Section 1. That the following language be stricken as unworkable from the US Constitution, Article I, Section 10: "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility. No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress." Section 2. And be replaced with "All States, for the protection of their citizens, may reject any Treaty, Alliance, or Confe...
Comments
All actions are technically allowable, insomuch as we can't stop people from doing them unless we have prior knowledge of their plans, without violating their rights. However, such actions can be punished, and should be, so that others choose not to do them, recognizing that while they're free to do what they want, they must also face the consequences of their actions. The question is not whether or not people should be punished for doing evil, it's what the punishments should be. Violating the dignity of the person who has committed a wrong-doing is never an option, so such things as forced sterilization, the death penalty, and things that will cause bodily harm (such as whipping, stoning, etc.), are wrong in and of themselves.
People have the liberty to do what they want, but not if it infringes upon the rights or dignities of another person, which is why abortion, theft, murder, rape, etc., are all considered wrong. The case of homosexual relationships also falls under this, although it's an issue that's relatively complicated, so most people don't realize exactly how, and tend towards misinterpreting why the Church, among other groups, is so strongly against it.
Also, as a technicality, neopaganism, actually, isn't anarchy, just heretical in nature. There are heretical religions that wouldn't cause anarchy. Now, classical paganism, yeah, no, that's going to cause issues. However, neopaganism, which is what most pagans are today, is strongly influenced by Christianity, and so they tend towards agreeing with the Church on such things as abortion, murder, etc. Not so, for some, on gay marriage, but it's not caused by neopaganism views anyhow, it's decidedly more the cause of atheistic and laxer religious views in general.
Also, as far as "rain is wet" goes, technically, that's an observed opinion, and varies based on viewpoint, so the relative wetness of rain is based on your point of view. If you aren't already covered in a liquid, then yes, rain seems wet. If you are already covered in a liquid, rain may or may not seem wet, depending on the type of liquid you're covered in. Just like hot and cold are relative terms, so too is wet.
Rain is a liquid though, so generally speaking it's viewed as being wet to someone who is relatively dry.
I see no value left in listening.
I have yet to meet a Moral Person. I have met many who struggle courageously to fight their own inner demons and do moral things, and still more who surrender to their own inner demons and try to claim that the demons don't exist- but I don't know anybody, save maybe Jesus Christ himself, who wasn't tempted to immorality to the point of falling from time to time.
That the world is filled with immoral people is a given, with more evidence for than against. The question is what to do about it- see next post.