Giving Alcohol To The Underaged

[Semper Catholic]

I see Stern had his troll face on hard in this thread.

"Host at a Party serves alcohol" turns into "The rights of the State" TROLLOLOLOLOOLOLOOLOLOLOLLL

[Winchester]

[quote name='Niccolò' timestamp='1290643369' post='2189128']
I hear this argument often, but to me it seems to miss the mark. The law's intent is not really to prevent those with poor judgment from drinking, but rather to prevent those with poor judgment [i]with regard to drinking[/i] from drinking. It's pretty clear that high school- and college-age citizens are less capable than older individuals when it comes to responsibly handling alcohol. Out of concern for the health of its citizens, the state can impose a minimum age for the common good.



I'm not so sure. Here is what informs my view:



Going off Pope Leo XIII's Encyclical [i]Diuturnum[/i] specifically, it seems difficult to make the argument that a minimum drinking age is "openly repugnant to the natural or the divine law."
[/quote]
The government has the right to govern justly within the scope of its authority. It is not within the government's scope of authority to forbid alcohol to people. If the person is a child, that authority belongs to the parent. If the person is not a child, then the government has no authority to deny him alcohol. The government was never given authority by God to replace parents or to make people children their entire lives.

The drinking age of 21 is capricious and caprice is not something I must obey.

[Niccolò]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1290778733' post='2189367']
The government has the right to govern justly within the scope of its authority. It is not within the government's scope of authority to forbid alcohol to people. If the person is a child, that authority belongs to the parent. If the person is not a child, then the government has no authority to deny him alcohol. The government was never given authority by God to replace parents or to make people children their entire lives.

The drinking age of 21 is capricious and caprice is not something I must obey.
[/quote]

The government has authority to enact laws for the common good. If the common good is promoted by restricting alcohol consumption (or even if promoting the common good is the aim of the law), then the government has authority to enact such laws. You say it is not within the government's scope of authority to forbid alcohol to people. What about Marijuana? Cocaine? LSD? Prescription drugs? I realize there are some who favor an end to all drug laws, I'm just wondering where you stand.

I would contend that you do not have the right to disobey a law, even if you find it capricious. You can voice just criticism of the law, and even try to change it using legal means, but absent the law forcing you to do something repugnant to the natural or divine law, we must obey it.

Besides all that, the law is not capricious nor whimsical. There's plenty of evidence that restricting alcohol consumption to those who are over 21 not only makes roads safer but also protects teenagers whose brains are still developing.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Niccolò' timestamp='1290798030' post='2189392']
The government has authority to enact laws for the common good. If the common good is promoted by restricting alcohol consumption (or even if promoting the common good is the aim of the law), then the government has authority to enact such laws. You say it is not within the government's scope of authority to forbid alcohol to people. What about Marijuana? Cocaine? LSD? Prescription drugs? I realize there are some who favor an end to all drug laws, I'm just wondering where you stand.[/quote]
We're talking about alcohol, which is far different from most of those drugs you've listed. You needn't cite statistics to me. I am aware of the hysteria and hype. The only drug remotely comparable to alcohol in your list (stated and implied) is marijuana. I haven't read the Bible cover to cover, but I've yet to hear the passage about Jesus turning wheat into weed. Obviously God approves of alcohol.

The outcome of a law matters not if it is a violation of human rights.
[quote]I would contend that you do not have the right to disobey a law, even if you find it capricious. You can voice just criticism of the law, and even try to change it using legal means, but absent the law forcing you to do something repugnant to the natural or divine law, we must obey it.[/quote]
It is repugnant to natural law for the government to make children of grown people.

[quote]Besides all that, the law is not capricious nor whimsical. There's plenty of evidence that restricting alcohol consumption to those who are over 21 not only makes roads safer but also protects teenagers whose brains are still developing.
[/quote]
Of course. Society was on the verge of collapse until someone decided 21 was the drinking age, and no one is of sufficient intelligence to drink in moderation until this magical age, nor is anyone more capable of self care than the state until that age.

[MithLuin]

As you are no doubt aware, many states lowered the drinking age to 18 about 30-40 years ago. The rise in fatal car crashes in the 16-18 year old demographic alarmed a lot of people, so that some states resisted lowering the drinking age. Those that had set it at 18 eventually returned it to 21. It's a very good argument to point out that it is a strange state of affairs that an 18 year old can die for his country, but is not old enough to buy a drink legally.

I know you don't want statistics. But of the deaths in the 15-19 year old demographic in 2002, [b]40%[/b] were caused by automobile accidents. Teens can drive recklessly without alcohol, but drinking really doesn't help this situation. Since reckless behavior endangers not only the person's life, but also that of others on the road...it makes sense for there to be laws aimed at cutting down recklessness. DUIs mean you lose your license and won't be driving at all.

But forget an arbitrary age - there are dry counties in many states where adults (who aren't alcoholics) can't buy alcohol on land. Bars have to close by 2 AM in many areas. Liquor stores aren't allowed to be open on Sundays. Etc. We have lots of laws surrounding the consumption of alcohol, not just the cut-off age of 21.

In most states, it is perfectly legal for a [i]parent[/i] to serve alcohol to a minor in their own home. The problem comes when another adult purchases alcohol and serves it to minors who are not his/her children. I have no problem with restaurants/bars being banned from serving underaged patrons alcohol.

I agree that the goal is to create responsible citizens who will (for instance) not drink and drive. I do not think that most teenagers weigh consequences wisely before making decisions (I'm a high school teacher, so I get to see that first hand on a regular basis), but of course they aren't little kids. They do weigh information and make decisions - sometimes responsible, sometimes reckless. The laws make it slightly for difficult for the teens to obtain the alcohol, but don't actually stop teenage drinking or reckless behavior.

[Niccolò]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1290799451' post='2189394']
We're talking about alcohol, which is far different from most of those drugs you've listed. You needn't cite statistics to me. I am aware of the hysteria and hype. The only drug remotely comparable to alcohol in your list (stated and implied) is marijuana. I haven't read the Bible cover to cover, but I've yet to hear the passage about Jesus turning wheat into weed. Obviously God approves of alcohol.[/quote]

Actually, alcohol is a far more dangerous drug than marijuana or LSD, and is in some ways a more powerful drug than heroin or cocaine. When's the last time you heard about someone overdosing on marijuana? I agree that God approves of alcohol, but I also believe God would have no problem with the State providing some standards for responsible alcohol consumption.

[quote]
The outcome of a law matters not if it is a violation of human rights.
[/quote]

Agreed, but I don't think it is a violation of human rights

[quote]
It is repugnant to natural law for the government to make children of grown people.
[/quote]

Who decides who is a "grown" person? Society does. We as a society have decided that with regards to alcohol, you are not a grown person until you are 21. Besides, in a sense, even "grown people" are "children":

[b]2234[/b] God's [i]fourth commandment[/i] also enjoins us to honor all who for our good have received authority in society from God. It clarifies the duties of those who exercise authority as well as those who benefit from it.

The same commandment that tells us to honor our parents also tells us to honor our government.

[quote]
Of course. Society was on the verge of collapse until someone decided 21 was the drinking age, and no one is of sufficient intelligence to drink in moderation until this magical age, nor is anyone more capable of self care than the state until that age.
[/quote]

Just because the absence of a law does not mean the collapse of society does not mean that law does not work for the common good.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Niccolò' timestamp='1290724068' post='2189294']
The State has authority from God to establish laws that aim to promote the common good.[/quote]

First, you did not answer my question. Please look at the question again, and please answer the question.

Next, what you said is incorrect. In order to be a law, an ordinance must not only [i]aim[/i] to promote the common good (common good meaning the rights of every single individual in a society, not a general welfare, as the common good cannot be protected by violating the rights of any individual) but it must actually [i]achieve[/i] the promotion of the common good: otherwise, it is counterproductive and thereby not an ordinance of right reason, and thus not a[i] [/i]law.


[quote]We may argue whether or not such a law does promote the common good, but absent the law being "openly repugnant to the natural or the divine law," we are bound to obey.
[/quote]

Ibid.

~Sternhauser

[Winchester]

[quote name='Niccolò' timestamp='1290804458' post='2189413']
I also believe God would have no problem with the State providing some standards for responsible alcohol consumption.[/quote]
And it's not inherently irresponsible for someone under 21 to drink alcohol.

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='Semper Catholic' timestamp='1290770336' post='2189360']
I see Stern had his troll face on hard in this thread.

"Host at a Party serves alcohol" turns into "The rights of the State" TROLLOLOLOLOOLOLOOLOLOLOLLL
[/quote]

Welcome to phatmass!

Edited November 27, 2010 by USAirwaysIHS

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Semper Catholic' timestamp='1290770336' post='2189360']
I see Stern had his troll face on hard in this thread.

"Host at a Party serves alcohol" turns into "The rights of the State" TROLLOLOLOLOOLOLOOLOLOLOLLL
[/quote]

Someone says "It's wrong to provide alcohol to people under 21 because it's against the law," and it's going to be addressed. Now get off the bridge.

~Sternhauser

[Niccolò]

[quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1290804933' post='2189414']
First, you did not answer my question. Please look at the question again, and please answer the question.
[/quote]

I did answer your question. That the government has the authority from God to pass such laws gives them the right to pass such laws.

[quote]
Next, what you said is incorrect. In order to be a law, an ordinance must not only [i]aim[/i] to promote the common good (common good meaning the rights of every single individual in a society, not a general welfare, as the common good cannot be protected by violating the rights of any individual) but it must actually [i]achieve[/i] the promotion of the common good: otherwise, it is counterproductive and thereby not an ordinance of right reason, and thus not a[i] [/i]law.
[/quote]

Incorrect.

[b]1903[/b] Authority is exercised legitimately only when it [i]seeks[/i] the common good of the group concerned and if it employs morally licit means to attain it.

This must be the standard. If the standard for whether we must follow a law is that it actually does promote the common good, then whether or not we are bound to follow a law is based on our own subjective opinion of what the law accomplishes. For example, I believe that gun control laws, certain taxes, and cellphone driving laws do not promote the common good. However, these laws are passed by those with authority seeking the common good. If we could all pick and choose the laws we obeyed based on which ones we subjectively thought promoted the common good, society would cease to function.

Furthermore, the common good refers both to respect for the individual [i]and[/i] to societal well-being. Moreover, underage consumption of alcohol is not a right (neither a natural nor a legal right), so it cannot be violated.

[Niccolò]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1290805604' post='2189416']
And it's not inherently irresponsible for someone under 21 to drink alcohol.
[/quote]

I agree. Even if a good amount, or even a majority of a group were to perform an act irresponsibly, it does not mean that the act by that group is inherently irresponsible. However, that says nothing about whether it should be a legal act. The law is often a compromise. Even if drinking under the age of 21 is not an inherently irresponsible act (which it isn't), it might be (and probably is) better that the act be illegal if in practice the act is done irresponsibly.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Niccolò' timestamp='1290836821' post='2189499']
I did answer your question. That the government has the authority from God to pass such laws gives them the right to pass such laws.[/quote]

You did not answer the question. Coercive States do not appear out of nowhere, anointed by God. Precisely how does the State acquires a "right?" I'd like the definitions, such as "what is a State," and also the steps, such as how a State comes into existence, and how the individual agents then go on to acquire a "right from God" to use physical violence against individuals who are performing actions which are not in and of themselves immoral and/or do not directly violate the right to life, limb and property of others.


[quote]
Incorrect.

[b]1903[/b] Authority is exercised legitimately only when it [i]seeks[/i] the common good of the group concerned and if it employs morally licit means to attain it.

This must be the standard. If the standard for whether we must follow a law is that it actually does promote the common good, then whether or not we are bound to follow a law is based on our own subjective opinion of what the law accomplishes.[/quote]
It is written further:

"If rulers were to enact [b]unjust laws[/b] [i]or[/i] take measures contrary to the moral order,[b] such arrangements would not be binding in conscience[/b]."

An unjust law, even if it [i]seeks[/i] the common good, is still not a law. Note: an "unjust law" does not simply mean "a human law commanding you to do something contrary to the Eternal Law." It includes a violation of rights, or attempting to exercise illegitimate control over others.

And again, [b]

"1901[/b] The diversity of political regimes is morally acceptable, [i]provided they[b] serve[/b] the legitimate good[/i] of the communities that adopt them.
[b]
1902[/b] [b]Authority does not derive its moral legitimacy from itself.[/b] It must not behave in a despotic manner, but [b]must act for the common good[/b] as a "moral force based on freedom and a sense of responsibility":[sup]21[/sup]

[b]A human law has the character of law to the extent that it accords with right reason,[/b] and thus derives from the [b] eternal law. Insofar as it falls short of right reason it is said to be an unjust law, and thus has not so much the nature of law as of a kind of violence.[sup]2"

[/sup][/b]Note: it does not say true authority must act [i]"toward[/i] the common good."" It says it must act [i]for[/i] the common good. That means the means must be in and of themselves [i]ordered[/i] to the attainment of the desired good end. It does not say a law must be "reasonable." It says it must be of [i]right[/i] reason. Meaning, again, that the means is, in fact, [i]capable[/i] of achieving the desired end, in a just way.

[quote]For example, I believe that gun control laws, certain taxes, and cellphone driving laws do not promote the common good. However, these laws are passed by those with authority seeking the common good.[/quote]
Self-defense can be a [i]duty[/i]. Self-defense is only defense when it is [i]effective. [/i]Blowing a whistle, flailing your hands and screaming "take anything you want: spare me my life" is not going to be an effective defense against an armed aggressor. Gun control is victim disarmament. It is gravely immoral to render people defenseless against predators who have no qualms about violating unjust statutes prohibiting the ownership, carriage and use of arms: acts that do not in themselves violate the rights of others.


[quote]Furthermore, the common good refers both to respect for the individual [i]and[/i] to societal well-being.[/quote]
It does. But the whole is made up of individuals: one may not violate the rights of the individual in order to secure the good of the whole. Not only is the attempt immoral, but it is actually impossible to secure the common good by violating the rights of any individual.


[quote]If we could all pick and choose the laws we obeyed based on which ones we subjectively thought promoted the common good, society would cease to function[/quote]
That is a baseless claim. Individuals in society know [i]exactly[/i] what social (voluntary and mutually-beneficial) behavior requires. Everyone learned the rules of proper social interaction in kindergarten. It includes not taking other people's property. It includes not initiating aggression. It means you don't defraud others. It means you honor promises and contracts. "Because I said so" is not a reason. It is an ultimatum that is often a prelude to violence, and it is is not how adults operate, unless they have thus bound themselves by explicit, individual, wholly voluntary contract or covenant, such as are found in monasteries. Social behavior does not require someone to force me to get a State permission slip to exercise my God-given right to effective self-defense. Social behavior does [i]not[/i] require that I comply with arbitrary regulations in order to sell safe food or beverages out of my home. Social behavior does [b][i]not[/i][/b] require individuals to be groped or pornoscanned in order to board a private plane. Social behavior does [b][i]NOT[/i][/b] require forcing responsible people to abstain from alcoholic beverages.


[quote]Moreover, underage consumption of alcohol is not a right (neither a natural nor a legal right), so it cannot be violated.[/quote]

By that logic, you have no right to drink orange juice. The sugars in orange juice are known to the State of California to cause cavities. Therefore, the State can legitimately prohibit consumption of orange juice to anyone under 47.6 years of age, and [i]who are you[/i] [i]to say otherwise[/i], because the measure is intended to serve the common good.

"[i]Underage [/i]consumption of alcohol is not a right" is itself an assertion that begs the question. Individuals [i]do[/i] have a right to drink alcohol, or perform [i]any other[/i] moral action, as long as they do so in a responsible manner. A [i]malum prohibitum[/i] civil statute is not morally binding.

Bottom line is,[i] you[/i] don't have the right to stop a responsible person from drinking alcohol in a responsible way. So you can't [i]give[/i] that right to anyone [i]else[/i], by putting him in power. Has God Himself has been anointing people like Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama or your local tax feeders, and somehow divinely bestowing that "right" upon[i] [/i]them? No. God didn't give [i]anyone,[/i] [i]especially[/i] agents of the State, the right to impose arbitrary burdens on other people. In fact, he used rather damning language against that sort of person.

~Sternhauser

Edited November 27, 2010 by Sternhauser

[Niccolò]

[quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1290839854' post='2189519']
You did not answer the question. Coercive States do not appear out of nowhere, anointed by God. Precisely how does the State acquires a "right?" I'd like the definitions, such as "what is a State," and also the steps, such as how a State comes into existence, and how the individual agents then go on to acquire a "right from God" to use physical violence against individuals who are performing actions which are not in and of themselves immoral and/or do not directly violate the right to life, limb and property of others.
[/quote]

No, coercive states do not appear out of nowhere, but they do appear. In the United States, the President, Congress, and the SCOTUS have a great deal of coercive power. Therefore, since all power is given by God, those in government have been ordained by God, as the Apostle says:

"Let every soul be subject to higher powers, for there is no power but from God, and those that are, are ordained of God. Therefore he that resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God, and they that resist purchase to themselves damnation." Romans 13:1-2

Though the situation in other countries may be more complicated, in this country and in most Western countries, it is pretty straight-forward.

[quote]
It is written further:

"If rulers were to enact [b]unjust laws[/b] [i]or[/i] take measures contrary to the moral order,[b] such arrangements would not be binding in conscience[/b]."

An unjust law, even if it [i]seeks[/i] the common good, is still not a law. Note: an "unjust law" does not simply mean "a human law commanding you to do something contrary to the Eternal Law." It includes a violation of rights, or attempting to exercise illegitimate control over others.

And again, [b]

"1901[/b] The diversity of political regimes is morally acceptable, [i]provided they[b] serve[/b] the legitimate good[/i] of the communities that adopt them.
[b]
1902[/b] [b]Authority does not derive its moral legitimacy from itself.[/b] It must not behave in a despotic manner, but [b]must act for the common good[/b] as a "moral force based on freedom and a sense of responsibility":[sup]21[/sup]

[b]A human law has the character of law to the extent that it accords with right reason,[/b] and thus derives from the [b] eternal law. Insofar as it falls short of right reason it is said to be an unjust law, and thus has not so much the nature of law as of a kind of violence.[sup]2"

[/sup][/b]Note: it does not say true authority must act [i]"toward[/i] the common good."" It says it must act [i]for[/i] the common good. That means the means must be in and of themselves [i]ordered[/i] to the attainment of the desired good end. It does not say a law must be "reasonable." It says it must be of [i]right[/i] reason. Meaning, again, that the means is, in fact, [i]capable[/i] of achieving the desired end, in a just way.
[/quote]

Indeed, those in authority must act for the common good, and they do so by enacting laws that seek the common good. Rulers are not all-knowing. In reality, laws will have both positive and negative consequences, consequences which cannot be known in their entirety by persons enacting such laws. We could go through a list of laws, arguing over every single one whether it was for the common good or not. Just because I subjectively think that a law is not for the common good, does not mean I can disobey that law.

Unjust laws do not need to be obeyed, that's fundamental. However, you're still assuming that the drinking age is an unjust law, with little support. You seem to be stating that, objectively, it is unjust to prohibit someone under 21 to consume alcohol. On what principle are you basing this opinion? The minimum drinking age law is a means to an end (primarily, safer roads). It is a means that is both capable of achieving the desired ends, and it does so in a just way.

[quote]
Self-defense can be a [i]duty[/i]. Self-defense is only defense when it is [i]effective. [/i]Blowing a whistle, flailing your hands and screaming "take anything you want: spare me my life" is not going to be an effective defense against an armed aggressor. Gun control is victim disarmament. It is gravely immoral to render people defenseless against predators who have no qualms about violating unjust statutes prohibiting the ownership, carriage and use of arms: acts that do not in themselves violate the rights of others.
[/quote]

Right, self-defense can be a duty. However, what constitutes effective self-defense is open to debate, and civil authorities can place restrictions on firearms ownership, and we are bound to obey. I think "assault weapon" laws, handgun registration, waiting periods, and the NFA are all contrary to the common good, but there is a reasonable argument to be made that those laws do promote the common good. I would even go so far to say that outright firearm prohibition would not be an intrinsically unjust law, depending on the society in which such a law were made. The principle is effective self-defense. The argument is on balancing effective self-defense with public safety. As I said before, law is often a compromise.

[quote]
But the whole is made up of individuals: one may not violate the rights of the individual in order to secure the good of the whole. Not only is the attempt immoral, but it is actually impossible to secure the common good by violating the rights of any individual.
[/quote]

I completely agree. However, a drinking age law violates no such rights.

[quote]
Individuals in society know [i]exactly[/i] what social (voluntary and mutually-beneficial) behavior requires. Everyone learned the rules of proper social interaction in kindergarten. It includes not taking other people's property. It includes not initiating aggression. It means you don't defraud others. It means you honor promises and contracts. "Because I said so" is not a reason. It is an ultimatum that is often a prelude to violence, and it is is not how adults operate, unless they have thus bound themselves by explicit, individual, wholly voluntary contract or covenant, such as are found in monasteries. Social behavior does not require someone to force me to get a State permission slip to exercise my God-given right to effective self-defense. Social behavior does [i]not[/i] require that I comply with arbitrary regulations in order to sell safe food or beverages out of my home. Social behavior does [b][i]not[/i][/b] require individuals to be groped or pornoscanned in order to board a private plane. Social behavior does [b][i]NOT[/i][/b] require forcing responsible people to abstain from alcoholic beverages.
[/quote]

I disagree. Individuals are often selfish, deceptive, and short-sighted. Everyone might have learned the rules of proper social interaction in kindergarten, but without the coercive action of the state, it is difficult for individuals to live up to those rules. Society requires the coercive action of the state to enforce norms. Contracts only attain meaning because they are enforceable by the government. Whether or not one thinks safe food and drug laws are arbitrary, he does not have the authority to decide that he will not follow those laws. "Because I said so" is indeed a reason for obedience in certain circumstances.

[quote]
By that logic, you have no right to drink orange juice. The sugars in orange juice are known to the State of California to cause cavities. Therefore, the State can legitimately prohibit consumption of orange juice to anyone under 47.6 years of age, and [i]who are you[/i] [i]to say otherwise[/i], because the measure is intended to serve the common good.
[/quote]

You're making the point that we are not required to follow stupid laws. I would say that we are indeed morally obligated to follow stupid laws. For example, New York now has a special tax on soda. Vendors are still obligated to pay such a tax. Likewise, McDonald's is obligated to follow San Francisco's new law banning happy meal toys. Ridiculous? Yes. Must we obey? Of course.

[quote]
"[i]Underage [/i]consumption of alcohol is not a right" is itself an assertion that begs the question. Individuals [i]do[/i] have a right to drink alcohol, or perform [i]any other[/i] moral action, as long as they do so in a responsible manner. A [i]malum prohibitum[/i] civil statute is not morally binding.
[/quote]

I disagree. A [i]malum prohibitum[/i] statute is morally binding, for all the reasons I have already stated.

[quote]
Bottom line is,[i] you[/i] don't have the right to stop a responsible person from drinking alcohol in a responsible way. So you can't [i]give[/i] that right to anyone [i]else[/i], by putting him in power. Has God Himself has been anointing people like Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama or your local tax feeders, and somehow divinely bestowing that "right" upon[i] [/i]them? No. God didn't give [i]anyone,[/i] [i]especially[/i] agents of the State, the right to impose arbitrary burdens on other people. In fact, he used rather damning language against that sort of person.
[/quote]

I don't see what my personal right to do something has to do with the government being able to pass a law. No, I do not have the right to stop a responsible person from drinking alcohol. However, I have not been put in a position of authority over society. God is the master of history, and whether we like it or not, Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama have been placed in positions of authority over society (though Pelosi will soon be in a much lesser position of power). Though Pelosi and Obama have certainly supported laws that are contrary to the natural law, we are still bound to obey them in matters that do not force us to perform an act repugnant to the natural or divine law.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Niccolò' timestamp='1290896075' post='2189570']
No, coercive states do not appear out of nowhere, but they do appear. In the United States, the President, Congress, and the SCOTUS have a great deal of coercive power. Therefore, since all power is given by God, those in government have been ordained by God, as the Apostle says:

"Let every soul be subject to higher powers, for there is no power but from God, and those that are, are ordained of God. Therefore he that resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God, and they that resist purchase to themselves damnation." Romans 13:1-2[/quote]

One of the most misunderstood scriptural passages of all time. Satan, the Unabomber, the Son of Sam and Timothy McVeigh all received their power from God. Stalin and Trotsky received their power from God. How could they resist each other? Can anyone use violence to stop someone like the Unabomber? Of course not! After all, Jesus Himself said "Do not resist an evil person." Context? Intent? Immaterial.

Sam Adams, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, John Hancock, Charles Carroll, Benjamin Franklin and Ethan Allen are all roasting in hell because they resisted the power, ordained by [i]God Himself. [/i]The colonists didn't have a right to not have State soldiers quartered in the same house as their 15-year old daughters. It was for the common good, after all.

Rosa Parks? Purchased [i]damnation[/i] to herself. How dare she decide for herself that the law was unjust?

It's also immoral for a slave to resist his master who is beating him. Because God made him a slavemaster. Thus, it is moral for a slavemaster to do what would be immoral for any other individual to do.

On a side note, St. Paul would clearly be appalled at all the women "defiling themselves" at Mass, with their heads uncovered. Context? Intent? Immaterial.

All aboard the Treblinka Express.

~Sternhauser

Edited November 28, 2010 by Sternhauser