Anarchy or tyranny?

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by Jailminister, Aug 28, 2003.

  1. Jailminister

    Jailminister
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2003
    Messages:
    907
    Likes Received:
    0
    Anarchy or tyranny.

    There has been many who have said that if a judge does not obey the law(or a decision) then we will have anarchy. I disagree. Someone has to say enough is enough and who is better than a popular elected official. I say tyranny is the alternative to anarchy. Which one do you think is worst?

    Definitions
    :anarchy.
    Etymology: Medieval Latin anarchia, from Greek, from anarchos having no ruler, from an- + archos ruler -- more at
    Date: 1539
    1 a : absence of government b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government
    2 a : absence or denial of any authority or established order b : absence of order :<not manicured plots but a wild anarchy of nature -- Israel Shenker>

    Tyranny
    Date: 14th century
    1 : oppressive power <every form of tyranny over the mind of man -- Thomas Jefferson>; especially : oppressive power exerted by government <the tyranny of a police state>
    2 a : a government in which absolute power is vested in a single ruler; especially : one characteristic of an ancient Greek city-state b : the office, authority, and administration of a
    3 : a rigorous condition imposed by some outside agency or force <living under the tyranny of the clock -- Dixon Wecter>
    4 : an act

    Look at these definitions and see which is worst. Remember what Moore has done is to say that the Federal judge is out of jurisdiction. He is not promoting anarchy, but tyranny is the only other choice.
    WAKE UP!!!!
     
  2. NeilUnreal

    NeilUnreal
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2001
    Messages:
    320
    Likes Received:
    0
    I’m not a lawyer, but…

    Some political philosphers believe non-violent civil disobedience is a right of citizens in a free society. By right, it means that the person protesting accepts the possibility of arrest, fine, or other penalty, while the government assures that any penalties are proprotional to the actual damage and are not abusive or extreme. That is, extra penalties are not to be levied solely for the purpose of squelching protest, but those protesting are not above existing laws merely because they are protesting.

    Personally, I'm strongly against civil disobedience. I think it tends to get out of control too quickly, the message gets lost, and even non-violent civil disobedience can hurt innocent people.

    I also feel that, while government authorities must submit to higher government authorities, they have an obligation to refuse illegal orders. This is complicated in non-military cases, since it could be argued that in civilian cases the refusal to implement illegal orders either requires or entails resignation of authority (except where that resignation puts citizens in immediate jeopardy).

    In the case of a judge disobeying the order of a higher authority, it becomes a little more complicated. Is it a case of civil disobedience, refusal to obey an illegal order, dereliction of duty, insubordination, or violation of oath of office? What I hear Judge Moore saying is that he feels that removing the monument is a violation of his oath of office, so this makes his decision more like a case of disobeying a conflicting or illegal order. I suppose the opposing view is that this is a case of dereliction or insubordination; civil disobedience being impossible since he is acting as an agent of the state.

    I wish this had been happening when I was taking civics class in high school – it would have made for interesting class discussions and role-playing!

    -Neil
     
  3. NeilUnreal

    NeilUnreal
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2001
    Messages:
    320
    Likes Received:
    0
    I did some more reading and thinking about what various Christian philosophers and theologians have had to say about submission to authority vs. civil disobedience, etc. I have to admit I’m internally conflicted with regards to the Judge Moore thing.

    On the one hand, I believe it’s the clear intent of the framers of our constitution that government should not promote a specific religion. On the other hand, I think they expected citizens and officials to make their religious beliefs (or lack thereof) an important part of their private and civic lives.

    As a Christian, I am bound to obey the state, except where it directly challenges God’s authority. With respect to the decalogue, for me that means that I must resist if the government orders me to disobey what I see as God’s commandment. It doesn’t mean that I can disobey when I am ordered to “render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar’s.” To me, the lobby in question is clearly “Ceasar’s” property, so if “Ceasar” wants the stone to go, it must go (in our case “Ceasar” is the democratic rule of law).

    So resisting the removal of the decalogue in this case is a matter of civil conscience, not Christian conscience. Civilly, a good case can be made that this is a sectarian display in a way that other civial expressions of Judeo-Christian heritage are not. It’s also not simply a case of majority rule. The framers of the constitution and bill of rights were constantly mindful of the need to protect the majority from the minority.

    However, I do think that those who would totally exclude religion from public life often go too far. For example, I’m in favor of letting religious clubs use public property for meetings, etc. – provided no discrimination occurs (i.e. if Christians are allowed, so are Hindus, Buddhists, etc., and even atheists).

    -Neil
     
  4. Jimmy C

    Jimmy C
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2003
    Messages:
    1,250
    Likes Received:
    0
    I find myself conficted on this as well. My thoughts are that the courthouse is on state property. I firmly believe in the doctrine of the separation of church and state, as I would not want the words of Budda, or Muhammad on the courthouse either. On the other hand I truly admire Judge Moore, and the stand he has taken - even though I dont agree with him on this issue.

    I firmly believe in the concept of civil disobedience. I think that African Americans accomplished much through their civil disobedience, and even though he had moral failings Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was used by God. I also believe firmly that those who demonstrate at abortion clinics are absolutley justified to do so, have even done it myself. I also applaud those that boycott food makers, theme parks etc who sponsor or endorse programs that the boycotters disagree with.

    Isnt America GREAT - can you imagine someone in China attempting to engage in civil disobedience?
     
  5. Jailminister

    Jailminister
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2003
    Messages:
    907
    Likes Received:
    0
    Neal said:
    Here may be the problem with logic here. Bad information has been spread about the "clear intent". They never wanted to promote a certain "denomination". They had their fill of that in England and from Rome. They wanted Christianity practiced freely. They did not want restrictions on the individuals right to seek God of the bible. They were tired of the dictates of the pope and of the King. They were not against Christianity. They were overwhelmingly Christians. That is why God bless this country. The problem is that this nation is now turning its back on the God of the bible.
     
  6. ScottEmerson

    ScottEmerson
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Messages:
    3,417
    Likes Received:
    0
    Talk about bad information. If America really was founded on Jesus Christ, then the least we could see is specific language in the Constitution saying so. It is not about their being anti-Christian - they just didn't want a religiously-based government.
     
  7. Jailminister

    Jailminister
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2003
    Messages:
    907
    Likes Received:
    0
    ScottE., WAKE UP!!!!!
     
  8. Tanker

    Tanker
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2003
    Messages:
    215
    Likes Received:
    0
    >>>>>I say tyranny is the alternative to anarchy. Which one do you think is worst?<<<<<<<<

    I don't think we have tyranny or anarchy at the present time. I think things are just about right. This country is a long way, a very long way from a situation in which individual rights are violated. There is religious freedom, in abundance. Those who scream about the alleged tyranny of federal power are way off base. This country has just the right balance of government power and individual freedom. It was an experiment to determine whether a government with enough power to protect itself and its people would be perhaps too strong for individual liberty to thrive. I think the situation is just right. We have stability and security and freedom. You complainers should stop complaining and help preserve what we have - rather than promote radical changes.
     
  9. ScottEmerson

    ScottEmerson
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Messages:
    3,417
    Likes Received:
    0
    Saying this over and over again doesn't make your argument more persuasive.
     
  10. Jailminister

    Jailminister
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2003
    Messages:
    907
    Likes Received:
    0
    Tanker examine this. Something happened in our Nation since 1960.
    We elected the first Roman Catholic to office and one whose fortune had been built on bootlegging illegal alcohol and who was a well know womanizer, John F. Kennedy.
    When our Courts ruled completely opposite to the Religious Principles our nation had been founded upon in 1962, our society has went into a moral freefall.
    Before 1962 Unwed births to girls ages 10 to 14 were steady and relatively rare. After 1962, the graph shows an increase of 325% .....
    Sexually-transmitted Diseases to High School students were relatively rare before 1962. Since then STD's are at epidemic proportions in our kids.
    Violent Crime since 1962 has shot up 995%!
    In 1950's a survey of teachers showed the biggest problem in schools was chewing gum and shooting spit wads. Can you believe it?
    The Divorce rate since 1962 has steadily risen 111% to where America is leading the World now in divorce.
    The SAT test as a standard measurement of education achievement for our children was began in 1926 and later standardized in 1941 as the same test we have had up until recently when it had to be 'dumbed down'. The SAT rates were steady up until 1962. Since God and prayer was kicked out of our schools in 1962 and the children were taught they evolved from mud and slime, the SAT scores declined 18 years in a row! Unprecedented! For the first time in history, the students scores were 80 points less then the previous generation of their parents! Just recently our 'Educators' from the NEA had the SAT dumbed down because boys and girls in America were scoring so poorly!
    Today 80% of all black women between the ages of 15-26 have children born out of wedlock and are raising the children on their own.
    Is this a coincidence?
    I believe that the time is long past for Christians to stand on their feet and say, "Enough is enough!" and declare, as a decision of the Supreme Court has said, that this is a Christian land. All its documents, all its constitutions, and all the beliefs of its founders, indicate that this is true.
    We must no longer tolerate the movement to reduce this nation to a secularistic, atheistic, humanistic state. My friend, are we to be spineless? Are we to allow these things to go on without protest? Or are we to take steps as individual Christian citizens to see that the rights and privileges emanating from the free exercise of the religion which founded this nation are not abridged and removed, as numerous efforts are now underway to do.
    Yes we have tyranny, but we have 2 generations that have been poluted with humanistic teachings and the evil one has moved in slowly, so these can not see the fact that Tyranny is here.

    Scott, You can't be persuaded, so I just say WAKE UP!!!
     

Share This Page

Loading...