The problem has expanded beyond the federal government and the states have liberally taken a role in this. We seem to have forgotten the parts "left to the people" that has been trampled upon.

Gee, I don't know!

Without the contract between the federal government, the states, and the people, there would never have been a United States. There is also a process in place to amend the contract. Anyone having a disagreement with any of the provisions of the Constitution is free to use that process to amend it. If there is not enough agreement among the stakeholders to change it, no government or court is free to do otherwise.

I can’t agree with RBSRQ or Waffler since without God, there is no universal definition of good. On another note, I really do not like when quotes make assumptions that we are supposed to accept as fact. "Most of the harm in the world is done by good people…” Most. Really? To me, that opening statement discredited the rest of the quote.

Take out “black” conservative and replace it with conservative “female” and the quote basically still stands accurate.

Homer Simpson killed his wife?

Even more so after a couple of pints of Guinness…

Most major newspapers have been practicing this for years.

If I doubt Rene's quote does that mean I agree or disagree with him? One of his most famous quotes is “Cogito ergo sum” (I think therefore I am.) In other words, I cannot doubt my own existence. So, according to his quote above, should he? Interestingly, today’s “intellectual” studiers of human consciousness mostly call it nothing more than a highly advanced computer that simply evaporates with death. Mike is correct in that philosophy is a topic with no conclusions (at least with the topics still being debated). But of course, that is because most philosophers are atheists who refuse to allow religion into the discussion.

The sounds of a cuckoo clock.

If you ever spent any time wandering the halls and rooms where these founding fathers debated and penned these revolutionary concepts, the thing that may strike you as astounding is the smallness of it all. They did not give speeches in well organized grand halls of government so commonly found in Europe. They mostly met in churches, social halls and pubs. Yet, they would as Jefferson so amazingly prophesized, forever change the world. It is not hard to believe there was divine intervention at work. (Despite the number of deists involved!)

I fear we have left the time of governing by constitutional power and are now supplanting it with governing by political power. A great deal of that is a result of media influence and a public that has failed to use its ability to reason on its own. Everyone can name their president, not so many their member of Congress. Sound bites are all we focus on. There are probably many other earlier examples, but take Clinton’s impeachment. It was never conducted as a process as constitutionally outlined. The Clintons knew they were guilty and so had to instead try their case in the court of public opinion. That succeeded wildly with the support of the media which ignored the charges and made it into a man who was simply trying to protect his family from his wanderings. And after all, it was “just sex” anyway, right? At least that’s how this case was presented. Because of the media generated public pressure Congress was too afraid to vote the way the Bar association later did. Guilty. A (Democrat) president can count on the media to make his case for him and with that assistance can usurp power form Congress when convenient. When a Republican is in the White House the media and Congress finds its balls. The problem is, as stated in the quote, they have slowly been gelding themselves and even a Democrat controlled Congress may not have the ability in the future to recoup its constitutional powers when desired, even when a Democrat is in the White House.

I’m not a big fan of Franklin, but I think he got this right in the sense that ignorance on our behalf allows those who profess to be experts to become our masters. When we are lazy to protect our rights and stay informed of the issues (“Fat, drunk and stupid” to quote from the movie Animal House), we allow others to lead us around like a bull on a nose ring. We may think we are going to stud, but more likely to slaughter.

Read the entire article. Very good. I especially like this quote from it: “…classical political theory, with its Stoical, Christian, and juristic key-conceptions (natural law, the value of the individual, the rights of man), has died. The modern State exists not to protect our rights but to do us good or make us good -- anyway, to do something to us or to make us something. Hence the new name 'leaders' for those who were once 'rulers'. We are less their subjects than their wards, pupils, or domestic animals. There is nothing left of which we can say to them, 'Mind your own business.'” Our whole lives are their business. – C.S. Lewis (From “Willing Slaves of the Welfare State” 1958)

I always love when people premise their statement with the “fact” that anyone who disagrees is not a thinking person. As an atheist Albert Camus also said the only valid philosophical question was whether or not to commit suicide. Without an afterlife there is not purpose of this life. In short order (in universe time) it will be as if we never existed. So without the threat of God’s wrath, and without a God there is no moral standard anyone can defend better than another’s, there is no real justification to act superior regarding opinions on executions.

If tomorrow the Arab neighbors of Israel were all disarmed nothing would happen. If tomorrow the nation of Israel were disarmed there would be millions of dead Jews in a matter of hours. Muslim controlled nations open speak of the need to wipe Israel off the map. Israel is always in a defensive war fighting for its survival.

And people say government never gets anything right! I think the last sentence of Mr. Hoffa’s statement sums it up. Except most animals are not deserving of the cage.

This is a difficult issue. It’s true that there are bigger fish to fry. However, in general “victimless crimes” often have spillover effects as drug users seek funds out of my parked car, and prostitutes and pimps engage in territory protection, etc. Many of these sorts of what would be classified as “sins” have been made into crimes because they can’t be contained to only those engaged in the actions. It could be argued that government should regulate them. Just what we need, more government – we all know how well that tends to work out. But the biggest reason I support the classification of these actions into crimes is the “broken window” effect. When society sees general degeneration of its neighborhoods caused by the spillover effects of these crimes the “productive” class moves away and hastens the complete economic and moral collapse of the area. There was a time when chewing gum in class would mean a trip to the principal’s office. We stopped enforcing the “small stuff” and today in the LA school system you can’t even get in trouble for “willful disobedience” in the classroom. However, in other schools where discipline is enforced, the students do well. It’s the same at the neighborhood level. A society that takes care of small stuff has less big stuff to deal with.

This is simply another “feels good, sounds good” quote. If I and you are free to disobey laws we believe as unjust, then what’s the point of having any laws? If this were truly the case there would be no need for laws since we would all just follow our consciences. The real discussion should be centered on what is used to determine the criteria for a definition of “just.”

Agreed, but at what point and how do we make it clear what is considered unacceptable societal behavior without some sort of threat of punishment for transgressions? In order to do that we would need to be fair by outlining through law what those transgressions and punishments would be. It would be unjust not to provide fair warning, which could actually be expected to have the effect of influencing good behavior.

But it raises a question: Are they wrong? It is easy to denounce acts of violence by associating them with something as insane as burning witches, but this paints too broad a swath. It is setting up a straw man argument. When one truly believes he is facing evil, does he have the option not to confront it? Failure to confront evil resulted in the Holocaust. Most acts of violence are justifiable, it just depends on which side of the argument you stand.

I think this says a lot: "Of the four wars in my lifetime none came about because the U.S. was too strong." - Ronald Reagan

Dumb quote. Of course you can have both. True faith is just that faith. I can have faith the tooth fairy will come. But that faith would prove false. Someone else came with the quarter under my pillow. What you put your faith in is critical. I have faith my wife will support me if I cant work. That may prove false, but I base my faith on a history of facts where we have supported each other in the past. I have reasonable evidence that bond will continue. Historically and logically Christianity has stood up very well to reason and evidence. (See Lee Strobel for a short but well organized apologetic discussion.) After establishing a reliable history and foundation to build faith on, it becomes reasonable to extrapolate with faith in the other claims. Without a base (tooth fairy) there is no logic to continue with that belief. Faith and reason go hand in hand.

Thank you for making my point. "...people have used religion as an excuse to kill since...forever." - J Carlton. It is not true of religion any more than the gun that kills. People will resort to the tools that best serve them.

Religion kills no one. However, human claims to have insight into God’s mind and intentions have often resulted in disagreements where one attempts through force to implement that claim (in the name of God) which has sometimes resulted in violence. Christ gives us a choice and asks us if we will follow Him. Men have at times decided that was a mandate, but that would be putting words into Christ’s mouth that I can’t find in the Scriptures.