I want to challenge Snipe

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

Pardon me for asking, but do you really want me to answer that question, or do you want to just get straight to the point and tell me what a murderous, hateful person I am for believing such a thing?

You try to make an analogy by stating as established "fact" that "God" ordered the mass murders of people. When in fact, we don't even know how the Old Testament came to us. We know bits and pieces, theories such as the Documentary Hypothesis come and go, but really have very little insight into the creation of the Old Testament.

First, "God" did NOT personally write the OT. It was orally transmitted and written by scribes. And it spans thousands of years. Thus, the probability of error was significant.

Second, the BoM contains no such provisions of "mass murders" and seems to remove itself as far as possible from such actions. In fact, we're aware of at least one group that permitted itself to be murdered rather than to murder.

So I submit, your argument that God would permit mass murders or torture is very tenuous at best. It is NOT an established fact God ever ordered mass murder and I submit to you, he did not, until otherwise advised.

[Insensitive PAP]

Originally Posted by All-American

You're not talking about "discomfort." You're talking about torture.

And here is how I would make that decision: I happen to believe that we should follow and uphold the constitution. That includes that pesky bill of rights-- "cruel and unusual punishment" is out.

But I'll tell you what: you show me that God approves of tortue, just as he commanded Nephi to kill Laban, and I'll yield.

What the Constitution says is not really the issue here. There are many interpretations of the Constitution that I disgaree with morally, so to say we should "to follow and uphold the Constitution" is to dodge the issue.

At the heart of the argument is whether or not you believe the guilty should be afforded the same protections as the innocent. I don't believe they should. I believe both are inherently created equal, but the guilty forfeit their rights when they decide to start killing people.

That said, I'm am not making an argument that we should start torturing indescriminately. In fact, it is very possible that a situation would never arise when torture would be appropriate. I'm simply saying that you can't take it off the table in any and all scenarios, and it is POSSIBLE there could be circumstances where it would be morally necessary. Governments have the responsibility to protect their innoncent, and doing nothing, if an option is available, is to rob the innocent of their right to pursue happiness at the benefit of criminals.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

You try to make an analogy by stating as established "fact" that "God" ordered the mass murders of people. When in fact, we don't even know how the Old Testament came to us. We know bits and pieces, theories such as the Documentary Hypothesis come and go, but really have very little insight into the creation of the Old Testament.

First, "God" did NOT personally write the OT. It was orally transmitted and written by scribes. And it spans thousands of years. Thus, the probability of error was significant.

Second, the BoM contains no such provisions of "mass murders" and seems to remove itself as far as possible from such actions. In fact, we're aware of at least one group that permitted itself to be murdered rather than to murder.

So I submit, your argument that God would permit mass murders or torture is very tenuous at best. It is NOT an established fact God ever ordered mass murder and I submit to you, he did not, until otherwise advised.

I really wish you'd publish your own scriptures, your own Ensign, and your own set of General Conference CD's. Then I could know exactly which parts of your religion you believe in, and which parts you discard.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Insensitive PAP

What the Constitution says is not really the issue here. There are many interpretations of the Constitution that I disgaree with morally, so to say we should "to follow and uphold the Constitution" is to dodge the issue.

At the heart of the argument is whether or not you believe the guilty should be afforded the same protections as the innocent. I don't believe they should. I believe both are inherently created equal, but the guilty forfeit their rights when they decide to start killing people.

That said, I'm am not making an argument that we should start torturing indescriminately. In fact, it is very possible that a situation would never arise when torture would be appropriate. I'm simply saying that you can't take it off the table in any and all scenarios, and it is POSSIBLE there could be circumstances where it would be morally necessary. Governments have the responsibility to protect their innoncent, and doing nothing, if an option is available, is to rob the innocent of their right to pursue happiness at the benefit of criminals.

Perhaps you don't understand the rights of the Constitution then.

First there are certain rights which become forfeit upon a lawful adjudication of guilt, but prior to the adjudication, all citizens are afforded and should be afforded the same rights.

Second, what standards should be applied to determine if those rights are forfeit? This is the crux, and because valuable rights such as life, and liberty are at stake, the citizen accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The protection of the citizen accused is the protection of you and me. If we ever nonchalantly allow these to be trod upon, then our nation will become authoritarian. It will cease to mean what it's supposed to mean.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

I really wish you'd publish your own scriptures, your own Ensign, and your own set of General Conference CD's. Then I could know exactly which parts of your religion you believe in, and which parts you discard.

Show me where a prophet of the last dispensation has reviewed the OT parts in question, has prayed to the Lord to receive confirmation that these matters did in fact take place, received a confirmation to him and to the Twelve, and that he is therefore restoring to us lost knowledge in the form of new canon.

If you are capable of making that demonstration, I will understand your adamance in asserting all portions of the OT should be taken at face value. I'm waiting.

[Insensitive PAP]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Perhaps you don't understand the rights of the Constitution then.

First there are certain rights which become forfeit upon a lawful adjudication of guilt, but prior to the adjudication, all citizens are afforded and should be afforded the same rights.

Second, what standards should be applied to determine if those rights are forfeit? This is the crux, and because valuable rights such as life, and liberty are at stake, the citizen accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The protection of the citizen accused is the protection of you and me. If we ever nonchalantly allow these to be trod upon, then our nation will become authoritarian. It will cease to mean what it's supposed to mean.

the Constitution, not that we should neither have one nor follow it.

[BYU71]

You don't need to take the time to publish your own sciptures. All you have to do is claim to know what they mean and everyone else should follow your interpretation.

I love being around people who are always saying, "this is what the Prophet meant." That way I can blame it on them if they are wrong.

[Archaea]

What's to debate?

We should look to whatever sources please us to justify our rhetoric and expose it to argument to see if it holds up under scrutiny.

I may disagree with current interpretations of law and custom, but for me to disagree I should have reasons.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by BYU71

You don't need to take the time to publish your own sciptures. All you have to do is claim to know what they mean and everyone else should follow your interpretation.

I love being around people who are always saying, "this is what the Prophet meant." That way I can blame it on them if they are wrong.

It is an interesting form of argument to allude to something in Hebrew Scripture and to rely upon it to be more than tradition, especially in some of its odd details. Is the mass murder that we see continue unto this day? No. So it is a cultural oddity, that doesn't seem to repeat itself. Hence if it is peculiar I ask if it is cultural or actually divine.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by Insensitive PAP

What the Constitution says is not really the issue here. There are many interpretations of the Constitution that I disgaree with morally, so to say we should "to follow and uphold the Constitution" is to dodge the issue.

Perhaps you can give me a different interpretation of "cruel and unusual punishment" that you can agree with?

Originally Posted by Insensitive PAP

At the heart of the argument is whether or not you believe the guilty should be afforded the same protections as the innocent. I don't believe they should. I believe both are inherently created equal, but the guilty forfeit their rights when they decide to start killing people.

I believe that even the guilty have rights.

The Bill of Rights guarantees those rights particularly TO the accused-- and, to the guilty.

Originally Posted by Insensitive PAP

That said, I'm am not making an argument that we should start torturing indescriminately. In fact, it is very possible that a situation would never arise when torture would be appropriate. I'm simply saying that you can't take it off the table in any and all scenarios, and it is POSSIBLE there could be circumstances where it would be morally necessary. Governments have the responsibility to protect their innoncent, and doing nothing, if an option is available, is to rob the innocent of their right to pursue happiness at the benefit of criminals.

I am simply saying that so long as cruel and unusual punishment is forbidden by the law, it IS ALREADY off the tables. To put it back on the table, except through the proper legislative processes, is illegal. I have heard no legal argument showing how torture is not against the law; I have only heard justifications stating that it is relatively insignificant.

And I wholeheartedly reject any supposition that relying on the constitution makes for a weak argument. As soon as you cut down the restraints of the rule of law, you dissolve its protection. With apologies to Thomas Moore:

And when the last law was down, and the devil turned around on you, where would you hide, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws from coast to coast--man’s laws, not God’s, and if you cut them down-- and you’re just the man to do it-- do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? I’d give the terrorists benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake.