Top 10 Anti-Christian Acts of 2009

[Imran Siddiqui]

You don't buy it because you really have absolutely no concept of the law.

In this instance though you aren't too ignorant because most non-legal trained people don't understand just how important the concept of standing and having and actual injury really is. You can't just target the "law itself". You have to sue if you've suffered an injury due to the application of a law.

Though this argument:

If the law applies to them and could very well have killed them, then the fact that they are a survivor means they ought to have standing.

indicates a stunning lack of logic that can't be excused by you not having a law background.

[Ben Kenobi]

Technically a second exception is "imminent" injury, but even that doesn't help Ben much except in the case of a particular pregnant woman who is known to have scheduled an abortion or somesuch.

Wouldn't be that hard to do. Find a woman who changed her mind about having an abortion, and her daughter who was born instead. She could testify that her child faced imminent injury due to the abortion law at the time which permitted her to schedule an abortion.

[Ben Kenobi]

In this instance though you aren't too ignorant because most non-legal people don't understand just how important the concept of standing and having and actual injury really is. You can't just target the "law itself". You have to sue if you've suffered an injury due to the application of a law.

I'm argung that anyone who has been born since 1973 has suffered injury through the death of 40 million of their compatriots at the very least. Who you marry, work with, associate with, through our entire lives has been constrained.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'm argung that anyone who has been born since 1973 has suffered injury through the death of 40 million of their compatriots at the very least.

No.

You'd get tossed out of court in 5 seconds flat.

[Darius871]

Wouldn't be that hard to do. Find a woman who changed her mind about having an abortion, and her daughter who was born instead. She could testify that her child faced imminent injury due to the abortion law at the time which permitted her to schedule an abortion.

No. Imminent injury means imminent now, about to happen, such that a court's intervention is needed to prevent it. Once the risk has abated, you're back to the "actual injury" default.

[Darius871]

I'm referring to the Plessey- era court. I'm saying that despite what we might think, most of the democrats were cowards and didn't want to lose the south until the Civil Rights bill came down. Why did it take to '65 to enact when it was a Wilson-era issue? Dims over and over said that they'd sooner take Wilson down.

Sigh, quoting the dissent is not enough for you? He argued very stridently that the course of the court was to consistantly roll back civil rights provisions enacted under the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments. You look at the legislation, and this is exactly what you see in the Plessy court.

WRT to the actual content of the 14th amendment, I think it was very clear. It was written by a radical republican, who wanted to see slavery and all it's trappings utterly abolished. The 14th amendment is a radical document because they sought to overturn and destroy Dred Scott as well as all the other trappings of the laws entrenched throughout the union to discriminate against.

Read the quotes of the author and his intent is clear. I see no evidence that he intended lynching blacks to be permitted anywhere under the 14th amendment and the gist of his language where he states that they have an obligation to protect under the equal protection laws most certainly applies to the simple provision of security from organised lynch mobs.

If a state would permit black people to be lynched within their jurisdiction, then they have denied the black people the equal protection of their laws. Presumably all states have laws against homocide and murder. If a state chooses not to prosecute offenders involved in the lynching of blacks, then they have denied black people the equal protection of their laws regarding murder and homocide.

"[Q]uoting the dissent is not enough" for me? No; that it was and still remains a marginalized minority viewpoint speaks volumes about its reliability.

Frankly having 135 consistent years of above-cited well-settled binding law on my side makes it too tempting to rest on my laurels, so I'm done with this.

[Elok]

No, there are external contours of the inherently "local" roughly defined in cases like U.S. v. Lopez and U.S. v. Morrison, and I fail to see any compelling argument that two private citizens and an Oreck smack-dab in the middle of Kansas fall outside those precedents.

The only other hypothetical avenue could be Ben's total perversion of the 14th Amendment, which would only take a more activist court in total derogation of stare decisis than any this country has ever seen.

So the Supreme Court can make it impossible to forbid [activity X], but not forbid [activity X] itself? I understand the grounds vaguely (I think), but you're talking about clauses regulating the powers of congress over interstate commerce, not the power of the court to do, apparently, anything, including inventing a right out of whole cloth.

Note that I actually would prefer a simple knock-down of Roe v. Wade, leaving it up to the states, but I'm just wondering why a total reverse is unthinkable.

[Berzerker]

All I'm saying is that God isn't against authority and that he can and will appoint godly authority over us here on earth that can impose punishments based on the word of God. The problem with your argument is it raises the question as to how can we have any earthly authority? It's not just about abortion, but everything else.

So God appointed Obama? You better be nice to him We have earthly authority by virtue of the vacuum left by God's departure. Hell, even when God was here we didn't pay much attention

A limitation that at the time, harm could not be shown to her child unless she was known to be pregnant. It's pretty hard to show exactly what the harm was done to a woman who was early on in her pregnancy without access to ultrasounds, etc. Now we can.

Then their law didn't come from God?

It might not be the purpose, but it is the unintended effect. Will you agree with me that a consequence of abortion is to deprive the children of a relationship with Christ?

Course not, Jesus can have a relationship with whom he wants. But you're ignoring that it was the intent of his followers to prevent the children from approaching Jesus.

Where did they make such distinction? It's based on an evidentiary standard, if harm could be shown to the child, not based on the development of the child. This is because the punishment was to be proportional to the harm caused to the child.

I cant remember, they had some weird definition of personhood involving one of those mystical numbers. Some people believed you weren't a person until you took your first breath, God breathed into Adam and he became a living soul.

You ask if they are suffering in Hell? No, I don't know whether that is true or not. All I know is that Christ warned that anyone who causes children to stumble will suffer in hell. Perhaps they repented, I don't know.

Ah, repentance! That didn't involve any law or govt.

Berz, answer the question:

What is the goal of an abortion?

You'd have to ask the woman having one, but it aint because she's a radical atheist bent on depriving Jesus of a relationship with her kid.

Are you arguing that we should permit abortion only to permit the life of the mother to be saved?

No

I do, but you miss the part that Christ and God routinely have appointed leadership and still govern his people through the Law. Grace is not contrary to the Law, we are all in need of Grace because we fall short of the Law. If the Law did not exist, we would have no need of Grace.

They aint been here for a long time Ben, we've been appointing each other and the means aint always been kosher. Were Hitler, Stalin and Mao appointed by Jesus? And how do you explain Jesus goin around violating or contradicting or negating laws, even laws established by Moses?

It doesn't remove the obligation of Christians to respect lawful authority.

Render unto Caesar does not = applying for the job. Jesus was trying to keep his followers out of trouble, not telling them Caesar has his endorsement in whatever Caesar desires.

Laws against murder, killing, perjury, theft, libel, slander have nothing to do with his laws? I agree there are many that have no basis in Jesus, but that is far from saying that the system has no basis in his laws.

Where did Jesus endorse laws against these crimes? Cultures and religions all over the world share certain laws, they weren't invented by Jesus.

Your legal code is based on a system of laws which resemble those of God.

We have a system of legalized bribery. But you didn't answer the ? Where did Jesus advocate a democracy?

Restitution must still be performed. If you repent, you are forgiven, but you still must do restitution for the sins that have been committed. This is why Paul says that your works will be tested by fire, and if found wanting, you will still be saved, but only as one escaping through fire.

How do you forgive a debt and still demand it be paid? What is our restitution? That we forgive others as we ask God to forgive us...

Where did I say this? You are attributing to me an opinion I have never argued.

Your inconsistency is not my problem. You call abortion murder, cite Jesus' condemnation of those who prevent children from meeting him, and demand murderers be punished - but then you say women shouldn't be punished because they aren't murderers, just the people they hire. Thats a sloppy argument Ben.

No, I'm not suggesting we arrest them. Arrest the abortionists, yes, but not the women. As for murder you actually have to have been proven to have committed the act, in order to be charged with the crime. Ordering a hit is not the same.

So Hitler wasn't a murderer? Like I said, arresting the docs is a transparent cop out.

What policy have I stated that we should arrest women? That's all your fabrication. I have always stated that we should arrest the abortionists. The reason I don't hold the women responsible is because they have been lied to about the true nature of abortion, that they are pressured into them by their families and partners and in the end, they suffer the most serious consequences of abortion wrt to their physical and mental health.

So women who have abortions aint murderers, sometimes? If someone pressures me into murdering people am I a victim too? This notion that women dont understand that abortion is ending the life of the fetus inside is just crazy, few women are that clueless.

[Darius871]

So the Supreme Court can make it impossible to forbid [activity X], but not forbid [activity X] itself? I understand the grounds vaguely (I think), but you're talking about clauses regulating the powers of congress over interstate commerce, not the power of the court to do, apparently, anything, including inventing a right out of whole cloth.

Note that I actually would prefer a simple knock-down of Roe v. Wade, leaving it up to the states, but I'm just wondering why a total reverse is unthinkable.

Not unthinkable, but at least unlikely because the reverse is a totally different animal that you shouldn't conflate; Roe made from whole cloth a right against government intrusion based on such an incredibly vague notion as the Due Process Clause, whereas using the power granted by the Interstate Commerce Clause for a new government intrusion would at least be qualified by the phrase "among the several States" (as opposed to within them). That "interstate" aspect limits federal action quite a bit more than the nebulous fluff distinguishing "due" from "undue."

Some New Deal malarkey like Wickard v. Filburn construed the Interstate Commerce Clause to its logical extreme of any "substantial effect" on commerce (e.g. a farmer's eating his own grain, if viewed in the aggregate impact of many farmers doing the same, impacting national grain prices), but Lopez and Morrison eventually drew the line at inherently local activity with only abstract indirect effects on interstate commerce, such as guns in schools or rape respectively.

One might argue that abortion-for-profit "affects" interstate commerce by increasing insurance premiums, depleting the workforce, rendering some mothers underproductive emotional wrecks, decreasing infertile couples' productivity and/or consumption by limiting adoption agencies' supply, etc., but those appear even more attenuated and indirect than the failed arguments that fear of guns in school decreases the economic benefit of educational effectiveness or that rape causes costs to victims' insurers for medical costs, victims' employers for lowered productivity, general businesses for violence's deterrent to travel, etc. etc. etc. In the end the government failed when “seek[ing] to follow the but-for causal chain…to every attenuated effect" to the point of being able to "regulate any crime as long as the nationwide, aggregated impact of that crime has ‘substantial effects’” on some distant aspects of the economy. If the Supreme Court had allowed them to federalize rape, what couldn't they federalize?

The only potential distinction I could see is that an abortion doctor gets paid for his services and thus is engaged in more "commerce" than a kid bringing a gun to school or a guy raping a stranger, but that doesn't change the fact that the cross-border impact is attenuated. In any event, that wouldn't affect the ability to ban abortions not performed for economic gain.

[DinoDoc]

If the Supreme Court had allowed them to federalize rape, what couldn't they federalize?

Heart of Atlanta would tend to argue that there isn't much.

[Darius871]

Heart of Atlanta would tend to argue that there isn't much.

Heart of Atlanta not only predated Lopez/Morrison (and was thus limited by them), but was explicitly distinguished in Lopez on the basis that the Heart of Atlanta Motel "cater[ed] to interstate guests" and did not necessarily adopt broad "'costs of crime' reasoning" that would let Congress "regulate not only all violent crime, but all activities that might lead to violent crime, regardless of how tenuously they relate to interstate commerce."

The feds would be hard-pressed to find an abortion clinic that substantially "cater[s] to interstate guests," particularly after clinics change their admittance policies to circumvent a ban. The same goes for Katzenbach v. McClung (from the same civil rights era as Heart of Atlanta), which Lopez found limited to a restaurant's "utilizing substantial interstate supplies"; any well-advised abortion clinic in the face of an ICC-based ban would simply make extra-sure to buy or produce all or nearly all supplies locally.

[Ben Kenobi]

Frankly having 135 consistent years of above-cited well-settled binding law on my side makes it too tempting to rest on my laurels, so I'm done with this.

You feel comfortable siding with the Plessy court? I don't. At least the Warren court attempted to rectify things.

[Ben Kenobi]

So God appointed Obama? You better be nice to him We have earthly authority by virtue of the vacuum left by God's departure. Hell, even when God was here we didn't pay much attention

When he brings out his birth certificate, I'll be happy to acknowledge him and his authority.

Then their law didn't come from God?

Sigh. It did come from God, it's just that they couldn't prove that there was harm done prior to the woman being able to show.

Course not, Jesus can have a relationship with whom he wants. But you're ignoring that it was the intent of his followers to prevent the children from approaching Jesus.

I'm not ignoring that at all. This is why Jesus told them not to hinder the children. Jesus rebuked the disciples many times.

I cant remember, they had some weird definition of personhood involving one of those mystical numbers. Some people believed you weren't a person until you took your first breath, God breathed into Adam and he became a living soul.

Orthodox Jews (ie, the ones who actually believe in God), believe that personhood begins at conception.

You'd have to ask the woman having one, but it aint because she's a radical atheist bent on depriving Jesus of a relationship with her kid.

Oh come on Berz. Stop being a *****. Answer the **** question. I've answered all of yours.

WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF ABORTION.

When you answer that I'll deal with the rest of your post.

[Darius871]

You feel comfortable siding with the Plessy court? I don't. At least the Warren court attempted to rectify things.

Who said anything about siding with the Plessey court? That was overruled by Brown. I'm siding with the Cruikshank, Harris, Civil Rights Cases, Hodges, Powell, Newton, Price, Guest, Williams I, United Broth. of Carpenters and Joiners of America, and Morrison courts, several of which post-date the Plessey court by roughly a century and the Brown court by decades.

FFS, the above-cited Guest reaffirmance of Cruikshank was during the Warren court to which you refer.

Can you not even read?

[Kidlicious]

Matthew 5:17-20
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."

Regarding dietary provisions though: Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man. - Matthew 15:11

You fullfill the law by loving one another. I'm not sure of the verses, but it's in the NT.