Why is being gay a sin? Because the Bible says, “You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; such a thing is an abomination” (Leviticus 18:22). Why is slavery a good thing? Because the Bible says, “Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh” (1 Peter 2:18).
People often quote the Bible in order to support their viewpoints. They must be thinking that “the Bible says so” is some sort of an argument. Granted, the Bible says many good things such as, “You shall not murder” (Exodus 20:2-13), but just because the Bible gets a few things right doesn’t mean you should start believing everything it says. It’s a little tiring when people become unable to think for themselves and have to rely on an ancient sheet of paper to tell them what to believe in. Let me give you another example.
Why is slavery a good thing? Because the Constitution says so. In fact, the Constitution says that “[slaves count as] three fifths of all other Persons” (Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution). Why is it a good idea for people to carry around guns? Because the Constitution says that “the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed” (2nd Amendment).
People often quote the Constitution in order to support their viewpoints. They must be thinking that “the Constitution says so” is some sort of an argument. Granted, the Constitution says many good things such as, “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech” (1st Amendment), but just because the Constitution gets a few things right doesn’t mean you should start believing everything it says. It’s a little tiring when people become unable to think for themselves and have to rely on an ancient sheet of paper to tell them what to believe in.
Do you see any similarities between the Bible and of the Constitution?
Let me put it plainly: “it says so in the Constitution” is not an argument. It’s a fact, to be sure, but facts need the addition of logic and reasoning to become arguments. As an atheist, I am annoyed at how far the Bible has intruded into our politics and policies, but I’m even more annoyed that we have placed the Constitution up on a pedestal right next to the Bible. Heaven forbid if anyone disagrees with the Constitution. People quote passages from the Constitution, they quibble over words and commas and tiny minutia, and they furiously debate the differences between the “literal” interpretation and the “spirit” or the “intent” of the law. I wonder if these people don’t read from the Constitution on Sundays and pray to it at night.
The worst thing of all, however, is that these people believe it’s okay to quote the Constitution to support a viewpoint, but that it’s not okay to quote the Bible, even though logically it’s the same argument. “Why?” “Because it says so on this piece of paper.” They make fun of Christians for their unwavering faith, and then they turn around and do exactly the same thing. They are hypocrites.
Don’t get me wrong, I understand where they’re coming from. They look at the Bible and think it’s crazy, and then they look at the Constitution and love what they see. In comparative terms, the Constitution does make more sense. Still, just because the Constitution is right most of the time, that doesn’t mean that every single word of it should be blindly obeyed.
Let me (very) briefly address two of the points above with some real arguments, namely gay marriage and the right to bear arms, so that you can see what a real argument looks like.
If gays are human beings, and if all human beings deserve equal rights, then gays deserve equal rights. It then follows that if the right to get married counts as a “human right,” then gays deserve the right to get married.
Do you see the difference? The issue at hand is not whether the Constitution or the Bible condones gay marriage. Who cares. The issue is about human rights, about equal rights, about gays being human beings. The overarching theme is far more important than a simple marriage certificate. This conflict deals with the very humanity of an entire race of people.
Let’s move on to gun control. The basic stance against guns is that more guns leads to more killings. What if I told you that in 1987 Florida adopted a right-to-carry law that allowed the state to issue handguns to its citizens, and the homicide rate dropped 36% in the next 10 years? (http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp) I have just provided a counterexample to the claim that more guns cause more killings. Rather than simply saying, “The Constitution says we should all carry guns,” I actually gave some hard evidence.
In recent news, I keep hearing about how President Bush has violated the Bill of Rights. So what? The problem with throwing people into Guantánamo Bay for no reason is not that the Geneva Convention has been violated, the problem is that it’s wrong! Who cares what some dusty sheet of paper says? It’s wrong to lock people up for no reason.
Let me ask you a personal question: if the Unabomber blew up your wife, would you think, “Oh drat, he broke the law,” or would you think, “That bastard murdered my wife!” Exactly. Laws don’t make things right and wrong, right and wrong should make the laws. We spend far too much time in this country arguing whether something is legal or not, rather than arguing what really matters: if it’s right, or if it’s wrong.
Just because the Constitution says we have the right to due process doesn’t mean we actually do. Just because the Bible says gays are an abomination doesn’t mean they are. Just because the Constitution says we have the right to bear arms doesn’t mean we should. Just because both the Constitution and God love slavery, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have abolished it. Remember, it never matters what other people say. Always use facts and logic to determine the truth of right and wrong.
Tags: Bible, Constitution
What is “right or wrong” changes over time, as we become more “enlightened”. Hopefully, through time we approach closer to the ideal. The bible (and other religious books) cannot be rewritten (the apostles are long gone), but they can be reinterpreted to fit modern times. The constitution can be amended. I’m not sure “right and wrong” are absolute values that everyone will agree upon?
Changing the constitution is an anomaly. It would mean the values of our country have no bearing. If we can change the rights given to an individual at any time why even write them down and say these are our values. Because in reality if those rights are not inalienable then how can they even truly be granted to an individual. A government cannot live by the seat of it’s pants. It needs to have rules that are concrete or nothing can ever truly done.
The government should follow its laws and its Constitution, but we as the people should not blindly believe whatever is written down on a sheet of paper.
I would argue that morals are absolutes that have to go by a standard. e.g. above Philip said “In recent news, I keep hearing about how President Bush has violated the Bill of Rights. So what? The problem with throwing people into Guantánamo Bay for no reason is not that the Geneva Convention has been violated, the problem is that it’s wrong! Who cares what some dusty sheet of paper says? It’s wrong to lock people up for no reason.”
Why is it wrong to lock someone up? Just because you say so? (I’m not defending Bush per-say) Otherwise emotion is the basis for law and each person has different emotions depending on their experiences and the way that they view those experiences.
The Bible is argued as a moral standard not because it’s old but because it is law written by God.
i think that bible shoudld be given more credit, people want to just over look the bible but don’t take to time to investigate. How can a book composed of 66 books and over 40 authors written over 1500 years and 40 different generations not contradict itself. In fact no credited archeological dig or fact has proven the bible wrong, it just keeps proving the bible is right. how could someone write a book and it never be contradicted, they can’t it had to be inspired by God. if acheologist were smart they would look to the bible to find information out to find new sites and things to investigate.
The constitution doesn’t actually say if slavery is a good or a bad thing. That is a question that the writers purposefully punted on. Instead they mention how to deal with the portion of the population in southern states that was made up of slaves. There is also a bit in the constitution about slaves and state borders, which addresses the issue of property rights. So, you are correct in noting that they constitution MENTIONS slavery, but it does not endorse or condone it.
Side Note: You might know this if you had spent time in high school studying US history and spent less time learning about the “history” of ‘Myst’. hehe
Also, commenter “Nic”, take a look at the “elastic clause”. It is the section of the constitution that SPECIFICALLY says that the constitution is designed to change. So, technically, Nic, the gov could live by the seat of its pants. Take a look at Prohibition, and then how it was undone. It’s all the the constitution. A lovely example of how values changed and how that changed was reflected in the constition.
Saying that the Constitution “mentions” slavery is akin to saying that in Roe v. Wade the Supreme Court “mentioned” abortion.
If I said, “I think black people should be paid 3/5 the salary of white people,” would you really think, “Oh, Philip was just mentioning black people in passing. He’s not racist at all.” The act of “mentioning” something implies a stance on that something! When the Constitution declared that slaves were worth 3/5 of a person, they were endorsing slavery.
It seems to me that just as you say that people quote the Bible to support their viewpoints, you have done just the same. You have taken quotes out of context. During those times, slavery was just “the way of things” and nobody was any wiser. If the Bible had been written today, it might have said something like, “Employees, do the work that your masters ask of you with all respect, not only to those who are good tempered and considerate, but also to those who are ill tempered.”
Gosh, given that context it sounds more like a lesson in being equally respectful to people who you are expected to submit to, given the times. Employees to employers. Children to parents. Children to daycare providers. Citizens to police officers. And so on and so forth. Imagine if, 300 years from now, the employee/employer relationship is considered to be an abomination. People will look back at employment contracts and look at the wording and say, “wow, how evil.”
Everything needs to be put into the context during which it was written. Likewise, as times change, the understanding of the message changes, which is why you don’t see the Bible saying, “Slavery should never be abolished.” Instead, it just says (during a time when slavery is law) that people should be respectful… not just to nice people, but also to grumpy people.
If you were to look at the entire Bible and not just quotes which have been conveniently chosen, you would also see examples of Jesus giving the type of respect to women that was unheard of during those times… of defending even former prostitutes from the religious extremists of the times… and even Jesus washing the feet of his Apostles, which was something normally a slave would do. The message was often about everyone being submissive, not just slaves or women. But, at the times, women and slaves had no rights under the law.
The Bible was a record of the times… it also laid a foundation for which people were expected to be respectful, even if the law itself was not respectful… and ultimately provided the path to bring us to where we finally are today. We still have a long way to go in terms of recognizing everyone equally and respectfully under the law (marriage, abortions, death penalty, etc…) but I am hopeful that we will continue to walk on the path towards a better future.
Again, if you recount certain atrocities in the Bible and say “that is HORRIBLE!”… then it should seem pretty clear why it was during those times that God sent his only son Jesus to change the world. And the world has changed, quite drastically from those times. The world today is much more in-line with how the Bible commands us to be than how the world was at the times the Bible was first written.
If you feel the constitution should afford homosexual people the same rights as heterosexual people (for instance, equal rights under the law when joined in a union, whether you call it marriage or not)… then you would also understand that if (when) this wording gets written into law, it should not be interpreted to mean that the government is encouraging people to be or act homosexual if they are not. So, again, if during times of slavery and unequal rights a book (or, rather, a series of books) were written to lay down the guidelines to add respect where none was given and to pave the way to a future where everyone would be treated equally, you would also be cautious about interpreting it to mean that the times of slavery and inequality should remain forever in our psyche.
To give an example. Imagine if there were a time when black people were forced to be slaves and were not given pay. Then, imagine someone says, “hey, we’re dealing with human beings, here. how about you pay your slaves 1/3 of what an employee would be paid.” Then, as this is followed, the person jumps in again and says, “hey, since you’re paying a wage, why not call your slaves ‘employees’ instead?” Then, this is followed… so the same person says, “hey, your white employees are getting paid three times as much as your black employees… why not make it twice as much, instead?” So, eventually, this is followed. Finally, the person jumps in and says, “hey, your black employees work just as hard as your white employees… how about paying everyone equally, regardless of the color of their skin?” So, finally, the ultimate goal is reached.
It is really easy to point a finger at any moment in that time-line and call that person evil or flawed or wrong by suggesting that black people should still remain slaves… or that white people should be paid twice as much as black people… but anyone who looks at the big picture would see what the person was doing and see that it was right. It just might not have been in the time-frame you would hope for, or in the manner which seems right until the very end.
That’s the basic point. If you pick and choose phrases from the Bible… and try to put it into the context of times thousands of years later, but do not derive the proper message from it and, instead, interpret the words the way you would read them NOW, rather than interpret the words the way they would have been understood THEN… then you will forever be a prisoner to either misunderstanding the Bible (like so many religious extremists,) or perhaps you are just using the Bible as a tool for your own selfish needs (like many other religious extremists.) I don’t exactly take you for a religious extremists, so I just wonder if you are genuinely ignorant, or if you’ve got someone else buried in your pysche that is trying to bubble up to the surface.
I think you missed the point of my article. I wasn’t saying that instead of quoting the Bible we should be quoting the Constitution. I was saying that we shouldn’t be quoting either of them. However, I do need to respond to some of your points.
First, you can’t just simply change words around because you feel like it. “Sure, the Constitution said that slaves were 3/5 of a person, but if they had written it NOW it would have been different.” You just can’t do that. Why on Earth would you think that you can? They WERE bigots back then. Slaveowners WERE evil. It doesn’t matter that it was “normal” and “acceptable” back then. That’s like saying it’s perfectly cool to be prejudiced against gays now because everyone is doing it and it’s socially acceptable. We ARE bigots right now.
There was one paragraph in your post I really enjoyed. The one about how things change very slowly over time. First, we give them one third pay, then one half, until finally they get equal pay. That is spot on. However, I wish it wasn’t that way. Why does the human race always have to be so stupid? First blacks had to fight for their rights, then women had to fight for their rights, and now gays are fighting for their rights. Hey, I have an idea, why don’t we just give equal rights to everyone!? Problem solved. Why do we have to go through the same battles over and over again? Why do we never learn from history?
Regarding the bigots and slave owners, I absolutely agree with you. They were all bigots. They were all evil. And, in time, the future generations will all eventually realize that this generation were bigots and evil. Then, many generations later will realize that those future generations are all bigots and evil. The fact that humans are sinners is inescapable. We finally figure out how to do things right, only to find out that there are more mistakes we are making.
So, going back to the mention of the Bible… the Bible talks about murderers… slave owners… thieves… prostitutes… etc, etc, etc… On one hand, it may sound like the Bible is only full of stories of only “sinners”. Eventually, you make the realization that none are without sin, which is why the stories of the Bible can be seen in such a dark light. If the Bible could be generalized, it would be done so as follows. People are flawed. The sooner you figure it out, the better everyone will be. People will never be within sin, but that’s ok. It is not “ok” TO sin, but it is “ok” to be a sinner, because we all are. It’s about applying logic and reason and wisdom and intelligence to follow God’s plan to a better future, but forgiving our mistakes along the way as long as we recognize our mistakes and honestly work to prevent them in the future.
So, then, you say that we shouldn’t be quoting the Bible NOR the constitution. Should this also apply to all past knowledge? I disagree. I think the constitution was a great starting point. It also recognized that it would not be perfect and that it would need to be changed with the times, which is exactly why it has built-in provisions for such change. The constitution was also meant to be written in a language that would always be understood and would not need constant interpretation. However, humans are humans. People always want to try to get away with twisting words to suit their needs. The same is done with the Bible. The difference is, the Bible was written in such a way that only a smaller portion would get the true message. It would take a lifetime of study, fellowship and prayer to properly interpret the message. Many don’t do this. They read a small passage once, come to a conclusion, and insist that this is exactly what it means. Or, they hear of an interpretation from someone else and take it as absolute Truth. This is the most common mistake. However, just because people try to twist the constitution around or misinterpret the Bible does not necessarily mean that we should discard the written word. There is a reason for written records, and the same problems which plague the constitution and the Bible would plague ANY written work.
As for change being so slow, “we” are over 6 billion people (or about 300 million if you are only concerned with the U.S.) If the world consisted of only one person, things would be very simple. The way that one person thinks things should be, things would be that way without conflict (unless the person is conflicted themselves.) If the world consisted of two people, you’d occasionally have conflict. If the world consisted of 10 people, you’d have conflict much more often. Since the world is made up of billions of people, there is constant conflict.
If change were entirely left up to the masses at large, it would never happen. People would TRY to make it happen with guns and missiles, but it wouldn’t really solve the problems, it would turn the problems into different problems.
So, people try their best to act “civilized” and, as such, they decide upon a smaller group of people who will govern the remainder of the masses. Then, they distrust this smaller group of people (for good reason.) This structure of hierarchy and distrust results in very slow change.
For instance, I used to be FOR the death penalty. I felt that it should only be applied in extreme circumstances (i.e., a serial killer, serial rapist, etc…) but I was very much for it as a deterrent. I also happen to lean more towards Democratic ideals. However, it was a hardcore Republican who debated with me about the death penalty (he was against it.) I listened. Soaked in the information. Prayed about it. And, ultimately, I have changed my mind. I am now very much AGAINST the death penalty under ANY circumstances. I feel that God made life possible, not mankind. Therefore, we do not have any right to take someone else’s life (if we presume to be “civilized”) for ANY reason, whether it be a deterrent or especially if it is meant as “revenge,” disguised as “justice.”
Now, if it took me lots of thought and reflection to change my mind, imagine changing the minds of millions of people who are not as open to change as I am.
Anyway, that’s just my two cents. Got change for a dollar?
Out of curiosity, what changed your mind about the death penalty? I am, and always have been, for the death penalty. My basic reasoning is this: without it, criminals come out ahead, and good people get the short end of the stick. In other words, you can kill as many people as you want, dozens or even hundreds, and what happens to you? Nothing, really. You are locked up and given room and board for the rest of your life. I’m not saying being in jail is fun, but it’s obviously not as bad as being murdered. Doesn’t seem fair.
Your argument for the death penalty seems to be based on the idea of “eye for an eye” — that what one does to others should be done back in kind. And I admit there is certainly some emotional satisfaction to this. If your only goal is to satisfy a sense of fairness or retribution, then I can see how the death penalty would be a good policy.
But what other properties might we want a judicial system to have? How about protecting the innocent? That seems worthwhile. There are surprisingly many cases of innocent people being wrongly sentenced to death. Some are lucky enough to have their sentences overturned before execution, others not. If the system gave life sentences instead of execution, we would better protect wrongly convicted innocent people, while still protecting the innocent public from the real killers.
Another nice property might be that the system allows us to do as little violence to others as possible. This would, I hope, help prevent desensitization to violence and also not legitimize violence as an solution in the eyes of society. It would also be better for the prison employees — having to administer a lethal injection (or other execution method), even to a convicted killer, surely cannot be a very mentally healthy experience.
That’s true, my only goal is to satisfy a sense of fairness and retribution. Let’s be honest, the prison system is not designed to protect anybody. That’s what the police are for. Once the murder has been committed, then the criminal is handed off to the prison system. By definition, the murder has already been committed by the time somebody goes to jail. The only thing that’s left to do is punish them.
Admittedly, there is a very slim argument for our prison system protecting the innocent: it either deters crime, or keeps people from committing crimes again. Statistically, most criminals are repeat offenders, so it isn’t much of a deterrent, and the absolute best way to make sure that people don’t kill again is to kill them.
True, some innocent people are put to death. Also true, some convicted murderers who get out on parole go and murder again. There will never be a failsafe system.
As for prison employees, nobody has to administer a lethal injection against their will. I’m sure there are plenty of volunteers. Me, for example.
Finally, where do you draw the line? What about somebody like Hitler? Yes, it’s a cliché example, but are you really telling me that he didn’t deserve to die? What about soldiers in a time of war? It’s perfectly okay to mow down enemy combatants, who are simply following orders, but it isn’t okay to put to death serial killers? That seems backwards to me.
You said “statistically, most criminals are repeat offenders, so [the prison system] isn’t much of a deterrent.” And therefore, you claim, the proper function of the prison system is not protecting the innocent. Well, I admit recidivism rates are high. One source I looked at briefly found a re-arrest rate of 67.5% in 15 states. Okay. But what about the other 32.5% of released convicts? And what about the majority of the population who never commit a crime? Does deterrence play no role there? (Sure, *most* people refrain from criminal activity because of their commitment to doing the right thing, or because of social consequences, but surely not everyone does.) And what about the the fact that the population is, at least, protected for the duration of the prisoner’s incarceration, though not necessarily after release? I mean, if tomorrow we just stopped putting anyone in prison, what do you think would happen in terms of murder rates, etc?
You also said “True, some innocent people are put to death. Also true, some convicted murderers who get out on parole go and murder again. There will never be a failsafe system.” I don’t think this is relevant as I’m not proposing a failsafe system, just a better one. But I wasn’t clear in my last post, so let me clarify: I’m arguing for a life sentence without parole, as an alternative to execution. With my proposal, there would be no additional murders committed by convicts out on parole, because the ones that would have been executed will not get parole. Futher, there would be fewer instances (in fact none) of wrongly convicted innocent people being executed. Thus, my proposal (no executions, no parole) protects innocent people better than your proposal (executions).
Quoting again: “It’s perfectly okay to mow down enemy combatants, who are simply following orders, but it isn’t okay to put to death serial killers?” The difference is that in war — at least in a war of defense which is carried out responsibly (and there are few such) — you are defending innocent people by opposing the forces that endanger them. Killing is required but it is (or ought to be) the minimal killing necessary for defense. Such a war is (or ought to be), at least, accomplishing a worthwhile goal — in the long run improving or saving more lives than it damages or destroys. Whereas executions do not improve or save lives. That said, I do think war should be treated as a very last resort and that in practice it is all too often used for the wrong reasons. So no, mowing down enemy combatants is not exactly “perfectly okay” — but in some (rare) cases war is necessary and justifiable.
Finally, I might turn one of your arguments around with a kind of “modest proposal”. Regarding Hitler, who was guilty of atrocities on an almost incomprehensible scale, why stop at death? There are worse punishments than death. If you truly believe in retribution, in punishment that fits the crime, then you would be remiss not to torture him before executing him. Merely to kill would be to treat him with kid gloves, to let him off easy. If you are earnest, you should be willing to inflict on such a man the most cruel, barbaric, inhuman slow torture that can be devised. Then kill him. In fact, we should torture, or perhaps publicly stone to death, the serial killers and rapists in our modern prisons too. After all, don’t they deserve it? (I trust you are with me enough to not actually agree with such a horrible “proposal”!!)
One more thought. We all have certain thought patterns that do us little good in modern society: jealousy, rage, dislike of outsiders, etc. Most people suppress or overcome these thought patterns in order to adapt to modern society. Now, I would argue the desire for retribution is similar. Consider that it has no practical benefit, and that taken further it can be very destructive. “An eye for an eye makes the whole world go blind,” as the saying goes.
So, is the desire for retribution a good thing? Do you have an argument as to *why* we should want retribution in the first place? Just because we have a desire, doesn’t mean it’s a good thing.
I recently saw Justice Scalia give a talk, and he said that if you are going to be an Originalist, you need to carry around a stamp that says, “Stupid, but constitutional!”
The Constitution is intended to be the supreme law of the land, interpreted as the nation understood it WHEN IT WAS CREATED. Yes, our morals change over time (and I am still waiting for this country to see abortion as the abomination it is in the same way we did slavery.) The Constitution has provisions for its amendment when most of the society sees a need to change it. That provision is NOT having judges declare it changed because he or she holds that opinion, much the way you, Philip, decide which parts you like and which parts you don’t. Instead, you pass a constitutional amendment.
Our democracy is precisely and deliberately designed such that we can say, “Because the Constitution says so!” That’s the point. The slavery issues shows that this design works in that it is NO LONGER constitutional. Gay Marriage and Abortion are examples of the tyranny that comes about when we do not follow the provisions of the Constitution. I see abortion as in injustice as severe as slavery. We dehumanize the unborn, calling them non-viable fetuses, the way we dehumanized Blacks. Those engaged in providing abortions benefit economically just as slave owners did. We will not look at aborted fetuses just as we cannot watch slaves. If a government can take the right to live away from someone, it can take the right away from anyone. And only a few, not the society as a whole, has imposed that upon us. Now that’s scary!
In Belgium, children can be killed up to 1 year old if parents feel the child has health issues that warrant it. A few infants are killed by doctors upon birth without consent of the parents if the doctor deems the child would suffer too much. This is where we head with abortion.
Let the Society decide, Philip; not you, and not a panel of judges. The Constitution says so.
I’m going to take a cheap shot here, but you do realize that the Supreme Court has ruled that the Constitution says that women have the right to get abortions? Society has spoken. In fact, “the Constitution says so.”
In your face!
Anyway, the mere fact that the Constitution can be amended is proof in and of itself that we shouldn’t use “the Constitution says so” as an argument, because sometimes the Constitution is wrong and needs to be changed.
Out of curiosity, the Constitution doesn’t say anything about gay marriage yet, so what are you going to do if an amendment is passed or the Supreme Court rules that gay marriage is fine?
Also, I’m not very familiar with Belgium, but I’m pretty certain you can’t just indiscriminately kill children over there. Perhaps you were talking about various euthanasia laws, which after a little googling seem to suggest to me that anybody over 12 years of age and in chronic, insufferable, incurable, debilitating pain has the right to choose to kill himself. That seems really okay to me.
By the way, if you want a good read, check out these two articles on suicide and homosexuality:
http://www.mcwilliams.com/books/books/aint/312.htm
http://www.mcwilliams.com/books/books/aint/309.htm
You are illustrating the crux of my argument…
Nowhere in the Constitution is there a right to kill babies–that is EXACTLY my point. It was an ACT OF TYRANNY by a set of nine judges interpreting the Constitution the way they felt they wanted to interpret it. The killing of babies should never be permitted, but to be law should require a constitutional amendment, not judges interpreting the document in a manner they see fit.
So yes, if a constitutional amendment were ratified guaranteeing the right to gay marriage then that would be the law of the land. If just the Supreme Court says so, then that again would be tyranny.
BTW, using your beloved Logic, what argument can you make in favor of Gay Marriage that would preclude Polygamy or Incest? Gee, if we have laws like they do in Belgium then if incestuous marriages produce genetically defective children we could just kill them. How lovely!
The function of the Supreme Court is to determine if laws are constitutional based on the the understanding of the Constitution AT THE TIME IT WAS CREATED because that was the understanding of what the law would mean. If the Supreme Court is allowed to apply its own interpretation then no one is ever certain what the law is because it would be determined by the views of only those nine people, and likely not even all of them, rather than that of what society understands it to be.
As for Belgian law, please see
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new.....icide.html
The last two paragraphs read:
“Euthanasia is currently permitted on infants and more than half of the Belgian babies who die before they are 12 months old have been killed by deliberate medical intervention.
In 16 per cent of cases parental consent was not considered.”
Regarding suicide, ask any psychologist and they will tell you that a person’s religious belief that suicide is wrong unquestionably prevents a person from committing suicide. See
http://ajp.psychiatryonline.or.....61/12/2303
Risk factors WORLDWIDE for suicide are having a mental disorder (including impulse control disorders,) being female, younger, less educated, and unmarried. See
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/95875.php
Encouraging suicide would be misogyny. Suicide is not rational, and if we tell people that suicide is O.K. thousands will never be treated for their mental disorders because they will have killed themselves. May your child or parent or sibling never take his or her own life, my friend; you may not be so cavalier.
Finally, your original thoughts were about the Constitution being wrong. The Constitution was never intended to be moral instruction; rather, it is an agreement between government and the people governed. In that sense, “Because it says so in the Constitution,” is not only valid, it is the very purpose of the document. The Bible, on the other hand, is moral instruction, and a discussion far beyond the scope of this post.
Why did you remove my comment? The debate, I thought, was a wonderful exchange! I was looking forward to your thoughts on the subject.
sorry, for some reason your comment ended up in my “awaiting moderation” queue. I went ahead and approved it.
Hey, Whoever wrote this, You are a Faget. Ohh and retarded.
The bible and constitution are tools of war. The powerful use them as weapons, the week as shields.