« David Drier and the WSJ push supply side nonsense | Main | Lessons for Kaus: Parties elect presidents »

December 08, 2005

Comments

So, by denying us the chance to listen to Howard Stern... liberty in the US becomes stronger?

I think I have officially gone into the parallel universe where Spock has a goatee.

Bork lost a lot of his followers when he abandoned 30 years of clear-thinking antitrust analysis to sign on as a consultant to the plaintiffs in the Microsoft antitrust case.

Hey, any person who reads and believes the scriptures knows that breaking God's commandments does not make us free but rather enslaves us to the Adversary. The Lord's people did not prosper and were not protected from their enemies when they were wicked. However, that does not mean that government should enforce a particular religion's tenets on the masses. However, that also does not mean we can't protect our children who represent our future. If we can't protect our children from bad influences, then we can't expect to have a strong and moral future.

Just because something is mentioned in a church (e.g. sodomy bad) does not mean it is off limits to legislation. I'm still trying to figure out the line of demarcation (if there is any) but I don't think it is as strict as many social liberals argue.

Maybe you have some thoughts to offer on the subject. Or maybe the mention of scriptures and "the Lord's people" scare you. Don't be scared. Speak freely and openly on what you think about "legislating morals" which is what we do all the time in our legislatures.

The comments to this entry are closed.