“If you suppose that good intentions justify intruding on the lives and properties of your fellow citizens: Do you appreciate being the target of somebody else's good intentions, or haven't you had that particular dubious pleasure yet?”

I think I would REALLY like to know who Cat Farmer is. I can't find the answer to that question anywhere, - not even here.

I'm sure that the folks who want to tell you what to eat, drink,drive , and where to live, etc , do it with the best of intentions. They are known as pests, or environmentalists, if you prefer.

Hmmm was my first response when I read this quote.Good intentions DO NOT justify intruding on the lives and properties of ANY person.American or not.

Good intentions frequently come from a coercive, controlling busy body with a socialist mentality. Like those hooked into the seduction of politics. And have no respect for the boundaries of the property of others. That which is Right or Wrong can be determined from a Principle, not from the value judgement of any-ones intention. Just Me AC

Ah! but to know when you are being intrusive that is the question. How many BS Christmas ties have I gotten and then the loving giver keeps asking me, "When are you going to wear it."

People who want to tell others what to do under the guise of good intentions are usually people of small character who need to feel important. People who's lives are otherwise meaningless and unproductive. Better to be a nuisance than to go unnoticed I guess...

Yep he sure was talking about ties I bet.

I agree with Anne Cleveland. ;-) Cat Farmer is great, I love her writings. Leave it to Waffler to ignore how this quote applies to him. You know when you are being intrusive? As soon as you tell other people what they should do, and force them to do it for their own good, that's when. It is not an offense to propose intrusive policies, only to enforce them.

Good quote apropos the FENCE. Spent three months this winter in the Rio Grande valley from Brownsville to Laredo. People there don't like the "good intentioned" Feds and their immigration fence. Sat in on hearings in the Fedral Court House concerning the issue where folks were complaining about the Feds intrusion. I say in this regard the good intention is better than no intention at all.

Absolutely! Waffler doesn't get it. He defines what a Christian nation is. Says he wants democracy, then knowing that the majority of the populace claim to be Christian, says we should get rid of 'one nation "under God''. He selfishly doesn't accept good intentioned gifts and exemplifies the quote by debasing good intentions that are, as he defines, contrary to his particular dubious pleasure.

Ok Mike I'll take you on. Jesus took on the "God fearing" nation of his time also. Jesus or the Bibel tell us never to tire of doing good, but I agree we should beware of intrusion. As for "Under God" I feel that it was a good intentioned intrusion enacted by Congress unconstitutionally due to it being "an establishment of religion". I fully accept unfashionable gifts as an act of love. Good intentions are an after the fact phenomenon. If the gift or act were successful we never mention the intention. This quotes main thrust however is intrusion. The Congresses intrusion in the Rio Grande is well intended. If it is successul we will not question the "good intention" part only if it is unsuccessful. I admire the courage of some people to do "good intentioned" things even if they go wrong, even in Mr. Bushes Iraq mismanaged fiasco.

'Under God' is far too broad a term to be considered under the establishment clause. The establishment clause was in reference to any finite or otherwise specific denomination becoming the official religion of the nation. A reference to 'God' does not specify a Christian, Jewish, or an other religion's God but merely indicates that man's inherent rights derive from somewhere other than man (men). I can understand how this would be caustic to Waffler, it denies the mob the most fundamental of jurisdictions. The mob's good intentions cannot deny the rights of an individual when it is one nation under God.

The phrase "Under God" implies that their is a god that we all live under. Since this is a phrase endorsed by the government, the government is in fact endorsing the concept that a god exists. Since the existence of a god cannot be physically proven, the government, by saying "Under God," is endorsing a belief of the broad religious system of theism. This is unconstitutional: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." To separate the churches and the state is not unconstitutional (or unpatriotic... really it's anything but), and it doesn't deprive the majority or the minority of any rights whatsoever.

Reminds me of this portion of the famous CS Lewis quote "....but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience....."

In other words tell these busybodies to butt out.

Anonymous, what "God" does the government endorse as existing? Your liberal line and spin is misleading and wrong. Please give a legal meaning to "God". As part of any definition of "God", the ability to create law would have to be an integral part. In the original jurisprudence of the U.S., natural law existed and man could only define an order of that law by using codes, ordinances, regulations, rules, statutes,etc. When the government became "God" it made its executive declarations, judicial renderings and legislative acts "law". The new Atheistic (extra-palpable entity - intangible phantasm - government) "God" has now become, complete with dogma and canons, an establishment of religion that is antagonistic to all other religions and the official religion of the nation. The Atheistic "God", acting through socialist doctrines is intolerable to competing philosophies, religions and reason.

The concept of good intentions being an evil is so commonly misrepresented. Take for example the opposite "I come to you with bad intention" is that more acceptable? Good intentions precede good works, but evil intentions cloak themselves in appearances of good intention. Therefore good intentions must not be tainted by deceitful statements designed to undermine the contemplation to do good works. A proverb states that " the kindnesses of the wicked are cruel" should we then abstain from kindnesses to one another rather than denounce wickedness for what it is , a deception!

God is mentioned as "Lord" just once in the U.S. Constitution under Article VII. I suggest that those who wish can go look it up can very easily do so.
The basic's of the shared quote is to state that no one wants any "intrusions intentions" forced on them for good or for ill ... when they are unwanted, unwarranted, unsolicited and/or exercised by another individual, group or a government.
We all have the unalienable right to be left alone. And, we all have the unalienable right to deny the unlawful intrusive abuse of our privacy, persons and our property no matter how great one may think the "intentions" may be.

Who with sincere good intentions has ever done anyone wrong?   

According to Richard Henry Lee, American Statesman and Founder, Thomas Jefferson copied the Declaration of Independence from John Lock's book "The Two Treatises of Government," which cites the Bible over 1,500 to show the proper operation of a civil government...and the book was about 400 pages long.  Whole lot of God in that...
Spare me other people's good intentions. I am self reliant, self responsible and self sufficient...at least as much as I can be with government watching over me like a wayward child.

And further, Many phrases in the Declaration of Independence were originally preached by the Rev. John Wise (1652-1725) who served at Congregational church in Chebacco Parish in the southeastern part of Ipswich, Mass., whose sermons were reprinted and published by the Founding Fathers before the Revolution.  So God, as you might see if you study, was a very important part of the Founding of America.  It matters little how many times Lord is in the Constitution because the 'frame' of the Constitution has reference to God many times. The frame being the Declaration. One might ask if not from God, then who do the 'blessings' of Liberty come from. NO ONE ELSE.