Unjust laws

Thanks Karen.  I wanted sparkybuc's lists of laws.  Not yours.

What difference does it make who gives you examples? Some laws are obscure and some make the news every week. You don't need my list. Justice is not only blind, but deaf and dumb as well, in many cases. Too often people get what they can afford. Bad laws are just one factor in a money driven equation. Crooked cops and judges take advantage of their power and too often get away with it. Two judges up here in Pennsylvania were taking kickbacks for every kid they sentenced to a privately run detention center. The complaints for stiff sentences piled up until someone finally did an investigation and put a stop to it. It should never have been allowed to happen in the first place. One kid got 18 months for punching his brother. There have to be some checks and balances to prevent this from happening.

Okay, so how does one install checks and balances for such things?  More laws perhaps?  Problem is while ideally one would like to serve justice as it was meant to be served, but that idealism is not as easy to achieve as compared in the society that we live in these days.

Also morality and definitions of right or wrong are perceptual, and that is a fact especially when you compare that with other countries.

[1sparkybuc]

Thanks Karen.� I wanted sparkybuc's lists of laws.� Not yours.

What difference does it make who gives you examples? Some laws are obscure and some make the news every week. You don't need my list. Justice is not only blind, but deaf and dumb as well, in many cases. Too often people get what they can afford. Bad laws are just one factor in a money driven equation. Crooked cops and judges take advantage of their power and too often get away with it. Two judges up here in Pennsylvania were taking kickbacks for every kid they sentenced to a privately run detention center. The complaints for stiff sentences piled up until someone finally did an investigation and put a stop to it. It should never have been allowed to happen in the first place. One kid got 18 months for punching his brother. There have to be some checks and balances to prevent this from happening.

Okay, so how does one install checks and balances for such things?� More laws perhaps?� Problem is while ideally one would like to serve justice as it was meant to be served, but that idealism is not as easy to achieve as compared in the society that we live in these days.

Also morality and definitions of right or wrong are perceptual, and that is a fact especially when you compare that with other countries.

I never said it would be easy. The Supreme Court is supposed to correct injustices. The problem with that is they are part of the problem. Political influence is what got them their jobs. Too often they go with the party line, usually of a past era. They are old and out of touch. Segregation is a prime example. Politics, in particular in the south, thrived on the fear and hatred of black Americans. The Supreme Court upheld that position simply because it was acceptable to the general population. The fact that it was wrong was not a consideration, even for the nine men who were entrusted with the responsibility to ensure all people were treated like human beings. Status quo. Two things (and television) forced a change in our laws. The military and sports teams presented a venue where ability was the primary requirement. Change comes slowly, but it does come. The next generation will influence lawmakers to do the right thing and remove the bias that exists today. Hatred is an ugly thing, no matter whose flag it flourishes under.

[dalbuc]

My morals have no religious bias since I have no religion. With that objectivity, I have no agenda either for or against any segment of our society.

Yeah, you really want to live that fiction. Like picking up Rousseau and Marx, who are both free of religion, frees you of all moral bias. There's no real god in Smith but the Wealth of Nations is far more about morality than it is about economics - then again so is Marx. You assume that no religion = objectivity but that is just plain stupid. Your morals don't have a religious base but they are no more objective than anyone elses'.

[1sparkybuc]

My morals have no religious bias since I have no religion. With that objectivity, I have no agenda either for or against any segment of our society.

Yeah, you really want to live that fiction. Like picking up Rousseau and Marx, who are both free of religion, frees you of all moral bias. There's no real god in Smith but the Wealth of Nations is far more about morality than it is about economics - then again so is Marx. You assume that no religion = objectivity but that is just plain stupid. Your morals don't have a religious base but they are no more objective than anyone elses'.

There you go fabricating your BS stories again. Why is it that you are totally unable to discuss any possible topic without distorting what someone writes and adding in your insults and slander. If anyone is stupid it's you. Forcing children to endure prayer of a religion that just might not be of their choosing is wrong. That constitutes an attack and an invasion of privacy. Forcing a woman to carry a baby to full term against her will is wrong. That is her decision to make and there should be a safe alternative available to her. Too many young girls died or were made sterile from illegal back alley abortions. It's people like you that want to return to the dark ages. Be prepared for a world you are not going to like. Free and open discussion is changing the landscape. Oppression is no longer tolerated and people like George Carlin and Bill Maher have led the way in exposing the dirty linen of our religious and political leaders. Expect more of the same and choke on it.

[spartan]

My morals have no religious bias since I have no religion. With that objectivity, I have no agenda either for or against any segment of our society.

Yeah, you really want to live that fiction. Like picking up Rousseau and Marx, who are both free of religion, frees you of all moral bias. There's no real god in Smith but the Wealth of Nations is far more about morality than it is about economics - then again so is Marx. You assume that no religion = objectivity but that is just plain stupid. Your morals don't have a religious base but they are no more objective than anyone elses'.

There you go fabricating your a subject for debate stories again. Why is it that you are totally unable to discuss any possible topic without distorting what someone writes and adding in your insults and slander. If anyone is stupid it's you. Forcing children to endure prayer of a religion that just might not be of their choosing is wrong. That constitutes an attack and an invasion of privacy. Forcing a woman to carry a baby to full term against her will is wrong. That is her decision to make and there should be a safe alternative available to her. Too many young girls died or were made sterile from illegal back alley abortions. It's people like you that want to return to the dark ages. Be prepared for a world you are not going to like. Free and open discussion is changing the landscape. Oppression is no longer tolerated and people like George Carlin and Bill Maher have led the way in exposing the dirty linen of our religious and political leaders. Expect more of the same and choke on it.

There goes another totally objective opinion. Your bias against religion is as glaring as some peoples bias caused because of religion.

There are very few objective opinions, particularly when the topic of conversation is about morals. The reason being is that to determine a moralistic opinion you have to determine what is right and what is wrong. That opinion might be influenced by religion or something entirely different, but your determination of what is good and what is wrong is based on non objective factors. Stuff that you read, stuff you experienced, how you were brought up are just a few examples. Having said all that, I'm sorry if you are using Bill Maher as inspiration your boat just sank and it hasn't even got out of harbor yet!

[dalbuc]

My morals have no religious bias since I have no religion. With that objectivity, I have no agenda either for or against any segment of our society.

Yeah, you really want to live that fiction. Like picking up Rousseau and Marx, who are both free of religion, frees you of all moral bias. There's no real god in Smith but the Wealth of Nations is far more about morality than it is about economics - then again so is Marx. You assume that no religion = objectivity but that is just plain stupid. Your morals don't have a religious base but they are no more objective than anyone elses'.

There you go fabricating your a subject for debate stories again. Why is it that you are totally unable to discuss any possible topic without distorting what someone writes and adding in your insults and slander. If anyone is stupid it's you. Forcing children to endure prayer of a religion that just might not be of their choosing is wrong. That constitutes an attack and an invasion of privacy. Forcing a woman to carry a baby to full term against her will is wrong. That is her decision to make and there should be a safe alternative available to her. Too many young girls died or were made sterile from illegal back alley abortions. It's people like you that want to return to the dark ages. Be prepared for a world you are not going to like. Free and open discussion is changing the landscape. Oppression is no longer tolerated and people like George Carlin and Bill Maher have led the way in exposing the dirty linen of our religious and political leaders. Expect more of the same and choke on it.

I think my quote of yours is pretty self-explanatory and by discussion of your mistakes is about spot on and your rant shows it. You forget I'm not one of "them". I've never been to a church service in my life. My job is to make sure my fellow travelers manage to not act like clowns and make me look bad.

[1sparkybuc]

My morals have no religious bias since I have no religion. With that objectivity, I have no agenda either for or against any segment of our society.

Yeah, you really want to live that fiction. Like picking up Rousseau and Marx, who are both free of religion, frees you of all moral bias. There's no real god in Smith but the Wealth of Nations is far more about morality than it is about economics - then again so is Marx. You assume that no religion = objectivity but that is just plain stupid. Your morals don't have a religious base but they are no more objective than anyone elses'.

There you go fabricating your a subject for debate stories again. Why is it that you are totally unable to discuss any possible topic without distorting what someone writes and adding in your insults and slander. If anyone is stupid it's you. Forcing children to endure prayer of a religion that just might not be of their choosing is wrong. That constitutes an attack and an invasion of privacy. Forcing a woman to carry a baby to full term against her will is wrong. That is her decision to make and there should be a safe alternative available to her. Too many young girls died or were made sterile from illegal back alley abortions. It's people like you that want to return to the dark ages. Be prepared for a world you are not going to like. Free and open discussion is changing the landscape. Oppression is no longer tolerated and people like George Carlin and Bill Maher have led the way in exposing the dirty linen of our religious and political leaders. Expect more of the same and choke on it.

There goes another totally objective opinion. Your bias against religion is as glaring as some peoples bias caused because of religion.

There are very few objective opinions, particularly when the topic of conversation is about morals. The reason being is that to determine a moralistic opinion you have to determine what is right and what is wrong. That opinion might be influenced by religion or something entirely different, but your determination of what is good and what is wrong is based on non objective factors. Stuff that you read, stuff you experienced, how you were brought up are just a few examples. Having said all that, I'm sorry if you are using Bill Maher as inspiration your boat just sank and it hasn't even got out of harbor yet!

People are free to believe whatever they want as long as it is not detrimental to others. You can spin it any way you want, but your moral standards should not be made into laws that inflict pain and hardship on any minority. You don't have that right.

[GhostRider]

People are free to believe whatever they want as long as it is not detrimental to others. You can spin it any way you want, but your moral standards should not be made into laws that inflict pain and hardship on any minority. You don't have that right.

Says who?  "Rights" are granted by the governing body, which in turn is driven by popular opinion.  People need to wake up and realize that there is really no such thing as good/evil, right/wrong, just or unjust.  Humanity cannot and will not ever live up to these idealized concepts.  Humanity at it's core is always going to be raw, animalistic and self serving.  Xenophopia, predjudice, explotation and the like will continue to be a part of humanity, it's how evolution equipped us for survival.  People like to get all twisted about what they consider right or wrong, when really it's THEM that's outside the lines.  Honestly expecting humanity to somehow live up to these grandiose standards will only set oneself up for disappointment.

[bucsense]

My morals have no religious bias since I have no religion. With that objectivity, I have no agenda either for or against any segment of our society.

Yeah, you really want to live that fiction. Like picking up Rousseau and Marx, who are both free of religion, frees you of all moral bias. There's no real god in Smith but the Wealth of Nations is far more about morality than it is about economics - then again so is Marx. You assume that no religion = objectivity but that is just plain stupid. Your morals don't have a religious base but they are no more objective than anyone elses'.

There you go fabricating your a subject for debate stories again. Why is it that you are totally unable to discuss any possible topic without distorting what someone writes and adding in your insults and slander. If anyone is stupid it's you. Forcing children to endure prayer of a religion that just might not be of their choosing is wrong. That constitutes an attack and an invasion of privacy. Forcing a woman to carry a baby to full term against her will is wrong. That is her decision to make and there should be a safe alternative available to her. Too many young girls died or were made sterile from illegal back alley abortions. It's people like you that want to return to the dark ages. Be prepared for a world you are not going to like. Free and open discussion is changing the landscape. Oppression is no longer tolerated and people like George Carlin and Bill Maher have led the way in exposing the dirty linen of our religious and political leaders. Expect more of the same and choke on it.

There goes another totally objective opinion. Your bias against religion is as glaring as some peoples bias caused because of religion.

There are very few objective opinions, particularly when the topic of conversation is about morals. The reason being is that to determine a moralistic opinion you have to determine what is right and what is wrong. That opinion might be influenced by religion or something entirely different, but your determination of what is good and what is wrong is based on non objective factors. Stuff that you read, stuff you experienced, how you were brought up are just a few examples. Having said all that, I'm sorry if you are using Bill Maher as inspiration your boat just sank and it hasn't even got out of harbor yet!

People are free to believe whatever they want as long as it is not detrimental to others. You can spin it any way you want, but your moral standards should not be made into laws that inflict pain and hardship on any minority. You don't have that right.

No, we don't have that right, as none of us are sitting members of the U.S. Supreme Court. So, take your argument to them or pop open a fresh container of anti-freeze and "flow with the go"...........

[spartan]

People are free to believe whatever they want as long as it is not detrimental to others.

People ARE free to believe whatever they want EVEN if it is detrimental to others. It's called the 1st Amendment.

You can spin it any way you want, but your moral standards should not be made into laws that inflict pain and hardship on any minority. You don't have that right.

But apparently you have the right for YOUR moral standards to be enacted into laws.

MY moral standards influence what I believe and support, and they certainly ARE NOT focused to deliberately inflict anything on somebody just because they are a minority.

[doobiedoright]

Somebodys panties are all twisted in a wad!