Justin (Wiccan)
New member
Turbo said:
Briefly speaking--yes. If you like I can post my "testimony" here, but it's quite long.
Made a comment on another forum....
- Thread starter Justin (Wiccan)
- Start date
- Status
Briefly speaking--yes. If you like I can post my "testimony" here, but it's quite long.
One Eyed Jack
New member
monochrome said:
So?
I really have to scoff at those foolish enough to believe that change can only come through "one heart at a time" and not legislatively. Very disturbing. Don't be so caught up in your apathy that you become ignorant.
Think hard and heavy about this:
If theft were not illegal, do you not think that theft would be more prevalent in our society? Surely there would be best-selling books published on the best way to rob from your neighbor! But Justin would flippantly say to an anti-theft activist "Theft will never be eliminated by writing laws against it: it will only be eliminated by changing the hearts of the people, one heart at a time."
Seeing how quick significant portions of our population would defraud others for their own gain (and sometimes sport), who here would trust that logic? All I did was interchange one moral issue with another--abortion with theft.
Furthermore, it's quite evident that people with the short-sighted logic of Justin and others with this "change hearts and not law" crap, if they're consistent with their own logic, would have opposed the Civil Rights Acts based on the fact that people will still discriminate based on color. Duh! Well tell me, Justin: did we need the Civil Rights Acts or should we have just waited for white people's hearts to change in order to treat us with equal respect?
Use your head. We're in the real world here. Your logic stinks or you're in a different world. If something is wrong and harms another innocent person, it MUST be counteracted with good law. PERIOD.
Think hard and heavy about this:
If theft were not illegal, do you not think that theft would be more prevalent in our society? Surely there would be best-selling books published on the best way to rob from your neighbor! But Justin would flippantly say to an anti-theft activist "Theft will never be eliminated by writing laws against it: it will only be eliminated by changing the hearts of the people, one heart at a time."
Seeing how quick significant portions of our population would defraud others for their own gain (and sometimes sport), who here would trust that logic? All I did was interchange one moral issue with another--abortion with theft.
Furthermore, it's quite evident that people with the short-sighted logic of Justin and others with this "change hearts and not law" crap, if they're consistent with their own logic, would have opposed the Civil Rights Acts based on the fact that people will still discriminate based on color. Duh! Well tell me, Justin: did we need the Civil Rights Acts or should we have just waited for white people's hearts to change in order to treat us with equal respect?
Use your head. We're in the real world here. Your logic stinks or you're in a different world. If something is wrong and harms another innocent person, it MUST be counteracted with good law. PERIOD.
Further regarding this change-hearts-not-the-law nonsense:
Clearly this is a statement by those who are content with the status quo. Turn the tables around where somehow their own civil rights are being violated and watch them change their philosophy. Thus, in the abortion debate, those who argue that we shouldn't change law, but "change hearts" are being very disingenuous. In their own hearts they know they are happy with the status quo, and thus, champion a cliche designed to make themselves appear reasonable.
Can Justin or anyone else who believes in the "change hearts" argument provide any case example of a nation "completely eliminating" a moral wrong by its own volition, that is, without a law enforcing such?
This will be a daunting challenge for you disingenuous folk.
Clearly this is a statement by those who are content with the status quo. Turn the tables around where somehow their own civil rights are being violated and watch them change their philosophy. Thus, in the abortion debate, those who argue that we shouldn't change law, but "change hearts" are being very disingenuous. In their own hearts they know they are happy with the status quo, and thus, champion a cliche designed to make themselves appear reasonable.
Can Justin or anyone else who believes in the "change hearts" argument provide any case example of a nation "completely eliminating" a moral wrong by its own volition, that is, without a law enforcing such?
This will be a daunting challenge for you disingenuous folk.
granite1010 said:
Granite, did you just make up that sweet-sounding, but illogical cliche? Granite use your common sense. I don't think that hearts were generally changed at the time the Civil Rights Acts came around, yet America's legistators passed the law and the people submitted to it. It is undenyable that respect for blacks overwhelmingly and significantly grew afterward. Don't fool yourself. There was a ton of squabbling and compromising in our country's legislative bodies in order to make the Civil Rights Act of 1965 a reality. Thus, it was the RIGHT thing to do. I thank God that our legislators did not regress to your logic. I'm quite sure the majority would have been fine with the status quo for decades more at least!
The real question I would like the "changing hearts" people to answer is this: given that the argument CANNOT be made that America's hearts had changed at the time of the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1965, how long were black people supposed to wait for law-enforced civil rights?
Last edited:
theo_victis
New member
From Zakath:
So. I can guarantee you that there are many "pro choice" supporters that support capital punishment too. These two issues are not related. A fetus has not committed a crime yet is put to death. A person on death row is put to death because he warrents it.
So. I can guarantee you that there are many "pro choice" supporters that support capital punishment too. These two issues are not related. A fetus has not committed a crime yet is put to death. A person on death row is put to death because he warrents it.
theo_victis
New member
I have no idea why some people are so obsessed with making laws against abortion. Abortion is wrong regardless of a law or not. Shouldnt we spread that message that abortion is wrong versus illegal? People dont committ murder because its wrong, not because its illegal. The wrongness of murder keeps people from committing it not the fear of being punished. It is regularly taught that murder is wrong. However, with sin comes desensitization. Abortion has fallen through the cracks of right and wrong and its important to remind people that its wrong so that they may repent!
I do agree, however, that we should have laws, but like Justin i think that its more important changing peoples hearts and minds about abortion then just passing laws. Passing laws is the easy way out. The lazy way.
Lets do both, starting with the most important! Changing hearts! Isnt that one of the fundamental aspects of Christianity? Repenting?
I do agree, however, that we should have laws, but like Justin i think that its more important changing peoples hearts and minds about abortion then just passing laws. Passing laws is the easy way out. The lazy way.
Lets do both, starting with the most important! Changing hearts! Isnt that one of the fundamental aspects of Christianity? Repenting?
Justin (Wiccan)
New member
Rimi said:
Not necessarily. But I am honestly persuaded that his letter was not about arguing against abortion, but about gaining influence in the pro-life community at the expense of Dobson. You can call that influence by any number of names--political power, public recognition, the Dozens, "counting coup," or whatever--the purpose is not to stop abortion, but to gain power.
Poly believes I am wrong--well, I very well could be, and I have never claimed that I cannot be mistaken on this issue. But to the best of my knowledge, that's what Bob did.
Justin (Wiccan)
New member
theo_victis said:
I personally feel that when one comes into a knowledge of God and God's will, the Law becomes almost redundant. Yeah, if everyone knew what God's will was and obeyed that will, we'd still have to have laws, but most of them would be along the lines of traffic regulations. You don't need to tell someone who loves God not to blaspheme, and you don't need to tell someone who loves his neighbor not to kill, or steal, or lie--it's redundant.
It is only through a lack of love for God and for our neighbors that any law is even necessary.
Justin (Wiccan)
New member
Rimi said:
Because I am persuaded that one cannot do an honest act by dishonest means. If my assesment of Bob's actions are accurate, then his actions were dishonest. One cannot lead a person to the truth by telling lies.
Justin (Wiccan)
New member
Rimi said:
Rimi, if anything I am more persuaded that my assesment was accurate than when I first made the statements.
Do you not see that there would be a problem with that? If Bob was being dishonest, then he would certainly have no problem continuing the dishonesty. Yet if his letter was completely honest, I would receive the same response. Either way, it's a Catch 22.
Exactly, a sea change.granite1010 said:
Men have to change their views on fatherhood, start to see it as a positive thing, as their ultimate goal. I think that the priority that our culture indoctrines into our youth on matierial wealth and status is a big part of the problem. Teenagers are given the impression that if they don't do well in highschool, go to a good college, and graduate at least with a 4 year degree, that their going to wind up being losers. What the fathers of the world need to communicate to the not-yet fathers is that they are good enough to be a dad, and run a family, and figure it all out, that it will change them. Even if their child is coming at an incovienient time, when they didn't expect it, and their not sure they can support it. We have got to teach people that it is better to be poor and alive than rich and dead.
Why can't that argument be made? It seems reasonable to me to think that it was introduced because enough people had had a change of heart, and that having the law simply made it easier to accept it -- resulting in a faster change of hearts afterwards.jhodgeiii said:
I think our country's leaders were set up to do just that -- lead. But if they take the country where it isn't prepared to go, then they won't be leading for long, even if they're headed in the "right" direction.
Well your assumption is wrong. Please do some research on this and educate yourself. The people did NOT drive this legislation. Even though many people deep down inside felt uneasy about the treatment of blacks, because they themselves were not the victims, a change to the status quo was hardly a priority for the average white household.skeptech said:
Justin (Wiccan) wrote:
Why?
So, you wouldn't call him out on it (since you're more convinced that you're right) unless you are certain you could convince him of the error of his ways? Hmm. Gee, not very neighborly of you. If you truly think he's leading people with evil intent, you would have an obligation to confront him on it -- especially publicly, since that is how he's doing what you think he's doing.
Why?
So, you wouldn't call him out on it (since you're more convinced that you're right) unless you are certain you could convince him of the error of his ways? Hmm. Gee, not very neighborly of you. If you truly think he's leading people with evil intent, you would have an obligation to confront him on it -- especially publicly, since that is how he's doing what you think he's doing.
- Status