Is God Dead?

[scoutingagain]

"We've never attacked Taiwan or have we? "

 

No, at least I don't think so. Not yet. The only reason I can think of that we would attack Taiwan would be if they were to declare themselves an independant democracy. As long as they agree to stay sort of associated the a communist dictatorship they'll be our allies.

 

SA

 

[Proud Eagle]

I don't think you have to worry about the USA ever attacking the Republic of China (ROC) unless it is to drive out an invasion by the Peoples' Liberation Army. (as a side note the naming of Communist forces as a liberation army is one of the most oximoronic things I have ever heard) The only other possibility is if the ROC becomes a part of the PRC and the US and PRC go at it over something.

 

OK, now that I got that out of the way...

 

The professor mentioned in the joke at the start of this thread is a person I would hold in contempt as a professional and an academic. I would hold him in pitty as a human being. It is particularly saddening that he seems to have set himself on the path towards permanent seperation from God. The marine I also pitty. He did acted, likely driven by passion, in what he probably thought were the bests interests of the prof or according to the Will of God. On the other hand it is a remote possibility that the Marine actually was commanded by God to strike the guy. It is also possible that after having prayed and searched his soul for ten minutes he determined to the best of his ability that God would want him to do that. In that case what he did was still against the laws of man, but I would be hard pressed to say with any certainty that it was against the law of God.

 

 

The BSA does exclude, from time to time, other people due to actions, beliefs, and what not. If someone was an avowed whatever practicioner of beastiality that would probably do it. An avowed adulterer would probably not work in most cases. (That brings up an interesting and important question: if someone is an avowed homosexual, and then later determines that either they were never a homosexual, or that they are no longer a homosexual, could they then join the BSA? I would guess the answer would be yes, the same way an athiest can find faith and then join.)

 

Oh, and hear is one primarily for NJ: the BSA officially supports traditional family values. That normally includes the traditional idea of the family unit. Therefore BSA has a secular argument for excluding homosexuals in the idea that the traditional family is the optimal family unit.

 

Also, while in scholars of constitutional law certainly study case law in modern times there is a significant portion of the population that holds that practice to be incorrect. (that is particularly so of places that teach case law as being THE law) There are many that believe the idea of case law is fundamentally flawed. The reason is quite simple, and not necessarily to be dismissed just because it is simple. Any middle school student should be able to tell you the the Congress alone is empowered to make the law. That would mean that "case law" is at the least inferior to the written law passed by congress (meaning precident would always take a back seat to the judge's own current interpratation of the law), and at the most that precident is a completely invalid concept.

 

I must say I see throwing out the concept of precendents in the complete sense to be a bad idea. It would increase the number of appeals and bad rulings exponentially. However, I do think case law is often given far more power and prominence than it should be. Both the original intent of the law, and most importantly, the text of the law, should have far greater force than any case law.

 

I am also of the opinion that the Judicial branch is the greatest weakness in the system of limited government and checks and balances. The power of the courts to interpret the law, and the constitution, is completely lacking in any check. There is no option for the Congress or the President to overturn rulings of the Court. Even a constitutional amendment intended to fix an incorrect ruling by the courts could be interpreted in such a way as to have no real force. There is also no way of removing judge's for making incorrect decisions. The courts have total authority to change the meaning of any law, including the Constitution, if they choose. The courts may also create law or abolish law on a whim. The invention of new rights within the Constitution, and the determination that at least two of the amendments don't really mean anything at all are clear examples. Other examples are the use of rulings by the courts of other nations as case law to overturn the laws of this nation, and several ruling declaring various government actions unconstitutional that do not in fact make reference to any portion of the Constitution itself.