Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Alludium Fozdex · 10-24-2002, 10:17 AM

Quote:

No person has a right to food, water, clothing, shelter, energy, healthcare, or education. The Government must not give or subsidize such resources to any person, nor can America compel charitable giving.

This effectively outlaws unemployment (known as sloth in some circles). Also, I could see a Judge using this to make life very difficult for, say, a Muslim or atheist in his jurisdiction, for example, using his clout to make sure no business hires the person, or encouraging people to invite "the heathen" to find somewhere else to live.

Quote:

America�s Criminal Code

The Monarch shall obey America�s Criminal Code incorporated by reference herein, and enforce it upon all persons within his jurisdiction. A person who violates Americans from abroad will not be beyond America�s desire and attempt to bring him to justice, so as with a person here who violates others abroad.

I've wondered if this could be applied to transmitting anti-government or anti-Christian messages from out of Canada or Mexico. Would the Crown send agents across national boundaries to apprehend a lawbreaker? Would it be willing to do so without the other country's permission?

[ October 24, 2002: Message edited by: Gerald ]

Alludium Fozdex · 10-24-2002, 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Goriller:
Gerald:

Call Enyart on his show and discuss this issue. I think it would be a very interesting conversation. It doesn't have to be a debate, just a friendly discussion. If you don't want to call him, I will. Just let me know.

[ October 23, 2002: Message edited by: Goriller ]

I'd appreciate it if you could run him down. I agree, it would be an interesting discussion. As I've said, I can't see how the proscriptions on private behaviors could possibly be enforced without actively encouraging citizens to spy and rat on each other.

Goriller · 10-24-2002, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gerald:
As I've said, I can't see how the proscriptions on private behaviors could possibly be enforced without actively encouraging citizens to spy and rat on each other.

Does the government today encourage citizens to spy and rat on each other in order to enforce our current laws against sexual deviancy?

Grumpy · 10-24-2002, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hayden:
[QB]What if the family are Catholic, or atheist, or Jewish, or even Islamic? What if they're not white, or can't speak English?

I'd be more concerned about the designated Monarch not being a qualified autocrat. In fact, that rules out about 99.99% of everybody, including yours truly (though I'd do my best if the lottery picked me).

Quote:

posted by Goriller:
The seduced woman in the verse you cited was engaged to be married. Her sexual crime under Biblical law would be considered adultery, not fornication since she was engaged. Therefore, the death penalty would apply.

The difference between the "betrothed damsel" in Deut. 22:24 who dies and Deut 22:25 who lives is that one is in the city, the other in the country, NOT that one is betrothed and the other isn't. Deut. 22:24 presumes it was adultery, not rape, because everyone knows good girls scream when raped.

Quote:

Goriller again:
...there is a strong principle in the Bible for victims rights. The victim of a crime is the one who decides whether the allowed penalty will be enforce or not. The death penalty for cursing one's parents would not be automatic.

So when it says "shall surely be put to death," there's some wiggle room. I see.

Alludium Fozdex · 10-25-2002, 07:17 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gerald:
This effectively outlaws unemployment (known as sloth in some circles). Also, I could see a Judge using this to make life very difficult for, say, a Muslim or atheist in his jurisdiction, for example, using his clout to make sure no business hires the person, or encouraging people to invite "the heathen" to find somewhere else to live.

I've wondered if this could be applied to transmitting anti-government or anti-Christian messages from out of Canada or Mexico. Would the Crown send agents across national boundaries to apprehend a lawbreaker? Would it be willing to do so without the other country's permission?

What am I bet that these questions will collect dust...? <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

galiel · 10-25-2002, 08:40 PM

I'm still reeling from the thought that there are apparently sincere American monarchists (plural, no less!) on this board, in the year 2002. And not constitutional monarchists, but people who actually want to regress back to the Dark Ages and undo the past several hundred years of progress in individual human rights. The mind simply boggles.

Do you folks ever read history? It's not like there is not a long track record of monarchies to examine, and even a few infamous contemporary examples (Saudi Arabia, anyone?). Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it, I suppose.

lunachick · 10-25-2002, 09:25 PM

Quote:

No person has a right to food, water, clothing, shelter, energy, healthcare, or education. [B P] The Government must not give or subsidize such resources to any person, nor can America compel charitable giving.

How on earth can you withhold these things!!! At least half of this list are the essentials of life, for crying out loud!! Now you claim to be a Christian, right? Isn't the True Christian (TM) one who supports charity, helps feed the hungry, water the thirsty, house the poor, etc.

I can't believe you are serious about this. People like you just don't exist, do they? This is a wind-up, right?

I really think you ought to step outside and flagalate yourself for a couple of hours. Sheesh!

Ronin · 10-26-2002, 01:49 AM

See my post on the constitution of America above.

I thought you were being serious.

The entire New Testament epistles show that the ceremonial laws have been done away with because they were all fulfilled in Christ.

God changes his mind and then sends himself to be murdered so that he could refute his own prior precepts ~ brilliant argument.

Sabine Grant · 10-26-2002, 05:45 AM

GALIEL : I do not know which "folks" you refer to on this particular forum who want to regress to a non constitutional monarchy. I may see some of it in Goriller. However it can only be an assumption until he clarifies which type of monarchy he favors.

As for myself, I support a constitutional monarchy, I am not an american and I want to reassure you that most monarchies in Europe are far from being in the "Dark Ages".

However I also support the separation of Church and State for the reasons I explained in my previous posts.

Buffman · 10-26-2002, 11:36 AM

French and supporting a monarchy. How interesting!
His Royal Majesty, King Bush.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-25-2002, 08:40 PM	#36
galiel Banned Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Eastern Massachusetts Posts: 1,677	I'm still reeling from the thought that there are apparently sincere American monarchists (plural, no less!) on this board, in the year 2002. And not constitutional monarchists, but people who actually want to regress back to the Dark Ages and undo the past several hundred years of progress in individual human rights. The mind simply boggles. Do you folks ever read history? It's not like there is not a long track record of monarchies to examine, and even a few infamous contemporary examples (Saudi Arabia, anyone?). Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it, I suppose.

10-26-2002, 01:49 AM	#38
Ronin Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Mississippi Posts: 5,047	See my post on the constitution of America above. I thought you were being serious. The entire New Testament epistles show that the ceremonial laws have been done away with because they were all fulfilled in Christ. God changes his mind and then sends himself to be murdered so that he could refute his own prior precepts ~ brilliant argument.

10-26-2002, 05:45 AM	#39
Sabine Grant Talk Freethought Staff Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Florida Posts: 32,364	GALIEL : I do not know which "folks" you refer to on this particular forum who want to regress to a non constitutional monarchy. I may see some of it in Goriller. However it can only be an assumption until he clarifies which type of monarchy he favors. As for myself, I support a constitutional monarchy, I am not an american and I want to reassure you that most monarchies in Europe are far from being in the "Dark Ages". However I also support the separation of Church and State for the reasons I explained in my previous posts.

10-26-2002, 11:36 AM	#40
Buffman Beloved Deceased Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: central Florida Posts: 3,546	French and supporting a monarchy. How interesting! His Royal Majesty, King Bush.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.