'll accept the accusation, and I'll probably be guilty much more in the future since my time is limited to the point of be unfair to readers in a thread. Sorry.
But now I have a question for you: is there any possibilty that the King would be good? And if so, would be King be generaly known as the "dictator"?
Because the problems you mentioned are prohibited.
Right. Even if we could run our churches, would we know how to vote correctly? There are a ton of issues that I have to study because I need to have an informed vote that I would rather not waste my time on. And EVERY citizen is obliged in the same way. It's a huge waste of time that shouldn't be forced on the citizens. Any citizen that doesn't put 100% of the study necessary into every single issue they vote on is NEGLIGENT. But, since negligence is a way of life since the opposite is IMPOSSIBLE, they do little if any study at all. Right, we are not ready to run society.
Amen. I'm certain the majority of Monarchs won't care a wit about what the church thinks.
Prohibiting abuses of power on paper is fine, till someone just sidesteps it with an executive order, national emergency, or what have you.
What worries me about these abuses in a monarchy is the potential for so much worse to happen--and in the name of the church. That's why Lewis's comment seems so relevant: the worst kind of abuses occur when we're dealing with a religious tyranny, not a secular one. (Religious regimes also tend to last a lot longer.)
What worries me about these abuses in a monarchy is the potential for so much worse to happen--and in the name of the church. That's why Lewis's comment seems so relevant: the worst kind of abuses occur when we're dealing with a religious tyranny, not a secular one. (Religious regimes also tend to last a lot longer.)
Zakath
Resident Atheist
The U.S. Constitution is not ignored. Where do you get that idea? Changing the U.S. Constitution is very difficult (as it should be) and has only been successfully accomplished eighteen times in more than 200 years. The most recent amendment passed (33 years ago) was to lower the voting age in federal elections to 18 years.
There is no representative body in the ACM with any power, so there is nothing to prevent the monarch from changing the constitution to his whim, other than a military coup or uprising of the citizenry.
Your proposed constitution is thus a sham.
What about federal income taxes?
All you have to do is look at the low percentage of murder and violent crime in countries which today impose a swift death penalty for murder such as Singapore. It's proven to work.
They'd do something close. I know employees. I have employees. Many of them think that just walking in off the street and filling out an application is the equivalent of the owners years of saving and that they deserve to make as much money as he does. They're socialists. They think doctors and janitors should make the same amount of money. This childish attitude is epidemic.
The laws which contain no intrinsic protection against harm to one's self, one's neighbor or society in general are usually symbolic laws.
Like I said before, our death penalty for murder comes straight from the Bible but it is not enforced by the clergy. So where is the revolution by atheists and agnostics?
Nothing. Some kings will act immorally just like our entire country acts immorally today by voting for candidates who promise to keep abortion legal.
How exactly is this a manageable law? Are we going to just take a husband's word for it, if he accuses his wife of cheating on him? We would require hard evidence ala private investigator? What would the litmus test be for executing a guilty party, and would mitigating circumstances--sterility; abuse; on and on--be called into question as well?
- Status