Why would the "big bang" imply anything other than the moment of the actualization of love into creation from the theological standpoint. Why wouldn't God still be the author of life? I guess what I'm asking you to clarify is whether or not you are approaching the question of creation from pure material cosmology, or are you supportive of the theological creation only? It sounds as if you are a Christian, by use of this statement, (which I am also), but reluctant to embrace the idea that in a sense physics and metaphysics work together in description of the universe in both material and theological/philosophical perspectives. In other words, are you a Christian who rules out the theory of "intlligent design", wherein the Christian ends up by necessity denying the material science?
Government shutdowns are a joke. It is just bad politics to make one party or another look like bad guys for holding a belief that they find important enough to go to the mat over. In this most recent case, it is in order to ensure the defunding of "Planned Parenthood", which has not business with Federal tax money to begin with. I personally think the ones who would look like schlemiels in this instance would be the Democrats who insist on continuing to fund an immoral, unethical, killing machine, with the hard earned tax money from poor and middle class people who aren't even being asked what they think about it. EVERYTHING that isn't a specific Federal Government entity should be defunded with American tax dollars. Tax dollar are suppsed to be going to run the Federal Government and it's agencies. Period. So yeah....I think the Republicans need to truss up their cajones, and take this think wherever it goes, never giving an inch, with strength and authority. The Goverment may "shut down" for a few days in the process, but as a former 35 year Federal Employee who is a veteran of two such shut downs, it doesn't effect anything in the long run. You get emergency pay during the shut down, and you square up afterwards. Those who are "essential personnel" even stay at work. It's just political maneuvering. Those in favor of defunding planned parenthood, if they believe it's important, should do whatever it takes to ensure that this is done.
Thank you Texas. The Supreme Court is on my last nerve. I don't think they even cracked open a copy of the constitution in their last 4 or 5 so-called "landmark decision". They're just one branch of the Government in the balance of powers, and they've screwed that up, because they are supposed to interpret the constitution and apply it to challenges which are not resolved in the various states. They instead take cases which ARE resolved at the various states and use their personal opinions rather than the U.S. Constitution to muddy things up even more. On top of which, we already have a congress for legislation. Congress makes law. The Court applies it, and clarifies it. Everybody needs to remember what their job is.
Only before I was even of voting age. I mean I assumed I was they same political affiliation as my parents, grandparents etc.. When I got old enough to vote and make those decisions I found myself quite outside the politics of my family tree. Is this what you mean? No one since has persuaded me one way or another, and I make my decisions, based on research, one election at a time, not being a member of either established party.
Eventually, the GOP and the DEM will disenfranchise a sufficient number of their own membership that the two major parties will either have to change or fold their tents. This would already happen if their members bothered to read the planks of their parties honestly, and consider all that their party expects them to accept by virtue of membership. I'm amazed that we don't already have 4 viable political parties. In any event. There are more "independents" every election cycle. Granted, these "indies" are simply Republicans and Democrats who are at odds with their parties over 1 or 2 issues. Or are tired of insider politics, and life time politicians. I voted for the candidate from the American Constitution Party (Chuck Baldwin) during the unbelievably bad choice given us between Barak Obama and John McCain. I got suckered into the party once more in the following cycle to vote for Romney over Obama. So, my vote had no effect either way. When I voted my heart, my candidate didn't win. When I voted a major party, my candidate didn't win. What I want to vote for is American conservatism, in the mold of Dwight Eisenhower, Abraham Lincoln, and Ronald Reagan. Strong leadership, a vigorous economy, Sane foreign policy, and laws which are moral, and just. Better appointments for the Supreme Court. In the USA, we don't get these things from either the Democrats or the Republicans in their current states because they have become to large, to institutional and too cocky. Even though they use rhetoric during their campaigns and build smoke screens, in the final analysis, you couldn't fit a playing card in between the candidates actually nominated to represent the DEM and the GOP. They they just hate on each other for another 4 years, until we have another worthless election with milktoast candidates lacking hormones or human traits of any kind lest somebody get offended and they don't get elected.
Anyway, unless one the parties gave us real candidates we could sink our teeth into and really get behind. Another Lincoln or Reagan, or Roosevelt, or Ike, or Kennedy, then we're stuck with a bunch of Bush's and Clintons, and we're just one big glop of worthlessness in our leadership and politics.
By all means we should feel good about voting outside of the 2 parties. If it doesn't have an effect for a few cycles, so be it. At least you can sleep better knowing that you didn't have any part of the guy or gal the party forced down your throat. Eventually, people will catch on, and a strong willed outsider will get the job over the Dems and Pubs, and they the parties will either change to the will of the people, or they will disappear over time like the Whigs.
There's no wrong answer. I like what's happening in the GOP right now. They're starting to figure it out. The top three candidates are NOT politicians. We'll see what happens.
The top candidate in the DEMS, at least in NH and Iowa, is Socialist Bernie Sanders, so maybe the DEMS are starting to feel the strain as well. So eventually, maybe 3rd and 4th parties won't be necessary to get the attention of the major parties, but in the mean time, you don't lose anything. I promise that no matter what your leanings, whether Jeb Bush, or Hillary Clinton is president makes little or no difference whatsoever. So fight on. Be independent. Vote other parties. Vote for who YOU BELIEVE IN. Candidates that really resonates with you and your particular needs and wants out of this country for you and your family. Do real research. Listen to debates. Find the right candidate for you, no matter what party they are in or not in, and support them with all you've got. Tell your detractors this.
If we always do what we always did, we'll always get what we always got.
Just my 2 cents.
Peace,
Steve
The idea that a fetus is a human being, while you may be correct that there is some miniscule fragments of contention still lingering, they are contending a fiction by emotion. It is quite resolved, settled science that a human being is formed at conception. The question, then is whether or not a woman has a "right" granted by ?_? to end the development of the human life to full potential by contracting for the killing of her own child. This "right" would not be granted by God, who is the genesis of life, so it can come only from a secular body, removing the baby from the realms of both biology and theology, and placing the baby at the mercy of 20th century western politics and civics. On it's face, this hardly seems the proper arbiter for matters as important as the nurturing of human life.
Regarding your second paragraph, you're referring to a "quasi-concession" that the taking of human life be allowed in some instances. I've been gone for a while, and will have to re-read my original premise to see what exactly I said, but I can guess I was willing, as a STARTING point, and for political reasons to put those who advocate for abortion on demand to a test. When pressed in the political arena, even the most hard core abortion advocates come up with the challenges "What about in the instance of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother". Well of course, in the instance of rape, it would not be right. It is simply adding violence to violence. The innocent child did not commit a crime, and deserves the right to live. Same with incest. As regards "saving the life of the mother", this is I think what the call a "straw man" argument. That is disingenuous. First because it is so rare, and second, this potential doctor/surgeon is supposed to do all he/she can to save the lives of the mother AND her baby. Sometimes in the course of efforts to do so, the baby would die. But this is a secondary effect, and not the INTENTION of an ethical doctor. So that instance doesn't really belong in the argument.
You are correct that abortion is wrong in every instance. My false willingness to allow (for political reasons ONLY), the rape/incest idea, is actually intended only to make a point. When presented with this offer or idea, the political parties who are in favor of abortion, who use this argument to keep abortion legal, would still not actually put an abortion restriction law into practice if given a chance. It's just something they say to themselves to make themselves not feel like monsters for fighting for abortion rights.
No. I am not personally in favor of ANY procured abortion happening. But law is only a part of this. Hearts must change. So perhaps if you COULD get people to go for an abortion ban with the 2 exceptions, it would be enough of a start, that down the road, as the facts about human life and development became more commonly known, it would then be politically possible to lose he exceptions as well, over time. Meanwhile, a law allowing only for those exceptions will successfully put an end to 99% of abortions, and they would then indeed be quite rare as a procedure.
This is one of the saddest things about the whole mess. The civil legality of this horror has over time dulled the cultural psyche to the sanctity of all human life. I wish I knew the answer. How to bring the cultural conscience back to sanity, and more importantly to love.
Yes. It is still murder. And no, I don't personally condone the exceptions. I am being conciliatory. I'll take what I can get. If the pro-aborts would really concede to no abortion save for those few exceptions which they wish to keep it legal for, then we're more than 99 percent on the road to restoring the sense of the sanctify of human life. But, I think the "exceptions" are disingenuous rote learned talking points used to assuage the conscience of the pro-aborts, and to keep the whole shebang legal.
No. It should not be legal to seek and procure abortion. It is barbaric. It's contract murder.
There are some rare exceptions, which account for less than 1% of all abortions which are performed. (rape, incest, save life of mother). These are not valid reasons to murder a child either, but could be considered on a case by case basis, as they occur, in an environment where procured abortion is NOT legal.
Yes and no. (Not sure how to do that here). That is, the answer is much deeper than the question. People generally DO have the right to live in whatever country they want, subject to that countries immigration and naturalization laws. So, if I decide one day, I wish to live in Swtizerland, I must contact the Swiss government first, and express my desire to do so. If the country has the resources to support me, and has some use for me, or if I am retired, and wish to spend my retirement money on their economy, and if I'm willing to go through a citizenship program, orientation classes, etc., then generally, a country will issue the appropriate paperwork, and invite you to come in. If I just buy a plane ticket, (one way), to Switzerland, then rent an apartment, and never have any dealings with the government, then I am an unwelcome guest. If discovered, they will have me leave their country until such time as I go through the proper channels to be there. So yes.....I should be able to live in any country I would like. No.....I shouldn't be able to do it outside of the laws of that country. It throws off their census, their tax structure, it drains resources that weren't alloted for because of the skewed census, and inadequate taxing, and to top it all off, I am living as an outlaw. A criminal.
"Do you think it is moral to convince gay people that they are bad?"
First, you're creating a straw man, since I have no problem with persons who experience same sex attraction. There is no immorality in our attractions. It is actions on things which we know in our hearts to be immoral, or which have been defined as immoral which form immorality. This doesn't apply to homosexuals any more than it applies to heterosexuals who commit sexual acts prior to marriage, or during marriage with someone they are not married to as well. In fact, this is much more common than homosexual sex. It is not an external act convincing anyone that something they're doing is immoral. It is themselves, knowing that they are doing something immoral when they act out. That's called guilt, and at's a perfectly normal and natural response within us to that which is immoral. We are obsessed as a culture with trying to remove guilt from things rather than trying to avoid that which elicits a guilt response, which is a protective measure inside ourselves to assist us in remaining moral in our action.
"Do you think it is moral to convince people to be Christian?" I'm not sure how this connects with anything I've been talking about, but since you've asked, God is love. Jesus is God. Therefore Jesus is love. To attempt to convince someone to live in love would be within the limits of morality, yes.
"Do you think it is moral to attack people for not following your morality?"
What do you mean by attack? I've never attacked anyone in my life. If one attacks someone, either physically, or in some cruel mental way, this is immoral in and of itself. If you mean attacking (figuratively, I assume), immoral acts, it is actually a duty of citizenship. We should always be fighting, rather than acquiescing to the foisting of immorality into our culture, presented as a good. It just makes good sense. If we lay back and just let everything happen to us, then we end up in the kind of confusing mess we find ourselves in now.
"Maybe those work."
Work for what?
Having embassies, (diplomatic relations)? Yes.
I don't however think we should be lifting any sanctioned until these new diplomats have much discussion and come up with some real progress on human rights, etc. An embassy, ambassador, and diplomacy are good first steps. Now let's let all of them do their work before doing anything else. But yeah. I'd like to see an American embassy in every country in the world. If we don't have communication at that level, how can anything ever be expected to change?
OP -
Pro-Life: "I know what's better for you and I want control."
Pro-Choice: "I know what's good for me." or "I don't know what's good for you."
---------------------------------------
I know this is not the position of pro-life, and I suspect that your posted position for pro-choice is not that accurate either.
Here's the thing. We didn't used to have the firm science. The science is in. Human persons are created at conception. Period. There is no contest to this. Pro-life stance is much better stated that all human beings once conceived have the right to complete their lives. To be nurtured through pregancy, through infancy, through childhood, through adolescence and up to adulthood by either their parents, or another responsible set of parents (via adoption), so that they are not deprived of their right to personhood. Their right to flourish, and their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Our morally sickened culture has determined, that this only applies to human persons at (?) weeks/months old (can't a a straight concensus from pro-lifers, but even if you could it wouldn't make any sense, since it is a human person with a right to life from the moment of conception). To intentionally take a human life while it is surrounded by placenta is called "abortion", or worse yet "women's health care"(?). The moment that the baby is delivered, then killing it intentionally is called murder, and is a felony punishable by imprisonment or even death. So in the space of a few inches and a couple seconds we go from a "choice", and an abortion to a murder. It doesn't follow any sort of logic. Anyway, the prolife position isn't about "we know what's best for you and we want control". It is simply an acknowledgement of the importance and dignity of human life, and that every life has a right to be once brought into being. It is the essence of civil rights. It is fundamental. Not sure how it ever got lost, especially in the USA, where we are founded on these principles. We don't wish to "control" anyone. We wish civil rights for human persons of every age group. Especially the tiniest among us, who can not speak for themselves. Their rights must be looked after. An adult person already has a right to abstain from sexual activity if they don't like the potential bilogical result. They don't deserve additional rights for bad decision making.
This supports my point. These were all people who believed they were getting to a "good" end, and used that to justify evil means. That is the heart of my answer to the original debate.
P.S. There was no sneakiness implied or intended by adding Margaret Sanger. I stand by that, and I stand by it as obvious.
"I am sure there are some things you think are moral that I find immoral,"
I don't think this would be possible. Do you have an example? I already know that the transverse is true, based on your posts. But I don't know where you would get that there are things I think are moral that you would think are immoral, since I am saying that morality is sufficient unto itself, and unchanegable. Only ones personal opinions and consequences change. Not the immoral thing itself.
What would be a good example of a non-relativist such as myself thinking is moral, that a relativist would possibly find immoral. I'm not asking for examples the other way around. I'm sure there are plenty of those.
I'm going to guess that you're relatively young, and hold an appreciation for sexual immorality, so essentially every thing that feels good, and is civillly legal is moral. That is the State, and not God/or some natural process common to all determines morality. If this is your position, and then it would follow that some things which are immoral may be moral later, if only the State changes the law to accomodate an element of immorality. This could go on and on to the comfort level of the majority of persons in any given community of persons. That morality changes with the subjects of the propositions. If this were true, than morality would always be the province of the State, and the community. If State A decides on cannibalism, but doesn't mess with State B one way or another, than State A is being moral in their cannibalism, since they don't find it immoral, and no one in State B is being attacked or hurt.
Things are immoral, because they ARE. Voters, states and courts can have no bearing on what is and isn't wrong. They can only make civil law, which may or may not be morally sound. This is one of the purposes of moral conscience.
What separates moral persons from Nazi's, Pol Pot, Stalinists, Tojo, Margaret Sanger, etc., is that moral persons understand that evil can not be a means to an end. Even an "imagined" good end. Immorality can not be made right by circumstance.
It doesn't surprise me that the other side is winning this debate. This is the problem with morally relativistic, post-Christian culture. Morals don't change. They can't. If it was ever wrong, then it still is. And it certain has been since the dawn of man. That doesn't mean that people don't do it. It just means that when they do, they are being immoral. Nobody wants to admit to immorality anymore, so they have bent, or even done away with morality, as is it was some man invented thing that can simply be discarded.
I don't think the original ethnicity of our common parents has ever been revealed to us. It doesn't particularly matter. I believe science, if it hasn't already, will come to confirm that human beings derive from 1 set of ancestoral parents. We will discover this through DNA research is my guess. The various races evolved over time due to environment etc..
This is why orthodoxy and Apostolic succession are so very important for a Christian Church. It is the facts that you mention as the spur for this debate as being positives for the Episcopal Church (the American Anglican Church), are the very things which are ruining them over time. Sorry. There are plenty of loving, kind, Christian believers, who are likely quite sincere, just as in most other denomination os the Church as well. But when you bend with the culture on faith and morals, and don't have a non-relative standard for right and wrong, you lose your voice and compass.
This, of course, is a very subjective question. I think for me, it was three candidates. I was most impressed by Rubio, Paul, Huckabee, and oddly, (if you knew me personally, you'd know why I said this), Jeb Bush. I was also very pleased at meeting and listening to Dr. Ben Carson for the first time, and from the early group, great love for Rick Santorum, and the surprise candidate, (who I imagine will make the nain stage next time out), Carly Fiorina. Wow. Very impressed.
For me, it was Donald Trump. But, of course everyone in media tells me I'm wrong on that. He's their "boy" right now because he's a loud mouth, and a fire brand, and takes the heat off of the Democratic Party, and Hillary's rather serious legal difficulties. Our leftist culture WANTS us to be in love with Donald Trump, and they'll go to any lengths to help his image. This is bad for the other candidates who are for the most part sincere, intelligent and articulate persons who all have better ideas than Hillary on how to fix our broken...everything. The Donald just acted like an ass clown all night long. Some at it up. But joyfully, more "booed". There was a focus group polled after the debate. Over 1/2 of the focus group that went in loving on the Donald, left with someone else as their favorite, and in fact, with a lesser opinion of Donald Trump.
Having said all this, I understand why he resignates, and I believe it's healthy to have him in the early going, in order to keep the legit candidates on their toes. As one candidate said, we need to pay real attention to the effect he's having on the voting public. He has hit a nerve, that needed hitting. A few more weeks though, and he should leave and let the real guys address some of the issues the Donald has brought up, then graciously leave the field.
The situation is so rare that it is really disingenuous to bring into the pro-abortion debate. When it DOES come up, there needen't be "legal" abortion in order to take care of the situation. The doctor makes every effort to save both the mother AND the baby. If the baby dies, it is as a secondary effect. It is not an intentional procured abortion, and therefore wouldn't fall under the abortion ban, were ever so blessed to get to have one those in our fallen world. So it's a straw man argument. Not a real issue. I've often said to abortion enthusiasts, hey, okay, I'll go with you on that. Let's get congress to pass legislation to ban all abortions except those which come up in the case of saving the life of the mother. (less than 1%). Let's go for it. But no.....they don't really want to do that either. We are seriously duped and deluded culture.
Natural law and natural complimentary of biology is the first and most important logical argument against. It is obvious from the outset that it is not an intended use for the human body to have sexual relations with members of the same sex. It really shouldn't NEED to go farther than that, but thanks to the ruination of natural law, logic, common sense and pretty much every other facet of classical thought by a Godless, immoral, unethical, hoodwinked, lied to, and frightfully unaware modernist culture.
Seriously, just find a picture of someone of the opposite sex. Look at their bioligical features, then look at your own. Read the first few chapters of a middle school biology book on human anatomy, and reproduction functions. I'm not sure what more "logic" is necessary. Beyond that, you get into social and cultural experiments, and bad philosophy.
Wrong is wrong. It's not a relativistic notion. We KNOW what is right and we know what is wrong at the base level of the natural complimentary. Everything else is politics and morals. In this case both morals AND science line up. There is nothing redeeming or logical about homosexual sex, and much wrong with it. It is just one of many ways, since the "sexual revolution" of the 60's that we have found to denigrate the prehistoric, and pre-religion, easily understood relationship of marriage between a man and a woman, and it's importance in the creation and continuation of families. We have now defined marriage as a union between x number of people who love x number of people exclusively, to no apparent or functional end apart from sexual objectification, and satisfaction. It is a deeply selfish reationship in which the fecundity of life isn't even a factor. Yes homosexuality was always around, and always will be around. It was just understood by all other cultures, epochs of history, governments, religions, philosophers, scientists etc. to be biologically unsound, morally unsound, ethically unsound, and to have no intrinsic value apart from sexual gratification outside of the reproductive and unitive value of sexual relation within a heterosexual marriage open to life.
So how did we get to this point? The best compendium of these phenomena I've read is a book by Robert Reilly called "Making Gay Okay". I highly recommend this to hetero and homosexuals alike. It goes through everything in history basically leading up to where we are today, and does it in an honest and stratightforward way which leaves no real stones unturned. It cites sources galore, ranging from Abe Lincoln, Economic harmoines (Bastiat). Aristotle, Plato, Landmark Supreme Court Cases. Medical and pshychological studies, important research journals, etc. There's about 25 pages worth of just source citations alone. I could only do better in answering this question by re-publishing the book here, which would be illegal, so please just buy it.
NO NO NO NO NO. No parent, guardian, foster parent, grand parent or any person interested in their young child should want the state teaching their kids about sex in any way shape or form. This is a subject which should be left entirely to the home. At a very minimum, there should be an opt out for those who don't want it for their children. I hear things on the radio being taught in California, NY and other places schools, and think...how on earth would a caring parent allow that to happen? I barely agree with public school, but if we must have it, then at least it needs to stick to reading, writing and arithmetic.
Sex education in state schools goes far beyond basic biology, which they would pick up in science anyway.
The very thought of it should horrify all human beings to the core. There is noting moral or ethical about it. But lets suppose a person doesn't have bioethics or morals, but is yet still somehow smart enough to do such a thing. The next thing would be why? Just because we can? Just because technology exists? This world kills or prevents 1 in 3 people as it is. If we're so bent on having more people, instead of playing God and creating them in laboratories, how about we just stop killing our children, or preventing them by artificial means if we are married persons?
Well, yes.....of course. If you don't watch debates, all you ever get to know about candidates is what the media tells you about them which is almost always wrong, or at least tarnished and adulterated with opinion.
I think the Democratic Party is making a huge huge mistake by putting all their eggs in one basket. Only one challenger for the Dems? Really? And even they don't have scheduled debates. Like it or not, Hillary Clinton is a polarizing character, and is by not way, shape or means a shoe in to win against all Republican challengers. Yet.....no Democrats are coming forward to challenger her and try to win the Democratic nomination. Particularly with Hilary growing legal problems regarding her time as Sec. of State. They are acting at their own peril. Seems like a bit too much of a gamble to me.
A Christian Co-worker of mine, in 2004 gave me his time, attention and patience, and without knowing it, gave me the seeds which led to my conversion to Christ after a long life of searching for truth. Whatever the outcome, I think the best thing that any of us can give or receive is time, love, attention, and patience.
I don't use it, (though I did for a while in my youth). I have traditionally be against it, and a lot of me still wants to be. I will admit this up front. My new attitude is for the wrong reason. It is because I'm getting worn down by those who want to do this so badly. I just want it done, so that this debate will go away. I do have a couple things that I hope the Federal and State Governments will keep in mind. It needs to be dealt with as a regulated substance and fall under Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), as well as, (and this is important), the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) at both the state and local level, so that tax money can be captured and used for good purposes such as education, economic stimulus. State and federal programs should benefit from it. It should be reserve for those 21 and over. It needs to be under DUI laws, and quick field test needs to be developed for patrol units and highway patrol to use in pull-overs. It will have to be available in bars and other public use areas in it's edible form only so that others don't have to smell it or breathe secondary smoke. Dodging federal or state farming and taxation should be dealt with at least as strongly as moonshining and other illegal alcohol, tobacco and firearm activities. I would beef up that agency big time to watch for illegal growing and distribution outside the same systems of distribution which are legal for alcohol.
As it stands, most of the world is not replacing themselves due to the BS about "overpopulation", and the sky is falling mentality that came with modernism. This is going to effect the USA eventually too, for the same reasons. Contraception, abortion, and the collapse of marriage and respect for the sanctity of sexual relation. People aren't being born at a rate which is sufficient to make up for the rate that people are dying. This is screw up that it is likely too late to solve already for some countries like China. We COULD still do something about it here, but likely won't in time. So actually, if we were going to do something with taxes, it should be a tax incentive for married couples to HAVE children before there is no one to do any work, or keep an economy going. Just a bunch of elderly people with nobody to take care of them.
Adam and Eve were direct creations of God. They were not ever in a placenta or attached to a mother by umbilical cord, hence there certainly would not have been a reason for them to have them. Whether or not they did anyway, is impossible to know, of course, as no one else was around at the time. I'm going under 'no', they did not for biological reasons. No umbilical, no belly button.
Civil law is our relation to man's civic state.
Religion is our relation to God, our creator.
Civil law is NOT above the natural laws of God.
Civil law is good, and intended for the good of others, and because of that, it usually within the natural law.
It is only to the extent that the state oversteps the laws of nature and God, and what is right, that a law becomes unjust, and sometimes immoral or unethical when compared to the reality of natural law. When this occurs, and ONLY when this occurs, it is the duty of the citizen to stand up for what is right. A society which truly embraces freedom first and foremost protects a persons right to do what one should. in other words, the right to do what is right. It is when this freedom is taken away by a law, that we must stand in disobedience. However, even in this instance, we should also be willing to accept the punishment of the civil authority, and we must never do violence ourselves, even if the civil authority does.
I picked yes, but I will qualify it a bit. It's a difficult, and therefore a very good question. The actual proper stance, (and the one I subscribe to), would be that if the law in question were a civil law, which involved state imposed immorality, or injustice then the natural law, or the law of God should prevail above all else, and a believer would have a duty not to commit an immoral act, or an unjust act, simply because of an immoral or unjust law. The qualification is, if the law is moral and just, then we must abide by it, and pursue a change in the law by moral means. At the worst, a believer could only engage in what is called "civil disobedience", and then only regarding unjust and immoral laws. Generally, Christians and Jews, anyway, choose to die or be imprisoned if compulsory desecration or blasphemy is imposed on them. An example would be the Roman Empire trying to force Christians to renounce Christ, and worship pagan gods. When they would not, they were used as entertainment in the Roman "circus", as they were killed by various means.
One fascinating and inspirational case was that of Sir Thomas More, (see the movie "A Man For All Seasons". Here was a man fiercely loyal to his king, (Henry VIII). But when asked to approve of Henry's killing of one wife and marrying another, he could not, and would not say that was right. In the mean time, he served the king faithfully. In the end, Henry had him imprisoned, and then eventually beheaded, simply for holding a moral stance, and not backing the king in immorality. He was faithful to the king in all other aspects, as we should be. Sorry to be so long winded, but it is a deep question, whether intended that way or not.
Not only is it not the "only true English Bible". it's not even one of the better ones, being far eclipsed in truth in accuracy by The English Standard Version, The Revised Standard Version, The New International Version, The Didache Bible, The New American Bible, The Knox Bible, and several others. It was just the most COMMON English translation for many decades after the reformation until very good scholarly English Bibles (some of which are listed above) began to appear on the scene. There are some Christians who nearly fall into idolatry over the KJV. It's an okay translation, but is certianly not the do all or end all of English Bibles. I have it as one of many to consult when I look at several version during study to make sure I understand the collective meaning of the various versions and translations. If someone can only afford one, I recommend the Revised Standard Version, 2nd Catholic Edition. It seems the most balanced in old and new language and the easiest to understand and use for study, while not sacraficing anything of depth.
School Uniforms should not only NOT be banned, but should be made compulsory at both private and public school alike. Kids are in school to learn. It is not a fashion show. All the different forms of dress, attire, accessories etc. is distracting, and can even cause students difficulties if what they're wearing isn't "cool" enough, or if the childs parents are poor etc. It puts everybody on the same level culturually, and allow them to focus their attention on their studies, which is what they should be doing to begin with.
Perhaps, if we had a "public" university system along side the private university system, this may be an idea. But a university education is not near difficult ENOUGH to attain at a private university. Somewhere around the 1950, as we were in the process of completely giving up as an agricultural or even a producing economic force, and switching over to a service industry economy, we got the notion in our heads that everybody capable of a high school education ought to also go to college. This is understandable in some ways, for two reasons. There were fewer non-professional, yet adequate paying jobs with the death of the family farm, the family business, or working at making airplanes, and cars, and radios, and tupperware and what not. We gave up the family farm to corporate farms, and gave up manufacturing to China, Japan, and Europe. We're a country of Arby's and McDonalds now. There are precious few middle ground jobs to be had. So, innocently enough, parents all want their children to get college educations, so that they can be professionals instead of burger slingers. We've lost pretty much everything inbetween, so in a way, I get it. But if we also then, make it free to anybody to get a college education, then you have two problems. 1. Not all people have the intelligence, discipline, drive, and need of a college education. So if you educate them anyway, then either the parents, or in your scenario, the state, would spend 25,000 a year for however long they stay with it, per person, to get an education which they won't be able to use, because about one in ten of them will have the ingenuity, drive, ambition, intelligence, and skills after college to compete for the hard to get professional jobs such as being engineers, doctors, lawyers and such. Or they will glut the market with substandard lawyers and engineers who won't get hired for anything decent, but more than likely all these freely educated people will be serving hamburgers with a state funded bachelors degree, because it's the way of the world.
I'm only a partial no vote, however. I believe in perhaps funding the brightest stars coming out of high school with a fine education at any college they apply to, if the have the remarkable grades, and have proved themselves to be in the top percentile of motivated young people who will make a real difference after college. Oh wait. We already have that, don't we. Scholarships.
