BMEWS
 

Modern Dilemna

 
 


Posted by The Skipper    United States   on 06/06/2005 at 11:15 AM   
 
  1. Excellent post Allan.

    Posted by lisar915    United States   06/06/2005  at  12:57 PM  

  2. OCM, Tim agrees with you.

    Tim says, “Well, it seems Justices Kennedy and Scalia didn’t mean it. Because, you see, when someone carries a gun near a school or commits violence against a woman, that is not “interstate commerce,” and hence outside of Congress’s jurisdiction. But when a terminally ill patient grows pot in her own garden for personal use, that is interstate commerce and hence under the authority of Congress.

    I haven’t been able to find the text of the decision, so maybe they have found some incredibly insightful standard that distinguishes the carrying of a gun from the growing of a pot plant. But I doubt it. More likely, they contemplated the possibility of undermining our oh-so-important drug war, and decided that putting sick potheads in jail was more important than limited government.”

    I personally think that when an insurance company from New York sells insurance to schmucks in Colorado, that [IS] interstate commerce and should be under control of Congress instead of letting some fat cat Bronco fans bribe local state officials into outlawing citizens’ constitutional rights.  Some suggest this is in your so-called gray area but I don’t see how it possiby could be.  I mean give me a break.  When state law can outlaw people over the age of 65 from buying insurance that covers prescription drugs, you have a state that has run aground mentally.  Maybe it’s the low oxygen content of the mountain air.

    Thanks for bringing us back to the simple rules of right and wrong Skipper. flag

    Posted by Z Woof    United States   06/06/2005  at  02:30 PM  

  3. Another excellent essay, Skipper.  Keep up the good work.

    wink

    Posted by Tannenberg    United States   06/06/2005  at  02:40 PM  

  4. Odd is it not that the very people undermining the morals are the very ones (lefty liberals) who seem to have the most to lose and the least able to defend it.

    Posted by cornish chris    United Kingdom   06/06/2005  at  04:23 PM  

  5. I got into it with a lefty at the gym today about JUST this topic!
    He didn’t get it. rolleyes

    Posted by Annoying Little Twerp    United States   06/06/2005  at  04:56 PM  

  6. Ah! OCM, that’s exactly what Allan was talking about, basically the Wiccan Golden Rule: “As it harm none, do as you will.” That is moral relativism distilled if I ever heard it.

    Morals cannot exist without something from which to derive them. There are indeed moral absolutes, and they derive from the only absolute in existence: God Almighty. Anything apart from Him is immoral, no matter how you couch the terminology. Sorry if that offends, but the truth can be offensive.

    Posted by Red Five    United States   06/07/2005  at  10:46 AM  

  7. Translation, please...?

    Posted by Red Five    United States   06/07/2005  at  03:55 PM  

  8. No, that 3rd line is a bit confusing.

    Thump. Thump. Thump.......by thumbing are desecrating the bible ala the muslim bible?

    And this means what?

    As for the rest of it, developing your own morals is, again, exactly what the Skipper was referring to, as the source of the dilemma. At the risk of repeating myself, there are moral absolutes, based on an absolute Creator. Just because you believe in neither does not negate their existence.

    Posted by Red Five    United States   06/07/2005  at  04:31 PM  

  9. OCM, is it moral to call a sand monkey a rag head? question  monkey

    Posted by Z Woof    United States   06/07/2005  at  05:02 PM  

  10. I know what a “thumper” is, you dope(head). It was the second part of that line that made no sense to me. I sometimes have difficulty dumbing myself down to follow badly-munged spelling and grammar constructs. It’s a bit hard to follow for my poor widdle smart brain, you see.

    You also are “very close to trying to shove your bullshit down my throat”, as you so...eloquently...put it. And I don’t recall anywhere in the Constitution that guarantees freedom of “choice” (take THAT, abortion-lovers), just freedom of speech, which I have at least as much right to as you do, pal.

    Since when has “thumping” been equivalent to physical violence? Last I checked, it was simply an annoyance, which can be ignored if you choose to.

    I’m not expecting you to take on the morals of Somebody you don’t believe in. You’re free to believe in whatever you wish, whether it’s right or wrong. I was merely stating that there is an absolute standard, whether we humans believe in it or not. Our believe or lack thereof does not control whether that standard (or that Person) exists. There are laws on the books that most of us don’t know anything about; yet they are still the law. Just because you don’t know about it or don’t believe it exists, doesn’t mean that you won’t have to disassemble your car in the vicinity of a horse, in order to prevent that horse from being spooked. That law is on the books, though its practicality in modern times may be a bit dubious.

    Bible thumping is an unfortunate by-product of fevered minds far more zealous than mine. Thumpers are the people who scream fire-and-brimstone sermons, you’re gonna burn in Hell if you don’t repent now, that sort of thing. While that may be ultimately true, “thumping” is not the way to save souls (boy, is THAT an understatement). But, no, it’s not like “pissing on the rag head’s bible”. Such an act is a sort of desecration, but it is ultimately meaningless, because the book itself is meaningless. The Koran (or Quran or however the hell you spell it) and the Hadith are simply the fevered ramblings of a camel-humping, murderous pedophile who would have been chemically castrated and locked up forever, had he committed his crimes today.

    What kind of ass am I, you ask? A sober one. The only “bowls” in my house are for soup, cereal, and ice cream. And the only “hash” I consume is in the form of “-browned potatoes”.

    Posted by Red Five    United States   06/07/2005  at  09:30 PM  

  11. I’ll give you an “F” for coherent thought.

    2 Things.

    1. What does poetry have to do with lousy spelling and incomprehensible grammar?

    2. Neither are you.

    Posted by Red Five    United States   06/08/2005  at  11:59 AM  

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.

Next entry: No Slaves For Oil

Previous entry: D-Day: In Their Own Words

<< BMEWS Main Page >>