Should the government regulate debauchery Porn drugs alcohol

[creator]

Should the government regulate debauchery, vices, Porn, drugs, alcohol, gambling, etc...

Some friends of mine have been having an e-mail discussion about whether the [STATE] Government should be involved in making laws prescribing punishments for debauchery (gambling, drugs, liquor, prostitution, pornography, and other vices). . .

I am starting this discussion here to see what other input we can add. What do you all think?

Following this post will be a series of posts including their e-mail messages. . . .

[creator]

Isaac's first message "Eagle Forum Thought Crime"

Cory,

I understand The Eagle Forum is pressing for a bill to ban "violent" video games [Brian's note: the Bill would actually prohibit minors from renting or buying violent video games] , on the grounds that violent video games lead some people to do violence. What we are talking about here is thought crime, we are talking about "Minority Report". Perhaps this would be a good time for you to reread Bastiat's "The Law" to remind you of the dangers of law. Law is force. When you pass laws against something that might lead someone to do something, you are passing a law against something that doesn't affect anyone else's agency, and that's bad law, and where would be the end. What is next? Books? I have read books that are as violent as any video games. Or how about families? You know what the most dangerous form of dispute is? Domestic home dispute, because families tend to have some violent fights we better make families illegal as somewhere down the line they may lead to violence.

How about guns? We could fix all the worlds problems if we took away guns!

Most violent criminals come from homes without a father. So we had better take children without fathers away from their mothers.

The more I learn about the Eagle Forum the more I discover that they are not a Constitutional society at all, but an organization devoted to pass laws, laws, laws against freedom.

Here is some advice, tell your organization to stay out of my home. Tell your organization that if they promote laws that dictate what I do in my home that doesn't hurt anyone, they are enemies of freedom, and I guess that makes you an enemy of freedom as well.

I invite you to take a stand for liberty, at the risk of losing your affiliation with The Eagle Forum, they are proving to be far more concerned with security than with freedom. If it were up to The Eagle Forum, no one would be allowed sin, hhmmm, that sounds a little like the plan that our Father in Heaven was so opposed to that he went to war with it's promoters.

Please take me off of your club roster promptly. Isaac

[creator]

Cory's Response to Isaac "Isaac v. Eagle Forum"

Dear Isaac,

I'm sorry that you feel the way you do about Eagle Forum and what we stand for. It's interesting to see how your point of view works to actually limit the freedom in society, rather than add to it. The philosophy that you uphold seems to state that individuals, and their right to establish law through the voice of the people, have no recourse but to lay down and play dead in the face of evil. I would submit that your philosophy is derived through the mis-definition of agency and lack of understanding concerning freedom.

"...Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." -Jesus
Christ

In what I perceive your definition to be, agency is an unlimited ability to do whatever you want-- unless you trample on the God given rights (those that are known and those that are not) of someone else. You believe that by the Eagle Forum trying to pass laws that limit a choice for evil in society, we are limiting someone's agency to make that choice, thereby supporting Satan's plan. If I am wrong, please let me know-- but, I think from your recent email, our conversations, and other people who I know who think similarly, that I have re-constructed your argument accurately in a nutshell.

I have to reject your definition of agency-- it being unclear, and scripturally unsound. My contention is that the definition of agency is the God given ability to choose between good and evil, and no more. I have spend quite a bit of time in the scriptures studying this lately, and this is the only definition that I can see that works. You may wish to disagree. You are entitled to your opinion, based on your understanding.

What I believe that what you think of as "agency" is what I would consider to be "freedom"; and what you might consider to be a right, I would also consider to be a right.

In your argument, agency and freedom are almost synonymous. This means that there really isn't any reason to try and expound on their relationship any further, everything just gets lumped together-- i.e., our rights outline our freedom, which is the same as agency. (If I am wrong, and you believe something different, again, please correct me.)

In my belief, the proper exercise of agency leads to greater freedom. You can limit someone's freedom, but once attained, you cannot take away someone's agency. Even if you are tied up in some stinking pit of a dungeon, you still have the choice to curse God, or praise Him. We always have the ability to choose between good and evil.

Since agency is choosing between good and evil, if we choose good and follow the commandments, we become free from the binding effects of sin. If society chooses good, then this leads to greater freedom among our people, until we become free from the world, like the city of Enoch, et al. When society allows evil to enter in to it, because it believes that it has no right to fight against it, does that make the people in society more free, or more bound by sin? Which makes us more free? I would submit that allowing evil to roam around freely in society makes us less free.

Okay, I know what you are thinking. You are thinking that we do not have the right to pass a law that limits someone's choice to choose evil. I would agree with you. We cannot tell someone what to choose, but we can limit the amount of evil in our society that people have to choose from. People will still choose evil in spite of any law we pass, demonstrating that we have not taken away anyone's agency-- under my definition, of course-- but in passing laws against evil things, we have merely reduced the amount of evil present in society for a given person to choose from. I believe that we do have the right to pass laws against anything that the Lord has communicated to us is evil. The Light of Christ shows us the way.

Under your philosophy we could not pass laws against prostitution, strip clubs, sodomy, etc., because, supposedly, no one is harmed directly-- i.e., no one's rights are being directly infringed (at least not where it is immediately proveable)-- by those things, so we have to allow them into our society. We become powerless in the face of evil. The philosophy that you adhere to also flies in the face of hundreds of years of state laws that limit those acts, and others. Do you think that the people who were passing laws at this country's founding had a smaller grasp on what freedom is than you do today? What about Blue Laws that keep stores closed on Sundays? Those existed in Utah for the majority of its existence-- until the people chose evil and voted them out. Do you think that the prophets were excited to see them go? I'm not sure that either of us could prove it one way or the other, but my gut tells me that they disapproved greatly. The eradication of those laws is an indicator that society is growing more wicked and less likely to follow God, which equals less free.

We do have the ability to fight evil through the voice of the people and its application in law. In the Book of Mormon, society did its business by the voice of the people, because it was rare that the majority of the people would choose evil. When we allow evil to exist in our society, then we are allowing a cancer that will only grow. Evil does not sit still and inhabit only the homes of those who play violent video games or watch pornographic movies. Evil markets itself seductively. It pushes itself into our communities, homes and lives. When society chooses evil, then we have to multiply laws in order to deal with the mess that it creates. We all know that a society that cannot govern itself needs masters to rule it. If the people choose evil philosophies and ideas over what is good and pure, then we all lose. The more evil we allow to exist, the more police, courts, laws, etc. have to be created in order to deal with it. Do you really want to live under a police state?

Eventually, a society that allows evil to exist will only have evil to choose from. Where is the freedom in that? I recall the people at the time of Noah being wiped off the face of the earth for a similar type situation. If there is no good, then there is no agency. That would satisfy Satan's plan perfectly. Hmm. Something to think about.

I choose not to live in a police state. I choose not to live in a society that has rolled over dead in the face of evil. I choose to promote good laws that will limit the amount of evil that exists above ground in my society. In doing this, I preserve the right for my children to choose who they will follow. If I lay down helpless in the face of evil, they will eventually no longer have that choice.

As for me and my house, we will demonstrate that we serve the Lord in working to uphold, and promote, laws that are against the evil that we have allowed to grow in our society. I am not taking anyone's agency away. Even if left without the choice to buy pornography in my community, they will find it elsewhere, demonstrating that they have chosen evil-- regardless of the laws I have promoted. Freedom can only thrive in a society that exercises its agency to choose good, and codifies their beliefs into a societal standard called law.

Cory

[creator]

Here is my first response to Cory and Isaac...

I would like to see the details on this specific bill. All I can find is articles talking about not allowing video games to be rented or sold to minors. I didn't see anything related to the Eagle Forum. Are there any articles online that talk about this bill?

I am trying to understand both sides of this issue. It is a difficult one to get completely straight. I think Isaac makes a good point. I for one don't want Government interference into every aspect of our lives, and I wouldn't want to have a society like that depicted in Minority Report. Too many laws is also not a good thing. We don't need laws dictating every aspect of life. The smallest government is the best Government.

But I also agree with Cory - I don't want every evil person to be able to release whatever content/product they want if it's going to have an evil influence on society. I myself have questioned how we could justify having laws against alcohol, drugs, pornography, etc.. but then I talked to W. Cleon Skousen about it... He explained that "Everyone can choose right from wrong. But there is no right to do wrong." Thus God-given rights of freedom are not the right to do whatever we want, rather God gave us the freedom to do that which is good. Dr. Skousen went on to explain "There is no right to abort a baby." Just as there is no right to murder or steal. There was a man in the class who asked if it's right for the Government to control certain things (alcohol, drugs, porn, etc.) and to this Dr. Skousen responded "You are not violating their rights by not allowing them to do wrong. . . If you are not obedient to God you have no agency."

The only confusion left in my mind now, is how far do we take this? Like Isaac mentioned... Do we ban any book that talks about evil or promotes bad ideas? Does the First amendment protect only the right to say good things? If possible, I would really like to have a discussion with both Isaac and Cory (and others) to discuss this further (without contention, but maybe even using the scriptures, and good books on law as a reference.) Here's the main reason I am still confused: I think we all agree that in the pre-earth life Lucifer convinced 1/3 of the hosts of Heaven to follow him and his teachings. This being true, we can assume that God allowed Lucifer the freedom of speech, even though his principles are not good, but evil. Now let's say Lucifers teachings were distributed in books and videos... Can we assume that God would have allowed this? God must have allowed Lucifer to speak out, and He allowed people to form their own opinions and suffer the consequence of their bad choice. God didn't shut Lucifer's mouth... Now, considering what I have just said... how far do we take making Law's against evil? Dr. Skousen also taught that with ALL LAWS we are LEGISLATING MORALITY. I believe this is true. I am just trying to learn for myself, exactly how this is to be applied?

Brian

[creator]

Isaac's Second message : "...NEEDS MASTERS TO RULE IT..." SCARY STUFF

Cory,

I would like to first thank you for your polite response to me e-mail, and hope you will forgive me for allowing my passion for the principle to shine
through.

Now to the nitty-gritty. I was not aware that the bill was only being passed to prevent minors from purchasing the games, this sheds a whole new light on the issue, however I was concerned about other things in your response to my message. To be clear on the principle on the proper action to be taken one must first distinguish between the major differences of Parental Regulation, Governmental Regulation, and Religious Regulation, all of which are at hand in this issue, and all of which must be brought forth, when considering this particular principle. I can appreciate proper restrictions on things when it comes to minorities, simply because I believe ones parent to be a far less dangerous enforcer than an officer of the law wielding a pistol sworn to uphold the law who lacks the empathy or love to an individual that a parent possesses. Parenting is the proper regulatory force in society dealing with issues of
morality, not gun waving cops.

You once told me that you had read "The Law" by Frederick Bastiat several times, again I would invite you to reread it as it is clear that you have a rather lax, at ease view on the power of law. LAW IS FORCE.
And the FORCE that we are talking about is defined as highly trained men waving pistols in peoples faces, and when enforced, firing pistols in peoples faces. THAT IS THE LAW. You would do well to constantly keep
that in mind when considering issues like "violent video games" or "pornography" or "strip clubs". The past few months that I have known you it has become ever clear to me of your views on immoral people, and they approach very closely to what some people would call HATE. Perhaps this is why you are so comfortable considering the use of force on those
people who you consider IMMORAL. I am surprised as well with the fact that you disagree with my definition of Agency, and yes you defined it
correctly "An unlimited ability to do whatever you want." Accept for the disclaimer you added "unless you trample on the God-given rights of someone else." That part is not correct. Agency is the ability to choose.
It's that simple. I'm not sure about what it is that you disagree with in that definition, or why you are attempting to complicate it beyond that. Again I will repeat:

AGENCY IS THE ABILITY TO CHOOSE. FREEDOM IS THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE. THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE IS GOOD LAW. Often the term agency and freedom are interchanged, incorrectly so as you have stated, I surely have been guilty in the past of inappropriately using the wrong word, however this is not too grave of a mistake asyou will see as they are axiomatically similar. Perhaps to break it down even more it would be
appropriate to say that agency was a pre mortal gift to be used in the mortal body, freedom is the exercise of agency. I am a little offended that you judged me as not understanding the distinction between these,
however I think their relationship is much closer than you do, and I will now attempt to prove this.

I believe (correct me if I am wrong) that in your definition of agency the Children of Israel while in bondage not only possessed their agency, but were allowed perfect use of it, because agency cannot be taken away from you. I would agree with you on the point that they possessed their agency, but were not being allowed it's perfect use. Along with your
definition the Egyptians were not breaking God's plan, because the Egyptians were only taking away the Children of Israel's Freedom, and not their agency, because agency cannot be taken away. However history
has proven that slavery is not the will of God. The Children of Israel when finally made free exercised their agency incorrectly and God punished them, but note that he did not bring them back into Egyptian Bondage, they were miserable, cursed, dead, but they were free. Down the road through their sinning God allowed Babylon to conquer and enslave them, but again they were made free.

Were it the will of God that the Children of Israel be forced to keep his commandments by civil law he would not have brought them into the bondage of the Babylonians, a Pagan, Idol worshiping people, who
certainly did not promote the ten commandments, yet they were the rulers of the Children of Israel. The children of Israel needed to learn something about the value of freedom, which as you have correctly said can only flourish in a righteous society. But CONSTITUTIONAL law is the law that God says that we should promote, and CONSTITUTIONAL LAW is law that LIMITS that power of the government in our personal lives. Man-made LAW is not the answer to sin. Missionary work is the answer to sin. LAW is only good when it protects freedom.

As George Washington said "Law is like fire, a helpful SERVANT, but a FEARFUL MASTER." I am partially confused by your use of the words of
Christ at least in what you were eluding to "Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free", are you suggesting that Christ was suggesting that he only believes in freedom for Christians. Is this the case? If so I got some news for you sunshine, you're dead wrong. I am under the impression that your view of Satan's kingdom is that no one would have Agency, but some people would still be free? Think about it. That is essentially what you are saying. That freedom and agency are so far removed, that it is possible to be in the possession of freedom, but not agency.

Question, can you be free and not have agency? Of course not. So why in God's kingdom would you be allowed to have agency, but not be free? A good summary of your rebuttal to my message would be, we can take away any freedoms that we want as long as we don't mess with agency... But since we can't mess with agency because we eternally posses it, even
in bondage, we can take away as much freedom as necessary if we are making people moral. As I read your message over and over the word "Society" is used again and again, I would invite you to examine the words of Karl Marx and note how conscious and vigilant he was towards "the good" of society. Well I bid society a fond farewell if that society is more important than the liberty, and freedom of my wife, or my children.
I once heard a sinner say "it is better that we should pass through sorrow that we may know the good from the evil", in your "SOCIETY" sorrow would never be an issue, nor would we ever come to know the good from
the evil.

NO CORY, AGENCY IS THE ABILITY TO CHOOSE. FREEDOM IS THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE. LAW CAN PROTECT OR DESTROY RIGHTS. AND YOUR PHILOSOPHY DESTROYS THEM. Hence you are an enemy to freedom, and opposed to the right to choose.

I know what you are thinking "HAVEN'T I HEARD THE TERM PRO-CHOICE SOMEWHERE?" Well my friend you know that to couple me with abortionists is wrong, as are they wrongly titled "PRO-CHOICE", freedom ceases when you take away that same right from another, but this is
simply not the case with violent video games, pornography, or strip clubs.
You said "The more evil we allow to exist..." first of all, we don't "allow" evil to exist... it just does.

You said "The more evil we allow to exist, the more police, courts, laws, etc. have to be created in order to deal with it. Do you really want to live in a police state...." Cory, this is really a pretty paradoxical, nonsense, incorrect, hallow statement. First off allowing or not allowing, requires ALL of those things.... POLICE, COURTS, LAWS, etc. so allowing something to or not to exist is creating a police state. So no my friend I don't want to allow something to exist or not to exist that already does, I want to be free. Your regulating evil, creates your Police State. So obviously YOU'RE the one who want's a POLICE STATE. But nice try on making me out to be the dictator.

Isaac

[creator]

Cory's 2nd message: "Good vs. evil discussion"

I'm sorry, Isaac, but you have completely mis-characterized my argument. I would invite you to have a discussion on this topic, rather than make un-founded personal attacks against me when you do not even understand what I am saying. I would invite everyone else who wishes to join in this discussion to maintain a Christ-like decorum, and attack the arguments, not other people. That is the way civilized society operates. Isaac, you may still disagree with my stand in the end, but that is no reason to jump to un-founded conclusions and wage a personal war of words against me as an individual. You cannot accuse me of being "an enemy to freedom", hating immoral people, and being against people's right to choose until you know that for a fact. To run off and state that, without even determining that you understand me correctly, is a true violation of Christian charity. Let's please refrain from personal attacks.

I would invite you to re-read Bastiat and look to see if my arguments do not work within his argument of negative vs. positive laws. The law that I see as being important in moral society are all negative laws. They do not tell anyone that they have to do something, or think a certain way, only that there are certain things that they cannot do. What they cannot do, or posses, or distribute, or market in society is anything that is "evil." That is negative law. If it is determined that my arguments cannot possibly be in line with Bastiat's views, then I will have to break with him and follow my own consience and understanding. He is not the final arbitor of right and wrong, merely a well liked opinion.

Please allow me to clarify my position for you, if I can.

Definitions:
Agency: Ability to choose between good and evil. You are an agent unto yourself in making this choice. No one can represent you. If you do not choose good, then you have chosen evil. There is no choice not to choose, only the ability to choose.

Freedom: Ability of autonomous action, motion, thought and being that increases when we learn truth and live within its bounds through the proper exercise of agency. "...and ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." Freedom can be limited by forceful actions of others, or by the consequences of choosing evil.

Rights: Any action, position or belief that can be performed, taken, or believed by man, which God cannot forbid.

Good: The will of God.

Evil: Something that is against the will of God. Synonymous with sin.

Ability: Potential for human action; meaning something we can do.

We do not have the right to do whatever we want, as you have supposed. You have said that agency means that we are free to choose to do whatever we want. I would challenge you to find a scriptural reference for that. I don't think you can, because your understanding of agency is fatally flawed. As Brian has mentioned in another email, Dr. Skousen explained that we all have the ability to choose right from wrong, but we do not have the "right" to choose wrong.

Let me explain. If our "rights" come from God, and He gives us commandments so that we will know what is right, how could He then give us the "right" to choose wrong, or the "right" to disobey Him? We all have the ability to disobey Him, but if we had the "right" to choose wrong, then how could God punish us if we decide to choose what is wrong, or evil? Our rights-- as they do come from God-- can only be things that are according to the will of God. In my definition of what constitutes a right, it can only be something which God cannot forbid. If so, how could we truly have a "right" to something which God does forbid? This shows that we only have the "right" to do good. Since we only have the "right" to do good, then we do not have a "right" to perform or uphold evil, thus making passing laws against evil perfectly in accord with the will of God and His divine plan.

When the children of Israel were in bondage to the Egyptians, they were merely limited in their freedom. They could still call upon God and choose to worship Him, which is good. They exercised their agency to choose good in a great enough number that God saw fit to deliver them from Pharoh. They could have chosen to curse God, and that would have been evil. The consequence of that would have been further bondage and misery. Because they exercised their agency to call upon God (knowing the truth that God existed and recognizing Him, instead of the pagan gods of the Egyptians) they were made free, both temporally and, later on, spiritually. The Egyptians were breaking God's law by holding people in captivity in contradiction to their rights and freedom, as you have said. If the Egyptians would have believed in God's law and morality (recognizing good from evil), they would have set the Israelites free, and thus avoiding the consequential lack of freedom encompassed in the plagues and punishments of a just God.

Later, when the Israelites chose no longer to exercise their agency for good by upholding the God of Israel, they became enslaved again. Thus we can plainly see the consequences of exercising agency for evil. It always leads to captivity or destruction.

In a democratic republic, like the one we live in, no one can force anyone to exercise their agency for good. Society can uphold morality through law, but when the majority of society decides not to be moral any longer, then the laws will change to accomodate their wickedness-- bringing more wickedness, slavery to sin and lack of freedom. Let's say that we didn't pass Amendment 3 and outlaw gay marriage in Utah. What would have been the result? More freedom? Not for the righteous. In fact, our rights would be taken away by government, as has been demonstrated in Canada and parts of Europe.

Here's how it works: Gay marriage becomes legal-- public schools, any time they mention marriage also have to mention gay marriage, and discuss how they are equal. Point #1: We have now lost the right to parental control over what our children will be taught. If government recognizes gay marriage, then they must pass laws against anyone speaking out against it, or government would then be hypocritical in allowing someone to try to fight against what they have approved. Point
#2: We have no lost our right to freedom of speech. Religions that teach against homosexuality and gay marriage will then have to be silenced, as well. Point #3: We have lost our right to freedom of religion. Eventually, those who oppose gay marriage will be disarmed, imprisoned and possibly killed. Point #4: We have lost all our freedom. This is a realistic progression of how allowing evil into our society works to eliminate our true freedom, while giving false freedom (doing whatever you want) to those who choose evil. They will meet the consequences of their actions, though. Even while they practice their debauched lifestyle they are under the bonds of sin and are unhappy and enslaved to their vices; but the ultimate consequence will be the wrath of a just God and Eternal punishment.

We do "allow" evil to exist among us in certain forms. While we cannot circumscribe the right of another to think evil thoughts and desire evil actions, we can punish them for any actions of which they do not have a right to. You do not have a right to disseminate pornography. You do not have the right to engage in sodomy. You do not have the right to push drugs or booze. You do not have the right to keep your business open on Sunday. You do not have the right to sell violent video games. You do not have the right to murder your baby. You do not have the right to commit, or assist another to commit, suicide. Etc., etc., etc. Now, society may allow these things to come in, but if they do, then they will face negative consequences, and a reduction in the freedom they have enjoyed. Because we allow strip clubs, we have an increase in infidelity in marriage, higher drug use, more crime, more rape, more murder, et al. All of those negative consequences mean more police, more courts, and more laws to maintain a semblance of civilization in the face of deeper and more abundant evil. This leads to less freedom for everyone. That's how it works.

According to your philosophy, we can only sit on our hands while the libertine lifestyle, desired by those who hate God, is marketed, promoted, entrenched and, eventually, accepted by our communities and society. Once that happens, your definition of freedom is satisfied, but true freedom is gone. When that happens, destruction follows.

P.S. I do not hate immoral people, as you have nearly accused me of. I hate immorality, as does God. I try always to love the sinner and hate the sin, and I believe that is the correct way to approach individuals with whom I have a disagreement. Though I may try to love other people, I do not have to santion their immorality by not trying to pass laws
against what they do. In limiting the amount of evil in society, I believe that we are merely increasing the freedom of everyone involved, whether they would like to believe that or not.

Cory

[creator]

Isaac's 3rd Message: "Re: Good vs. evil discussion"

Cory,
Forgive me for using language that hurts your feelings, perhaps you can take it up with the Eagle Forum to pass a bill against harsh words, surely being mean is "EVIL" and as you have so stated we have the "RIGHT" to "LIMIT EVIL".

Is being mean Good or Evil?

Evil.

So according to your definition we should be able to outlaw it. WOW CORY, you have gladly joined the ranks of the ACLU, and THE HATE CRIMES ACTIVISTS. HERE YE HERE YE. BY DIVINE DECREE OF THE EAGLE FORUM, THE FOLLOWING BOOKS, THE BOOK OF MORMON, THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS, AND ALL OTHER RELIGIOUS BOOKS ARE BANNED. THEY CONTAIN VIOLENT WRITINGS, STORIES OF WARS, CUT OFF HEADS, DETAILED ADULTERIES, AND OTHER THINGS THAT MIGHT PLACE A SEED OF "EEEEVIIIIILLLL" IN THE MINDS OF THOSE WHO READ THEM! AND THIS IS A CRIME!!!!!!!"

Cory, your arguments are so sadly blanketed by a mind so filled with the spirit of contention and pride. Your NEED to be right shines through in such hallow arguments.

COME ONE COME ALL TO CORY'S WORLD WHERE EVIL IS OUTLAWED! EEEVVVIIIILLLLL IS NOT ALLOWED HERE! BY PUNISHMENT OF DEATH! OF COURSE YOU WILL BE ABLE TO EXERCISE YOUR AGENCY IN THIS WORLD, BUT IF YOU DO SO INCORRECTLY WE WILL PUNISH YOU BY THAT MIGHTY FORCE CALLED LAW! POLICE OFFICERS WAVING PISTOLS, SHOOTING PERPETRATORS ARE ABUNDANT IN OUR SOCIETY WHERE EVERYTHING EVIL IS OUTLAWED! WE HAVE INCREASED OUR POLICE FORCE TO 50% OF THE POPULATION FOR THIS IS THE ONLY WAY TO KEEP EVIL AWAY!!!!!!!!!!

I AM STILL MARVELING OVER THE FACT THAT YOU HAD THE AUDACITY TO ACCUSE ME OF WANTING TO LIVE IN A POLICE STATE! I MARVEL THAT YOU STILL HAVEN'T GRASPED THE FACT THAT THE ONLY WAY TO "LIMIT EVIL" BY USING LAW, IS IN A POLICE STATE.

AGAIN CORY, LAW IS NOT THE ANSWER! THE GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST IS THE ANSWER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

PEACEFUL PERSUASION, NOT THE FIRE OF LAW.

It is becoming ever clear to me how Satan was so successful in convincing an entire third of the host of heaven to follow his plan, he had individuals like you working for him to convince people of the virtues of slavery and surveillance.

I am convinced of the futility of attempting to convince you of the priceless gift of freedom. Imagine your gall to accuse me of being deceived by "libertarian" views, while you have been deceived by the plan of Satan. Perhaps you should study a term called "unrighteous Dominion", you will find your little group of Holier Than Thou "Eagles" falling happily in line with those who assume authority.

Good Riddens. Isaac

P.S.-I invite you with all the power I possess, to keep your laws, and the enforcers of those laws out of my home, and out of my life, for when you attempt to control me by unrighteous dominion you give me the right to protect myself by lethal means.

[creator]

Cory's 3rd message: "Discussion or distortion"

Isaac,

Wow. Your language doesn't hurt my feelings, Isaac, it only hurts your credibility. How can you profess to be the bearer of truth, yet demonstrate that you have no concept of how to act in truth—brightly illustrated by your mocking language and personal attacks? I think that you have done yourself a grave dis-service and displayed some colors that bring shame to your position and character.

Any law that I would stand behind would probably never affect you, because I believe you are generally a good, God-fearing, self governing person. How would a law against things God hates affect you? I'm not sure either, but I really don't think that you still understand where I'm coming from. I think that you have jumped to conclusions and had decided, before I even tried to present my position to you, that I am not worth listening to-- and that is that. You are probably right that I am not worth listening to, but I do try to stand for what I believe in, if that counts for anything.

I'm perfectly willing to look at any cogent arguments you can make and have a civilized discussion about this matter. In fact, I'm even willing to change my opinion if you can demonstrate to me why I should. So far, all you have done is make false accusations against me and my understanding, and ridicule me with straw man parodies. I haven't seen a whole lot of serious discussion coming from your side of the fence, so I'm not sure why I should be convinced of the veracity of your beliefs.

I think we really need to have this discussion to help those who may not understand where we are coming from see what we mean. Then, after we have talked about things and brought up real points and displayed our ideas, those that have been watching and listening can make up their minds about what they want to believe. It's really not that hard—and you might even win some people to your way of thinking! Why are you throwing that possibility away by resorting to ridicule and sarcasm? You might be able to bring the whole Eagle Forum Conservatives club to its ruin by convincing everyone in it that what I believe is dead wrong. Since you are so vehemently opposed to what Eagle Forum does, I'm giving you the chance to make your case, in front of everyone.

I feel no animus toward you. I'm sorry to have become your enemy. Somehow I never saw this coming. I have been slammed by a lot of people that I expected to slam me, but not you; not this way at least. If I show up to John Birch Society meetings in the future and you're there, how does that work exactly? Are you going to incite a riot against me?
Are you going to yell at me in front of everyone, or just ignore me? Are you going to send hateful looks my way, or what? I'm not sure what you hope to accomplish by the way you are presenting your message. I think at the very least it is possible to agree to disagree and go along our merry, separate, ways. Sure, you might want to work against Eagle Forum in the future, and you have every right to do that. I'm just wondering how your lack of courtesy toward me will play out in the end.

I don't think this needs to be the end of everything, though. If you are willing, I would love to have you present some solid arguments, lay out your facts, and see what you have to say. Bring some of that book knowledge that you have accumulated to bear. I know you've got so much information packed into your head and on your bookshelves. Make use of it and let's talk about this stuff! If you feel like you need some backup, bring it in. If someone you know could help add to this discussion, then bring them in. We could even start a blog to do this on if you would like. That way the whole world could weigh in and back you up. What do you say?

Cory

[creator]

Cory’s response to Brian. “What is good in law?”

Brian, You make some excellent, excellent points.

I think the extent to which we can pass law is shown to us in scripture. In the Book of Mormon they could punish someone for breaking the law, but they could not punish someone for their beliefs and opinions-- unless they were found to be lying. In the Doctrine and Covenants, we are told that the church upholds the freedom of conscience, while also believing in laws that uphold our rights and freedoms.

We can only pass laws that are against what God-- through scripture, prophets, Light of Christ, et al-- has told us is evil. We know that we cannot ban books or speech, because we know that that would be against the will of God and the rights of man. We can ban the content of some books being available for public consumption, though, if the content is evil, or against what we know to be good. We had done this for hundred of years, until the Supreme Court decided to legislate from the bench and allow pornography everywhere, with few restrictions. We do have the right, and the obligation, to work to ban this type of evil in our society, though, regardless of the Court's abuse of power.

We cannot ban guns because God has specifically told us that He approved of the U.S. Constitution, in the form it held during the formation of the church, so we must admit that the Constitution contained an umblemished, un-reproachable 2nd Amendment. Where we draw the line is at legislating against evil acts. We cannot say that you cannot like pornography, only that you can't distribute it in our community. We obviously cannot make people think the way we want them to, and thereby silence their right to conscience. That would be against the will of God and would be totally immoral. We can only say that certain acts, objects or media will not be permitted. This does not eliminate our agency (ability to choose between good and evil), it merely allows less evil to exist, making it possible for more freedom to exist.

In making society a more free, less evil place, we have to remember that we cannot do this in law unless the majority of people in society agree. When the Book of Mormon speaks to this, it talks about laws being fashioned by the voice of the people, because it is rare that the majority will choose evil. The Eagle Forum could never get laws passed that most people in society do not agree with. So, we can see that the laws that we work for, if passed, represent the conscience of the majority of people in society, codifying the values and morals of that society, for good or evil. If for good, meaning upholding the will of God, then we are more free to operate in a society that nearly self-governs according to the commandments. We need fewer laws and fewer enforcers to maintain a reasonable level of civilization. If we vote for evil, then the consequences of those choices will mean that there will be more problems in society, meaning that we will need more minute laws
to deal with lower and lower levels of evil, more law enforcement personnel and more courts to deal with the resulting negative outcomes-- representing a substantial loss of freedom.

I, too, would love to have a round table discussion on this, presenting all sides of the issue and working through what is true and what is not.

I believe that the seductive libertarian philosophies of our day are only tying the hands of good people and convincing them to do nothing in the face of the evil being marketed and pushed in our society today. These philosophies seem to make sense, on an intellectual, secular level, but they do not represent the truth. They only work to destroy the God-fearing society that allows America to be a free place in which to live, love and reach our true potentials. We all know that America was designed only for a moral and virtuous people. That is because only a moral and virtuous people will uphold laws against evil, thereby making themselves free. If we do not work against evil, then our consequence will be the eventual loss of freedom and agency. Can we possibly believe that God has given us no defence against evil in our society? That is total cowardice, in my opinion, and I will not uphold it for a single second!

Cory

[creator]

Cory, Issues like this can really be difficult to understand, for some people. I do see that you clearly understand the issue . I brought up those things just to point out what came up in my mind when I thought about the issue you and Isaac were discussing. I know that God approves of law's which prescribe a punishment to evil actions, I just didn't fully understand how to personally justify it in my mind (until now). Yesterday I asked those at the Constitution Class about this issue and how prescribing a punishment to things like drugs, violence, porn, alcohol, etc is actually valid under God's Law. My father-in-law gave a great explanation, and I do believe as you do; but it's understandable why Isaac would think the way he does. I think we would all agree that the Government has completely overstepped its bounds, ignored the Constitution, and is destroying many of our freedoms - we don't want the government to get any bigger!

When considering this issue it must also be pointed out that the Federal Government must follow what is allowed and prohibited by the Constitution and thus the Federal/National Government has no right to rule regarding debauchery....

As I understand it (and this is what W. Cleon Skousen and others have taught me) States can make laws regarding moral issues such as Debauchery... Debauchery includes things like Prostitution, Pornography, Drugs, Alcohol, Violence, Abortion. These are things that affect society. Obviously if people are righteous and avoid these evil acts there is no need to make a law. But if the people see the need they can, through state and local governments, make laws that prescribe a punishment to these acts. A person can still commit a crime of debauchery, but if caught must face the punishment.

God allowed Satan to speak out, just like we today should allow books and speech with opposing view points. We cannot punish a man for his belief, but if the people with opposing view points resort to violence, that violence must be punished. If someone sells a book with porn in it, that should be punished. People can still choose to buy or sell that evil stuff, but must face the consequences of the law.

I am probably repeating some of the things you have already discussed, but this is how I understand it.

These references don't necessarily prove my point, but I know of no one else who has more knowledge on the subject of the proper role of Government than W. Cleon Skousen, thus I will now provide some relevant references from his writings/speeches:

"The greatest THREAT to a free-market economy is government interference. This happens when the government is involved in fixing prices, fixing wages, controlling production, controlling distribution or subsidizing production. The role of government is simply to serve as referee and prevent:

a. ILLEGAL FORCE (Mafia tactics).
b. FRAUD (phony stocks and bonds).
c. MONOPOLY (eliminating competition).
d. DEBAUCHERY (pornography, obscenity, drugs, liquor, prostitution, and other forms of VICE )."
[Cleon Skousen - Constitutional Seminar "The roots of America"]

Skousen also reported that Adam Smith taught that ". . .However, he did not believe in complete laissez faire (freedom to do) the way the French Physiocrats did. His line of thinking would seem to defend the right of the government to intervene in the open market to prevent: . . . Activities objectionable to the majority which lead to DEBAUCHERY in the community." [Cleon Skousen - Constitutional Seminar "The Unhinging of America"]

The Founding Fathers taught that it is right to: "Limit government intervention in the economic system to the prevention of force, fraud, monopoly, and debauchery." [Cleon Skousen - Which Way America?]

". . .To prevent debauchery (exploitation of the vices to the detriment of the community -- gambling, drugs, liquor, prostitution, pornography, etc.).

On this fourth point, there are those who feel that there should be no restrictions on the vices. They claim people should be allowed to indulge in vices if they wish.

The answer to this problem is fairly simple. First of all, private debauchery happens to fall into the category of private morals, which must be controlled by the individual and his conscience. However, the issue of public morals is another matter.

In a republican system, the majority of the people in a community have the right to protect the quality of life which they consider to be in the best public interest. This means that no individual has the right to sell, distribute, or promote any products or activities which are prohibited by the rule of the majority. Of course, government has no business snooping into the private morality of the people -- debauched though it may be -- but the moment there is a complaint that someone is promoting debauchery or adversely affecting someone in the community, it is a matter of public morality. The community has the right to intervene.

The vices are a great temptation to a certain type of adventurous Enterpriser because debauchery nearly always brings in enormous profits. To protect itself, society outlaws these activities unless the majority of the community wants to allow them. In that case the community merely "regulates" them. This is the practice in certain resort cities such as Las Vegas, Reno, and Atlantic City.
[page 208]"" [The Making of America - Skousen]

"What about the protection of pre-natal life? The campaign for "abortion on demand" is a repudiation of the most thoroughly established principles of protecting the unborn. Now that more children are being destroyed than those which are allowed to be born, it is the responsibility of political leaders on all levels of government to reinstate practical standards for the protection of "life in being."

"Is there a constitutional right to publish and distribute pornography under the guarantee of "freedom of speech" and "freedom of the press"? There are four areas in which the government has the legitimate authority to intervene in the economy. The government has the responsibility to prevent force, fraud, monopoly, and debauchery. The majority of the people are entitled to established standards of decency to protect their quality of life and there is no inherent right in any individual to violate the standards of decency which have been established by the majority. Freedom of "private debauchery" is one thing, but the moment an individual attempts to extend his personal depravity into the public arena, the level of decency established in the law by the majority comes into play." [Cleon Skousen - Which Way America?]


What Are "Gay Rights"? (January 1985)

[From the Freemen Digest, January 1985]

Legally and constitutionally, what are "gay rights?"

As the ancient epoch of Sodom and Gomorrah threatens to recreate itself as a subculture in America, there is a hue and cry that persons following the homosexual lifestyle are entitled to certain "gay rights." This is said to mean that homosexuals must be accepted in society as normal, run-of-the-mill neighbors and not be stigmatized because they live together as husband and wife or are sexually active with someone of their own sex.

Actually there is no such thing as "gay rights," "women's rights," "men's rights," or "children's rights." There are only human rights, and those belong to all of us. None of us has any special rights because of a lifestyle, sex, religion, ethnic origin, or aberration in personal behavior.

What human rights we have are universal. For example, all of us have the right not to be sexually abused and, therefore, women have the right not to be ravished. Men have the same right. So do children. This is a human right which belongs to everybody.

Among all of the rights which we enjoy as human beings, one of the greatest is the right to make choices. There is no restriction on this right of choice so long as we do not injure others. In society, this is called freedom. However, there are a number of rules that go with freedom. One rule is that freedom can be exercised in only one direction at a time. Choosing to step over the edge of a cliff is difficult to reverse. In other words, choices have consequences. There is no such thing as freedom from consequences once a choice is made.

A homosexual makes a choice of a lifestyle. It has consequences. First of all, it is contrary to nature and, therefore, abhorrent to those who know that ignoring the design of nature will always have serious, counterproductive consequences. The lifestyle chosen by the homosexual threatens not only wholesome family life, but it represents a form of physical and moral debauchery which is often associated with everything from animalism to masochism.

For those who have a sense of reverence for the commandments of God, homosexuality is recognized as a serious violation of Biblical law. During the Mosaic period, this offense carried the death penalty because of its corrupting impact on society. It likewise carried the death penalty under Anglo-Saxon law. The practice of homosexuality is now known to be highly conducive to a fatal disease (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome or AIDS) for which there is presently no known cure. Case histories of homosexuality also disclose that adult homosexuals frequently recruit children and youth into their circle. In this sense, homosexuality is a social contagion with highly objectionable propensities to parents. Experience further demonstrates that homosexuals have been extremely vulnerable to blackmail and extortion. They have become the target of foreign agents or even professional, industrial spies looking for technical secrets which might be known to the homosexual engineer, inventor, or industrial employee.

In light of all of this, the major question naturally arises: What "gay rights" is the homosexual seeking? Does he want the members of society who are aware of these liabilities in his personality and character to ignore them? On what basis does he justify such a demand?

A homosexual, like everyone else, has no right to expect freedom from consequences. If he or she chooses to be a homosexual, that's an allowance that goes with the inalienable right of freedom. But it is a form of degradation and moral depravity. No homosexual can avoid the stigma that goes with it.

Meanwhile, others have the right to the freedom of association and that gives them the right to exclude homosexuals if they wish. Parents have the right to see that their children are taught by exemplary instructors. That gives them the right to object to teachers who follow practices which have a history of involving children in various forms of moral degeneration and depravity. The same right exists for an employer who has a responsibility to maintain the confidence of the public. If an employee is known to be involved in homosexual practices, he has no right to object if the company considers his presence as a representative of the company to be a business liability.

Prostitutes, drug addicts, alcoholics, and homosexuals all have certain inalienable rights which belong to all mankind, but they do not have any more rights than the rest of mankind. When a person cuts his finger, it bleeds. It is a natural consequence. When a person practices homosexuality, or any other vice, there is a loss of status in society. There is no such thing as a "gay right" to avoid the consequences of abhorrent behavior. The homosexual must expect the consequences of a deliberate choice, freely made.


Brian.

[prew]

Sounds like an argument or discussion that proves the following point. It is an inverse relationship between righteousness amoung the people and how big government is. When the people are righteous, they do not need big government to tell them what to do with debauchery, because righteous people naturally shun it. There is few laws in this situation.
The opposite occures when the people become more prone for wickedness or debauchery. Then the government becomes big government to enforce laws that wicked people are prone to break. There are lots of laws in this situation, which affect how we act morally.

The solution to the discussion above is to have everyone to be converted to Jesus Christ and his teachings, so that debauchery is naturally shunned. Everyone should be a missionary.

Paul Rew

[creator]

I thought I'd bump this up and see what you all think about the subject of laws on debauchery and vices.... (read what Cleon Skousen said.)

[SwissMrs&Pitchfire]

Absolutely wonderful. I totally agree with your final summation. That is something that I have been dancing around for quite some time and "unable to come to a knowledge of the truth," until now.

I do not know why it is so hard for some of us to see virtue as a tangible right which can be violated in the same way that a car can be sideswiped.

Everyone (anarchists and Libertarians included for the most part) agree that my rights end when they compromise someone else's. I suppose the sticking point really comes down to what exactly constitute rights.

Many thanks for re-upping this thread!!!

[jbalm]

Ditto what SwissMiss&Pitchfire said.

Having recently freed myself from the Republican paradigm, I found myself more aligned with a libertarian (note the lower case "l") point of view. However, until reading the remarks of Bro. Skousen posted on this thread, I was having a difficult time reconciling my gut feelings, which generally favor reasonable laws prohibiting debauchery, and typical Libertarian (big "L") philosophy, which are against all of them.

The differentiation between societal vs. private debauchery seems to be the key.

[prew]

Since I am studying the New Testement for church this year, the above situation can be compared to Christ time period.
The Jews were trying to live the Law and added many other minor laws. There were so many minor laws that Jesus was accused many times of violating the minor law when he was doing good. Such as healing the sick on a Sabbath.

[ChelC]

Hmmm, you're making me do too much thinking this morning after a long night up with kids.

I've always been irritated with state liquor laws. I've always thought that either the majority needs to make it illegal, or else they need to stop treating people who choose to partake like criminals. If you're going to say on one hand that to drink alcohol you must join the "private club" then how can you regulate that private club and tell them they cannot smoke? Is it public or private? Let's stop the hypocrisy. I've also thought about what it would be like if I were someone who enjoyed an occasional glass of wine after dinner. My husband and I were noticing how the liquor stores are closed very early, so on a Friday night if you think a bottle would be nice, you're out of luck if you didn't plan ahead. I'm not sure that this is entirely fair for responsible adults who just want to enjoy a legal drink.

I never really considered the detrimental effects to society being a violation of my rights, but that is causing me to rethink everything. I still however have a problem with the above mentioned things. I agree that our choices have consequences. I shouldn't have to go to disneyland and have my eyes violated by gay men making out in the tiki room. If they do it in privacy and keep it to themselves, I don't think we should go on a witch hunt over it. I shouldn't have to be subject to drunken drivers, or even drunks making arses of themselves in front of my children, but I don't agree with treating everyone who partakes of a little alcohol as that drunk. The majority has a right to make certain things illegal, but taking legal activities and placing ridiculous regulations on those things doesn't seem fair to me.

[SwissMrs&Pitchfire]

Here's my answer to you Chel.

If the person enjoys the wine for the taste etc... they can have that without it being imbibed or prepared in it's strength. Since it is the alcohol that causes the problem, society can and should eliminate the problem. Should they not be satisfied with that they can privately make wine out of the public eye. If someone can grow marijuana in their living room and smoke it there and even carry it in their pockets into the public. I believe that they will get away with it. We cannot violate the unlawful search and seizure laws. Should the person take it out of their pocket or grow it in the open, then action needs to be taken to protect the highest asset (virtue). Obviously the accuser would have to go before a judgment body and make a strong case based largely upon their reputation for a search to ensue. I believe that we should go to great lengths to preserve virtue.

Obviously our forbears in this great nation did not think that it violated constitutional rights to make such laws as they had many such laws against such things as vagrancy and swearing.

[ShineOn]

Disclaimer: I haven't read any of the previous posts because there were just so many and lots of them were really long.

Government does not have the right. Whence are rights derived? But people can give government the power to enforce behaviors that harm others. I guess I'm the only one to vote no.

If the question was "should the government enforce X?' then that would be a different discussion.

[SwissMrs&Pitchfire]

Semantics. Government has no "rights."

Read the posts.....

[ShineOn]

SwissMiss&Pitchfire, read my post. I put the disclaimer in that I didn't read the posts.

I went on what the poll question said, not what everyone else thought was being asked. And the word "right" was in all caps in the question. Seemed like that was being emphasized. I like Pitchire better. He's nicer.

But ok, let me ask this: Benson and Andersen have argued that a group of people do not acquire more rights to power than an individual, which is why they argue that government cannot take from one person to give to another since an individual cannot take from one person to give to another. If you believe that too, how can a group of people have the power to punish people for gambling, etc.?

[SwissMrs&Pitchfire]

Do you mean power or authority to enforce anti-gambling laws? I honestly am not sure exactly what you mean.

Because neither the individual nor the group has the right to gamble. There is no right to immoral behavior.
------------------------------------
I agree that the initial question should be clarified, but the discussion makes the question clear, that is why I encourage you to read the discussion especially Brian's final summation. We seem to all be on the same page with your noted exception.

[SwissMrs&Pitchfire]

As to authority or (right to power) I think that it is an even sum game as you noted. Enforcement comes from the citizenry, and thus the individual. This I think boils down to just what our rights are. As Brian relayed, we have no right to do evil but the agency to try if so disposed (and face the consequences and loss of freedom associated with the violation of law).

[ShineOn]

This is what I am getting at.

How is this consistent:

#1 A person cannot take from one and give to another, therefore a group of people cannot take from one and give to another.

#2 A person cannot prevent one from gambing, but a group of people can prevent one from gambling.

I am not making these arguments, I am asking those who agree with the #1 how it can be consistent with #2.

[SwissMrs&Pitchfire]

So the question is: can one man not otherwise empowered for law enforcement make a citizens arrest? Yes of course, I do not see the contradiction. The law is the law irrespective of who enforces it. A police officer does not have any more right than a citizen, thus provisions for a citizens arrest.

[creator]

Government does not have the right....If the question was "should the government enforce X?' then that would be a different discussion.

You are right. I should have worded it "Should the government enforce, or make laws preventing or regulating debauchery and vices?"

The point that W. Cleon Skousen was making is that if the majority of the people want to pass those kind of laws they definitely can.