I know you'll blast me on this one, but YES, I think those people who advocate for legalizing marijuana and "recreational drugs" are anarchists. However, I would also favor a prohibition on alcohol--the biggest drug abused in the U.S. That didn't work very well, as the people were too used to their hedonism. You are doing what is right in your own eyes--according to your own wisdom. When God tells me that recreational drugs are okay, then I'll cede that point.
Mrs. Hartzler,
It is clear to me that the only law that should exist is the law that judges a man for his violations of the equal rights of others. Short of that, what man does, who he does it with and why is not a matter in which I am allowed to force him to do otherwise. I, by right, can reject his lifestyle, habits, and choices, but outside of any violations of life, liberty and happiness(property) we should be free to do go and do as we please. So yes, if a man smoked a joint, got in a car and then proceeded to plow into a car with a mother and three kids inside and killed them, yes, he has violated the law. I see you have quoted Scripture, I am a Christian myself, I grew in an Independent Baptist household, but no where in Scripture does it command Christians to compel by force of law those whom we wish to share the Gospel withl. It calls us to be a witness of what we know and to allow God to do the changing of the heart.. I personally oppose limits on freedom, with the exception of that which is intended to protect equal rights. To do otherwise is to do that which was not intended for us when this country was founded, and with out the defending the rights of those we disagree with then we are complicit in a silent grant of power to those we would support and oppose to oppress us one way or another.
By the way, I would strongly suggest you read John Locke’s “John Locke: A Letter Concerning Toleration
http://www.constitution.org/jl/tolerati.htm
JDB
Boatwright and Hansen, last time I checked we weren't talking about sharing the gospel. We were talking about governments, laws, and how much and what kind of government is enough. Nothing I have said thus far even remotely suggests that I favor the forceful sharing of the gospel. My point, Boatwright, was that what is equal rights to you, may not be equal rights to someone else. My point was that there have to be absolutes in order for society fo function. I did NOT say you have to force everyone to accept Jesus as Savior. Christ said to preach and teach the gospel, not beat people over the head with it. Is this clear enough for you?
What are absolutes to you? What does that term mean to you? If by absolutes you thought I was referring to sharing the gospel then both of you need more education. How tolerant are YOU being in this discussion, eh Boatwright? Your opinion is that illicit drugs are not dangerous. My opinion is that they are dangerous. What do you suggest we do next?
Hansen, how virtuous of you not to eat processed foods like McDonalds or Doritos. I'm delighted for you. While those things may not be the best nutrition for the buck, they are none-the-less food items that will not harm, unless eaten in such a way as to make them dangerous. A lot depends upon the activity level of the person consuming the food, wouldn't you say? I eat a whole lot more salad with my burgers than I used to. Because I figured out that french fries are bad news. It is possible to eat at McDonalds, Arbys, Wendys, Hardees without doing a lot of cellular damage. Thus, having laws that control our access to these things is not necessary.
I would favor laws that outlaw genetically modified crops (GMOs). You will never convince me that the herbicides and pesticides built into the DNA of those seeds don't get retained in the harvest the seed produces. In my opinion, GMOs are dangerous and ought to be regulated or banned.
I also think the public has a right to know whether the meat they are buying was produced with antibiotics and growth hormones. Those two things are important decision factors when purchasing meat. I'd go vegan, but I like meat too much.
To equate marijuana and other drugs to things we eat that aren't good for us is to trivialize the impact of illicit drugs. The dangers of illicit drugs are much greater than the dangers of processed foods. Your comparison doesn't fly...you are comparing apples to oranges.
J. D. B. said:
Mrs. Hartzler,
It is clear to me that the only law that should exist is the law that judges a man for his violations of the equal rights of others. Short of that, what man does, who he does it with and why is not a matter in which I am allowed to force him to do otherwise. I, by right, can reject his lifestyle, habits, and choices, but outside of any violations of life, liberty and happiness(property) we should be free to do go and do as we please. So yes, if a man smoked a joint, got in a car and then proceeded to plow into a car with a mother and three kids inside and killed them, yes, he has violated the law. I see you have quoted Scripture, I am a Christian myself, I grew in an Independent Baptist household, but no where in Scripture does it command Christians to compel by force of law those whom we wish to share the Gospel withl.
The Bible's pretty clear on the subject of obeying government authority. You have to respect the law of the land. A few quotes for ya:
Romans 13:1 -- Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.
James 2:12 - So speak and so act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty.
Jesus also said to "render unto Caesar what is Ceasar's, and unto God the things that are God's.' - Mark 12:17
It calls us to be a witness of what we know and to allow God to do the changing of the heart.. I personally oppose limits on freedom, with the exception of that which is intended to protect equal rights. To do otherwise is to do that which was not intended for us when this country was founded, and with out the defending the rights of those we disagree with then we are complicit in a silent grant of power to those we would support and oppose to oppress us one way or another.
You have a rather loose interpretation of the term "Oppression." Unless you've been to a third-world country, you have no idea what "real" oppression is. I've seen kids who were happy to have a pair of shoes and a bowl of beans and rice for dinner - and considered that a good day! We are a nation of laws, and ideally our laws should be based on the Ten Commandments. The Bible says to "...be ye not drunk with wine" (Ephesians 5:18), which can mean different things to different people. It can mean "all things in moderation," and it can mean you can get drunk on anything EXCEPT wine, as my former whiskey-guzzling Lutheran pastor once said to us at Sunday school when one of us questioned him about his own drinking. When you pair Ephesians 5:18 with yet another verse that reads "abstain from all appearances of evil," (1 Thessalonians 5:22) this would include over-indulging on spirits, pot, dope, what-have-you as "evil," among other things.
Technically speaking, Marijuana is in and of itself not much worse than a glass of wine, but with kids, it leads to worse things. Studies have proven this time and time again. Trust me, I know, I was once one of those kids who started out with marijuana and went on to bigger and badder things. John Stossel, Fox News' Libertarian commentator, has said that ALL drugs should be legalized. I don't agree with that. I've seen too many families torn apart by meth and heroin use to ever agree with that idea. This is a nation of laws, and if you read your Bible as much as you say you do, you'd know that the Bible does in fact speak out against this ideal of "as long as what I do doesn't hurt anyone else, it's OK."
Finally, the Bible refers to the human body as a "temple" that shouldn't be abused. "Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body." (1 Corinthians 6:19). Again, take it from a person who knows first-hand and is still paying the price after 25 years of sobriety - abusing one's body with substances like marjuana (7 times more carcinogenic than the average cigarette) is a slow form of suicide.
I had to read the thread once or twice to figure out how we got from the folks in the original video to a discussion of libertarianism. I'm also a bit amused at the idea that FreedomTorch is the place where conservatives don't have to be worried about Facebook's intolerance of conservatism but that FreedomTorch may have a similar intolerance to libertarianism. Someday, I'd love to see someone build a site that truly doesn't have an ideological bias.
In any case, the notion that libertarianism is the same as anarchy is silly. Anarchy is opposition to any laws at all. Libertarianism is a belief in the non-initiation of force or fraud. In strict terms, libertarians believe that no person should initiate force or fraud against another person and that government should only act to protect people from the wrongful initiation of force or fraud. In other words, your right to swing your elbow ends at my nose, but I won't use the government to stick my nose into your elbow room. While we probably can never have a strictly libertarian government and maintain order, an attempt to apply the libertarian principle first is generally a good idea. If a person's actions don't involve force or fraud against others, then the government should be very slow to use force against those actions.
Likewise, the libertarian position that modern libertarianism is a strict interpretation of the Constitution is also silly. Modern libertarians believe in free trade and see any kind of tariff as the initiation of government force in interference between willing people trying to engage in commerce. The Founding Fathers saw the situation differently. They realized that the government needed money to run, and they saw tariffs as the least invasive form of taxation.
Prohibition didn't work to stop people from drinking alcohol. Complaining about hedonism or some other moral failing doesn't change the fact that the American people did't see fines or jail time for drinking as proper application of justice. Plenty of people will say that they used marijuana repeatedly when they were younger, but I've never heard one of them say that justice would have been served by locking them up for a few years or that they are sorry that they didn't spend several years in jail. Parents are ready to jail the kid down the street for years for selling drugs to their kid, but they suddenly call for tolerance when their kid sells drugs to the kid next door. I'm not completely ready to embrace legalization, but I recognize that our current strategy isn't really working and isn't likely to work.
Right and wrong are not and should not be the same as legal and illegal. I think parents are wrong not to read to their children in order to foster an appreciation for reading and learning. However, I am not willing to unleash a "national reading police" to spy on every family to ensure that each parent spends what I consider the proper amount of time reading to his or her kid. Spending money foolishly is wrong. I shouldn't be taxed so that the government can help people who spend foolishly, but neither should we have a "financial responsibility police" passing judgment on every dime that we spend and punishing us when we aren't sufficiently responsible. If recognizing that right and wrong are not the same as legal and illegal makes me a libertarian, so be it. The notion that recognizing that distinction makes me an anarchist is silly.
Jonathan Cousar said:
Where do you guys get that the Bible doesn't call Christians to take a stand on moral issues? And for Christians involved in politics that means pushing government in the direction of Judeo-Christian values and away from secular "values". Geesh. Have you ever read Paul? You cite Jesus, but you seem to overlook all the moral implications of his teachings. Can you show us any Biblical passage that says we are not to take a public stand on moral issues??? And please, if the Bible is your standard, there's no way God would have us favor marijuana use. He doesn't even like us getting drunk!
Correct Jon, YOU that YOU not everyone else YOU stand on moral principals! Thats why I don't use marijuana, but that is also why I don't tell others what to do.
Mary Ann Hartzler said:
Boatwright and Hansen, last time I checked we weren't talking about sharing the gospel. We were talking about governments, laws, and how much and what kind of government is enough. Nothing I have said thus far even remotely suggests that I favor the forceful sharing of the gospel. My point, Boatwright, was that what is equal rights to you, may not be equal rights to someone else. My point was that there have to be absolutes in order for society fo function. I did NOT say you have to force everyone to accept Jesus as Savior. Christ said to preach and teach the gospel, not beat people over the head with it. Is this clear enough for you?
What are absolutes to you? What does that term mean to you? If by absolutes you thought I was referring to sharing the gospel then both of you need more education. How tolerant are YOU being in this discussion, eh Boatwright? Your opinion is that illicit drugs are not dangerous. My opinion is that they are dangerous. What do you suggest we do next?
Hansen, how virtuous of you not to eat processed foods like McDonalds or Doritos. I'm delighted for you. While those things may not be the best nutrition for the buck, they are none-the-less food items that will not harm, unless eaten in such a way as to make them dangerous. A lot depends upon the activity level of the person consuming the food, wouldn't you say? I eat a whole lot more salad with my burgers than I used to. Because I figured out that french fries are bad news. It is possible to eat at McDonalds, Arbys, Wendys, Hardees without doing a lot of cellular damage. Thus, having laws that control our access to these things is not necessary.
I would favor laws that outlaw genetically modified crops (GMOs). You will never convince me that the herbicides and pesticides built into the DNA of those seeds don't get retained in the harvest the seed produces. In my opinion, GMOs are dangerous and ought to be regulated or banned.
I also think the public has a right to know whether the meat they are buying was produced with antibiotics and growth hormones. Those two things are important decision factors when purchasing meat. I'd go vegan, but I like meat too much.
To equate marijuana and other drugs to things we eat that aren't good for us is to trivialize the impact of illicit drugs. The dangers of illicit drugs are much greater than the dangers of processed foods. Your comparison doesn't fly...you are comparing apples to oranges.
Mary it is not trivializing anything to make a comparison of whats good for me is not always good for you, and yes there are people using perfectly leagal drugs to get high not healthier sorry to shatter the glass bubble.
Mary Ann Hartzler said:
Boatwright and Hansen, last time I checked we weren't talking about sharing the gospel. We were talking about governments, laws, and how much and what kind of government is enough. Nothing I have said thus far even remotely suggests that I favor the forceful sharing of the gospel. My point, Boatwright, was that what is equal rights to you, may not be equal rights to someone else. My point was that there have to be absolutes in order for society fo function. I did NOT say you have to force everyone to accept Jesus as Savior. Christ said to preach and teach the gospel, not beat people over the head with it. Is this clear enough for you?
What are absolutes to you? What does that term mean to you? If by absolutes you thought I was referring to sharing the gospel then both of you need more education. How tolerant are YOU being in this discussion, eh Boatwright? Your opinion is that illicit drugs are not dangerous. My opinion is that they are dangerous. What do you suggest we do next?
Hansen, how virtuous of you not to eat processed foods like McDonalds or Doritos. I'm delighted for you. While those things may not be the best nutrition for the buck, they are none-the-less food items that will not harm, unless eaten in such a way as to make them dangerous. A lot depends upon the activity level of the person consuming the food, wouldn't you say? I eat a whole lot more salad with my burgers than I used to. Because I figured out that french fries are bad news. It is possible to eat at McDonalds, Arbys, Wendys, Hardees without doing a lot of cellular damage. Thus, having laws that control our access to these things is not necessary.
I would favor laws that outlaw genetically modified crops (GMOs). You will never convince me that the herbicides and pesticides built into the DNA of those seeds don't get retained in the harvest the seed produces. In my opinion, GMOs are dangerous and ought to be regulated or banned.
I also think the public has a right to know whether the meat they are buying was produced with antibiotics and growth hormones. Those two things are important decision factors when purchasing meat. I'd go vegan, but I like meat too much.
To equate marijuana and other drugs to things we eat that aren't good for us is to trivialize the impact of illicit drugs. The dangers of illicit drugs are much greater than the dangers of processed foods. Your comparison doesn't fly...you are comparing apples to oranges.
Again I mentioned that I eat what I eat and don't tell others that they should do it to or try and make processed food illegal you are constantly missing the point!
I appreciate that you are open about what you will and won't allow on your site. I'm just disappointed about a couple of things.
The first is that the site isn't truly a refuge for everyone who may be rejected by Facebook. I wouldn't expect a private citizen working on his own to create a true rival to Facebook that would welcome the entire conservative world. Even within the conservative culture, there are huge differences, and we don't seem to be able to come together on anything. Free Republic used to be that site that brought together all flavors of conservatism, but slowly Free Republic has become narrower and narrower.
The second is that no big group out there wants to create a forum that would be a civil place for debate among people of all ideologies. The ideal place for that kind of debate would be through some media group, but the media has chosen sides as much as anyone else and largely suppresses other views. At one time, reporters would be proud of not having an ideological ax to grind and having no interest in the outcome of our nation's political debates. Now, reporters are as partisan as anyone.
Another point about Facebook is that Facebook sometimes seems less driven by ideology than by a desire to oil the squeaking wheel. If someone complains about a photo or note, Facebook will often remove the photo without question. If too many complaints come to one account, Facebook will suspend that account without any real investigation. They have rules about what can be shown or said, but often, any complaint is taken as evidence of a violation and any defense is ignored. Conservative advocacy may be more likely to be removed simply because liberals complain about anything and everything and try to suppress any opposing idea.
J. D. B. said:
Mrs. Clayton, First let me say, that I have "seen kids who were happy to have a pair of shoes and a bowl of beans and rice for dinner - and considered that a good day!" I lived that reality for five years. I said my father is pastor, what I failed to mention is that my father is a missionary as well. I spent 5 years on the mission field in the Philippines, and I am uniquely acquainted with filthy children tugging at my arm for money or food. I have seen my fair share of true poverty and true oppression in the political and governmental system of the Philippines. So with all due respect, I am the last person on here that needs to be reminded, chided or lectured about such things. I will respond to the rest of your post in due course. JDB
That's "Ms." Clayton, dear. Good to hear that you've been out on with others doing missionary work. Still, knowing what you've seen, how can you or anyone else equate that to what the Leftists in this country call "oppression" ???
Jill Clayton said:
J. D. B. said:
Mrs. Clayton, First let me say, that I have "seen kids who were happy to have a pair of shoes and a bowl of beans and rice for dinner - and considered that a good day!" I lived that reality for five years. I said my father is pastor, what I failed to mention is that my father is a missionary as well. I spent 5 years on the mission field in the Philippines, and I am uniquely acquainted with filthy children tugging at my arm for money or food. I have seen my fair share of true poverty and true oppression in the political and governmental system of the Philippines. So with all due respect, I am the last person on here that needs to be reminded, chided or lectured about such things. I will respond to the rest of your post in due course. JDBThat's "Ms." Clayton, dear. Good to hear that you've been out on with others doing missionary work. Still, knowing what you've seen, how can you or anyone else equate that to what the Leftists in this country call "oppression" ???
Please remind me of how I equated that with the leftists idea of oppression?
JDB
