Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 47

Thread: Judge tests limits of free speech with remarks on FB in re jury selection diversity.

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,166

    Judge tests limits of free speech with remarks on FB in re jury selection diversity.

    LOUISVILLE, Ky. (AP) — A Louisville judge who railed against a prosecutor in provocative, racially charged posts on Facebook will soon face a disciplinary hearing that could end his judicial career. Judge Olu Stevens, who is black, is facing misconduct charges for suggesting that the white prosecutor was nefariously seeking to seat all-white juries. [ ... ] But his personal attack on a prosecutor for requesting an appellate opinion could cross an ethical line and threaten to overshadow the issue he attempted to highlight.

    http://bigstory.ap.org/article/b7c63...k-jury-remarks
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  2. #2
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,739
    Revenge usually ends up cooking your goose.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,166
    Quote Originally Posted by color of law View Post
    Revenge usually ends up cooking your goose.
    Hence, perhaps, the aphorism that revenge is a dish best enjoyed cold.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by gutshot View Post

    The linked article failed to mention one salient bit of information. When this disagreement between the judge and Commonwealths Attorney first arose, the two of them were called into the office of the Chief Justice of the Ky. Supreme Court. The Chief Justice ordered both of them to refrain form any further statements, public or private, on this subject, until the Judicial Conduct Commission could look into the dispute. Both of them acknowledged this order and agreed to it. The next day, Judge Stevens and his wife both posted discussions of the meeting with the Chief Justice and further accusation against Commonwealths Attorney Wine on Facebook. The hearing into Judge Stevens actions will be about his violation of the Chief Justice's order as much as about Judge Stevens original misconduct.

    Judge Stevens is not the slightest bit concerned about any of this.
    Great analysis. Not saying I agree with it, but it is the sort of "thinking further" I appreciate. Sometimes I agree with an analyst's conclusions, but even if I don't, it often gives me a thread to examine in my own way. In this case, its not your usual jingoism or your usual attribution of motive. Thanks for the insight, Gutshot. My comment will follow in a succeeding post.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,166
    Quote Originally Posted by gutshot View Post
    I am not aware or convinced that I do either of those things and do not acknowledge that I do.
    Hence the value of a true friend, that they are good mirrors allowing us to see in ourselves what we are otherwise blinded.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by gutshot View Post
    SNIP
    The linked article failed to mention one salient bit of information. When this disagreement between the judge and Commonwealths Attorney first arose, the two of them were called into the office of the Chief Justice of the Ky. Supreme Court. The Chief Justice ordered both of them to refrain form any further statements, public or private, on this subject, until the Judicial Conduct Commission could look into the dispute. Both of them acknowledged this order and agreed to it. The next day, Judge Stevens and his wife both posted discussions of the meeting with the Chief Justice and further accusation against Commonwealths Attorney Wine on Facebook.
    Why am I not surprised?

    Bear with me a moment.

    Judge Stevens is a judge, meaning he is a member of an organization--a group of people co-operating--a member of a specialized corporation with a monopoly on making law and using force to coerce or force others to submit to their ideas. That means he does not consider the agreement of others important--"you will obey. I don't care whether you agree."

    If he doesn't consider others are important enough to obtain their actual agreement--and respect their refusal to agree---why on earth should I or anyone else be surprised when he pretends to agree and then demonstrates that he didn't actually agree? To him, agreements are meaningless. And, we knew that not because he broke his agreement with the Chief Justice. We knew that long before then because he was willing to enforce his judicial dictates on others whether that individual agreed to be bound by his decisions or not.

    The instant I agree coercive government is legitimate...the instant I accept it is OK for me to force my ideas on others through the ballot box...in that same breath I am saying it is OK for others to force their ideas of how society should function on me.
    Last edited by Citizen; 08-06-2016 at 06:43 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by gutshot View Post
    I am not aware or convinced that I do either of those things and do not acknowledge that I do.
    As in, its not the usual jingoism or usual the usual attribution of motive. As in, not "your" in the personal sense of what you usually do--not that meaning. In the colloquial sense, "It's not your usual horse of a different color. Its an altogether different horse of a different color."
    Last edited by Citizen; 08-06-2016 at 06:47 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  8. #8
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by gutshot View Post

    I appears that Nightmare interpreted YOUR words the same way I did, and the only way that makes any sense. So YOUR excuse is that in YOUR mind "your" means "the". If that is true, what did my last two sentences mean? SMH
    Sorry you feel that way, bud. It is a manner of speaking; no offense was intended.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  9. #9
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795
    I believe it was a Supreme Court Justice (I forget which one) who opined that so long as peremptory challenges exist, there will be racism in jury selection.

    Justice Alito has suggested removing peremptory challenges altogether.

    I agree, though I think racism in jury selection--serious as it is--is the lessor and less common problem.

    The rest is somewhat off topic from the OP, so please forgive.

    Peremptory challenges allow lawyers to remove jurors for any reason they want so long as they can credibly claim it wasn't because of race, sex, religion, or other protected category. I'd bet that far more often than removing jurors because of race, both prosecutor and defense remove jurors who they believe will be hard to manipulate including those who keep themselves well informed with multiple and alternative media sources, those with higher education in STEM fields that train critical thinking, and those who have any hint of political independence (eg libertarians, RKBA activists, etc).

    Worse than the peremptory challenges is that in the federal system (and in Utah State courts), final jury selection is not random, but is rather a hand selection by the defense and prosecution coming to agreement on which potential jurors are acceptable to both. In some States, final selection is random.

    We ought to eliminate not only peremptory challenges, but also the vast majority of invasive voir dire questions sticking only to a few questions intended to reveal true bias. (eg "Do you know, are you related to, do you have business dealings with any of the principles or witnesses in this case?" "Do you have biases or bigotries toward any race, religion, etc that you cannot set aside to judge impartially?", etc.)

    And final jury selection needs to be randomized to avoid the legalized, highly specialized, preemptive jury tampering that occurs in too many courts.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  10. #10
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    If he doesn't consider others are important enough to obtain their actual agreement--and respect their refusal to agree
    The guy is clearly lacking in integrity.

    But really? You expect a judge--or any functional society--to get agreement from an accused murderer as to the trial and potential punishment? ROFLMAO!

    I know, I know, murderers have actually harmed someone and so can be punished without their agreement.

    But as we always come back to, what of the guy who doesn't accept your definition of harming another? NAMBLA argues that age of consent laws are discriminatory and un-needed. How do you punish a guy who likes to get "consent" from 10 year olds to engage in conduct with him that current law says only those over 18 can consent to? Who is to say that 10 is too young? Or maybe 12 or 15? Lots of historic and cultural precedence for those being ages of consent.

    Sorry, but when 5 close friends can't typically agree on what pizza to order, a nation of 320 million persons cannot function expecting unanimous consent from every miscreant as to what constitutes harm to another. I'd bet at least 10 million of those persons actually don't recognize your right to property at. A small number have cultural/ethnic reasons for this (eg some AmerIndians, some Polynesians, etc). Many are just over socialists/communists/Marxists. Some are just run-o'-the-mill criminals who just feel entitled to take whatever they want.

    Your hammer is causing every situation to look too much like a nail, Citizen.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  11. #11
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,887
    Quote Originally Posted by utbagpiper View Post
    The guy is clearly lacking in integrity.

    But really? You expect a judge--or any functional society--to get agreement from an accused murderer as to the trial and potential punishment? ROFLMAO!

    I know, I know, murderers have actually harmed someone and so can be punished without their agreement.

    But as we always come back to, what of the guy who doesn't accept your definition of harming another? NAMBLA argues that age of consent laws are discriminatory and un-needed. How do you punish a guy who likes to get "consent" from 10 year olds to engage in conduct with him that current law says only those over 18 can consent to? Who is to say that 10 is too young? Or maybe 12 or 15? Lots of historic and cultural precedence for those being ages of consent.

    Sorry, but when 5 close friends can't typically agree on what pizza to order, a nation of 320 million persons cannot function expecting unanimous consent from every miscreant as to what constitutes harm to another. I'd bet at least 10 million of those persons actually don't recognize your right to property at. A small number have cultural/ethnic reasons for this (eg some AmerIndians, some Polynesians, etc). Many are just over socialists/communists/Marxists. Some are just run-o'-the-mill criminals who just feel entitled to take whatever they want.

    Your hammer is causing every situation to look too much like a nail, Citizen.

    Charles
    sorry mate, your shock and awe tactic is ludicrus to mention, quote: The North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) is a pedophile and pederasty advocacy organization in the United States. It works to abolish age-of-consent laws criminalizing adult sexual involvement with minors[2][3] and campaigns for the release of men who have been jailed for sexual contacts with minors that did not involve coercion. unquote. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_...ve_Association).

    it is especially poignant when you consider the Church of Latter Day Saints practiced plural marrage, quote: In accordance with a revelation to Joseph Smith, the practice of plural marriage—the marriage of one man to two or more women—was instituted among members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the early 1840s. Thereafter, for more than half a century, plural marriage was practiced by some Latter-day Saints.unquote

    it is even more regretful when you consider it is still practiced today by a LDS Fundamentalists whose leader Warren Jeffs was found guilty of sexual assault and aggravated sexual assault of both 12- and 15-year-old girls in 2008. unquote

    your latest tirade states we can't agree on when harm is caused to another within our society...darn i guess Moses' presenting of the stone tablets as outlined in Exodus and then apparently since folk didn't take the hint...brought the subject up again in Deuteronomy, (The Book of Mosiah Chapter 13). dogma that was laid out seems quite clear on about harming another.

    if that doesn't work.. mate your specific attention is directed to Primary 3, Lesson 44 which articulates harm to another quite nicely!!

    ipse
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  12. #12
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by solus View Post
    sorry mate, your shock and awe tactic is ludicrus to mention, quote: The North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) is a pedophile and pederasty advocacy organization in the United States. It works to abolish age-of-consent laws criminalizing adult sexual involvement with minors[2][3] and campaigns for the release of men who have been jailed for sexual contacts with minors that did not involve coercion. unquote. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_...ve_Association).

    it is especially poignant when you consider the Church of Latter Day Saints practiced plural marrage, quote: In accordance with a revelation to Joseph Smith, the practice of plural marriage—the marriage of one man to two or more women—was instituted among members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the early 1840s. Thereafter, for more than half a century, plural marriage was practiced by some Latter-day Saints.unquote

    it is even more regretful when you consider it is still practiced today by a LDS Fundamentalists whose leader Warren Jeffs was found guilty of sexual assault and aggravated sexual assault of both 12- and 15-year-old girls in 2008. unquote

    your latest tirade states we can't agree on when harm is caused to another within our society...darn i guess Moses' presenting of the stone tablets as outlined in Exodus and then apparently since folk didn't take the hint...brought the subject up again in Deuteronomy, (The Book of Mosiah Chapter 13). dogma that was laid out seems quite clear on about harming another.

    if that doesn't work.. mate your specific attention is directed to Primary 3, Lesson 44 which articulates harm to another quite nicely!!

    ipse
    What's wrong with polygamy? Where does the state get the authority to regulate marriage in the first place?

    Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  13. #13
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,887
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    What's wrong with polygamy? Where does the state get the authority to regulate marriage in the first place?

    Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
    i have nothing wrong w/polygamy, per se...

    however, to minors aged 12 & 15 year olds, might be where i draw the line...

    ipse
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,166

    Muslims Demand Polygamy in Response to Same Sex Unions

    The founder of the Union of Islamic Communities and Organisations (UCOII) in Italy took to Facebook to claim polygamy is a “civil right” and that Italy would benefit from the large number of Muslim births it would promote.

    The UCOII president wrote: “When it comes to civil rights here, then polygamy is a civil right. Muslims do not agree with homosexual partnerships, and yet they have to accept a system that allows it. There is no reason why Italy should not accept polygamous marriages of consenting persons.”

    http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016...mand-polygamy/
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  15. #15
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by solus View Post
    i have nothing wrong w/polygamy, per se...

    however, to minors aged 12 & 15 year olds, might be where i draw the line...

    ipse
    Not advocating, just devil's advocate. So, back in years, 12 and 15 were legal. Not saying it is right wrong or what not. It just seems that our 18 year olds today are less mature than the 14 year olds from the olden days.

    Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  16. #16
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,739
    I know a lot of so called adults that are adults only because of their age. Their mentality is and will remain childish.

  17. #17
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    Not advocating, just devil's advocate. So, back in years, 12 and 15 were legal. Not saying it is right wrong or what not. It just seems that our 18 year olds today are less mature than the 14 year olds from the olden days.
    As is common, himself alone is so anxious to attack me and my religion that he entirely misses the point of my post. You, OTOH, seem to have caught it completely.

    Most today are rightly aghast at the idea of 12 or 15 year olds having sex with "adults". We presume--quite correctly, I think, in modern cases--that the adult has manipulated the adolescent / child into a one-sided situation solely for the gratification of the adult.

    And yet, historic cases are something different. Jewish law sets the minimum marriage age for girls at either 12 years (13 years for boys with a recommended age of somewhere between 16 and 24) or 12 years six months depending on your source. Christian tradition holds that Mary was about 14 years old when she married Joseph who is often believed to have been much older (35 to ??). Many Hispanic cultures celebrate La Quinceañera celebrating a girl's transition from child to eligible young woman at 15 years of age.

    Today, we know that brain development doesn't really complete until about age 25. But historically, age was a number and what mattered was demonstrated ability and physical development. An 18 year old Millennial who has been molly-coddled his/her whole life, and given participation trophies just for showing up, and whose biggest challenge in life is being offended by lack of a safe space cannot be compared to a 19th century 15 year old who had primary care for her 5 younger siblings since she was 10 because her mom died in childbirth with the youngest. Even early 20th century rural areas were very different than what most folks today can imagine.

    My paternal grandmother was working full time as a nanny and housekeeper when she was 12 years old. My paternal grandfather always felt he lacked education because he had to drop out of school after 6th grade (about 12 or 13 years old) to go to work full time to help support the family. Notably, with his 6th grade education he went on to run his own farm, build his own, modern home with plumbing and electricity with his own hands, to run his own store in a day when the only calculation aids were a tax table from the State and a 10-key manual adding machine, to serve as postmaster for his town, and to otherwise be not only fully self-sufficient, but a leading member of his community. My maternal grandfather was 10 or younger when he spent most of the summer (weeks at a time) alone on the mountain, tending the family's sheep herd.

    Though none of these persons married young--in fact fairly old for their generations--by 18 they had been successfully demonstrating the responsibilities of adulthood for several years. This contrasts rather starkly with many of today's 25 year olds who have never demonstrated any significant characteristics of real adulthood beyond simply needing to shave or being sexually active (outside of marriage). Children can now stay on their parents' health insurance until the "kids" are 26 years old.

    Back to my main point: There are many areas where a rational argument can be made for very different laws (or social standards or mores) than we currently have. Based on best science, maybe age of majority and consent should be raised to 25 years. Based on historic and cultural traditions and practices, onset of puberty at 12 or 13 or 15 has long been the eligible age for (women, at least) marriage and all that goes with that.

    Thus, the notion of individual agreement with ever limitation on conduct is not possible. NAMBLA wants to twiddle little kids, no doubt. But they can make a very rational argument, with lots of cross cultural and historic precedence, that 12 year olds should be allowed to consent if they want to. Certainly, given the option, no member of NAMBLA is going to agree to be bound to age of consent or other laws that prohibit adults from having sexual relations with 12 year olds. With a little effort, one can probably find cultures where sexual abuse of children is roundly condemned, but where typical marriage ages are much younger than most here would be comfortable with.

    As another example, remember that in frontier America, horse thieving was a hanging offense. But for many AmerIndians, horse theft was a perfectly honorable way to acquire horses.

    Some on this very forum claim a right to shoot people for simple trespass on their land. Yet both AmerIndian as well as Jefferson's writings on holding land in usufruct provide very different concepts of property rights regarding land than that which would support shooting a peaceful person simply for walking across land "owned" (but mostly "unused") by another.

    Utah has a fairly significant Polynesian population. Many an Anglo girl who marries into that culture comes to learn that the notation of "family" is much larger than she imagined (everyone is a "cousin"), and her concept of "private property" is much more rigid than that of the culture into which she has married. This is all well and good so long as the "sharing" is all voluntary and among those who share common values. It becomes problematic if someone "borrows" something from a neighbor who isn't part of the culture and isn't really so happy about "sharing".

    Simply put, despite some provincial and parochial beliefs to the contrary, a lot of what many consider to be "universal values" are not at all universal. The anarchist concept of individual consent to every act of government being required for that act to be legitimate has a nice ring to it. A very rational case can be made. Any disagreement can be easily painted as supportive of unlimited government power over peaceable citizens and every man oppressing his neighbor. But in practice it becomes obvious that once you have any degree of diversity in society, any plurality of views and values, the concept of individual consent is unworkable.

    Criminal scum and deviants can make a rational, historic, or other intellectually compelling case for all kinds of offensive conduct not actually imposing "harm" on others. Men of honest good will have honest, but intractable differences of opinion on what conduct is acceptable and what is not.

    Our form of government is far from perfect. But it does a workable job of arbitrating differences and arriving at laws that most people can live with, most of the time.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  18. #18
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    The founder of the Union of Islamic Communities and Organisations (UCOII) in Italy took to Facebook to claim polygamy is a “civil right” and that Italy would benefit from the large number of Muslim births it would promote.

    The UCOII president wrote: “When it comes to civil rights here, then polygamy is a civil right. Muslims do not agree with homosexual partnerships, and yet they have to accept a system that allows it. There is no reason why Italy should not accept polygamous marriages of consenting persons.”
    I have zero desire for more than the one wife I have. I respect and honor my forebears who practiced polygamy as a tenet of their religion, oft-times in the face of grave persecution. Through family history and the history of the culture of which I am a part, I have, perhaps, a greater understanding of the challenges they faced in those marriages than do many others. And because of that, I have zero desire for more than the one wife I have.

    But I also find it most interesting that among the strongest advocates for legal benefits for homosexual relationships are many of the strongest opponents to just dropping current criminal penalties for adults involved in consensual polygamous relationships. Usually it is just the men who face criminal sanctions, the women being presumed to be victims.

    Notably, the 1856 GOP national platform refers to slavery and polygamy as the twin relics of "barbarism". That word derives from the Greek barbarous) (through Latin to old French) meaning "foreign". I have to wonder if, in 1856, it did not also invoke images of the "Barbary Coast" with its "Barbary Pirates" and "Barbary Slave Traders."

    When, in 2013, federal judge Clark Waddoups struck down some key provisions of Utah's criminal statute against consenting adults "cohabitating" in polygamous relationships (he did not strike down the anti-bigamy statute) he gave an extensive expose of the extent to which "anti-orientalism" (bigotry against the culture and peoples of both the Far and Middle East) had been the motivating factor behind those laws.

    It seems Islamic polygamy has been of concern to Western cultures for quite a while.

    Charles
    Last edited by utbagpiper; 08-09-2016 at 01:29 PM.
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,166
    Laws, ethics and morals are fences on the slippery slope to catch the unleashed unrestrained. When the laws are graven in our hearts then there is no law breaking, no sin.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  20. #20
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,887
    mate, i am not sure about your new fascination with NAMBLA but as stated is not germane.

    FYI, a study (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11726068) by researchers found, quote: The authors stated their goal was to determine whether CSA (child sexual abuse) caused pervasive, significant psychological harm for both males and females, controversially concluding that the harm caused by child sexual abuse was not necessarily intense or pervasive, that the prevailing construct of CSA was not scientifically valid, as it failed empirical verification, and that the psychological damage caused by the abusive encounters depends on other factors such as the degree of coercion or force involved. unquote. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rind_et_al._controversy

    the study was duplicated in Australia and in the US and the results were similar.

    an aside mate, thanks as i have missed your insults of late, tho you might begin to develop new terminology...

    semi-nice transition to Jewish law and hispanic female adulthood celebrations and diverting away from today's Fundamentalist LDS practitioners

    ipse
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  21. #21
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    Laws, ethics and morals are fences on the slippery slope to catch the unleashed unrestrained. When the laws are graven in our hearts then there is no law breaking, no sin.
    Fully agreed. But one might also add "manners" to your list of "laws, ethics, and morals." A man who truly and fully loves God, and his neighbor as himself, will need very few external constraints on his behavior as he is not inclined to do anyone any harm. He will also be patient and kind even toward those who may be annoying or ignorant.

    There are far too many without any portion of the law in their hearts. Too many who proclaim they have the law in their hearts, are far from perfect. I do not believe a man can have the law of God truly in his heart, and then be unkind, impatient, or uncivil toward another.

    Then, there are laws that have no moral component other than simply a common agreement and understanding. I can find no moral difference between driving on the left side of the road vs the right side. But there is great advantage in picking one side or the other in a given area and then everyone driving on that side of the road, with some degree of penalty for those who decide to do their own thing.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  22. #22
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,887
    Quote Originally Posted by utbagpiper View Post
    Fully agreed. But one might also add "manners" to your list of "laws, ethics, and morals." A man who truly and fully loves God, and his neighbor as himself, will need very few external constraints on his behavior as he is not inclined to do anyone any harm. He will also be patient and kind even toward those who may be annoying or ignorant.

    There are far too many without any portion of the law in their hearts. Too many who proclaim they have the law in their hearts, are far from perfect. I do not believe a man can have the law of God truly in his heart, and then be unkind, impatient, or uncivil toward another.

    Then, there are laws that have no moral component other than simply a common agreement and understanding. I can find no moral difference between driving on the left side of the road vs the right side. But there is great advantage in picking one side or the other in a given area and then everyone driving on that side of the road, with some degree of penalty for those who decide to do their own thing.

    Charles
    alḥamdulillāh

    שבח יהוה

    ipse
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,166
    Quote Originally Posted by solus View Post
    alḥamdulillāh, שבח יהוה
    Hallelujah, Praise be to God. Hallelujah.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  24. #24
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,887
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    Hallelujah, Praise be to God. Hallelujah.
    somehow, i just knew you were in the choir box already...

    ipse
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,166
    Quote Originally Posted by solus View Post
    somehow, i just knew you were in the choir box already. ipse
    I have been studying and enjoying the similarities and parallels among Christian English, Yiddish/Hebrew and Arabic, all saying the same blessings in their similar languages.

    A principle is to be able to politely greet any of our visitors, and here easily a third are Indian, so I can Namaste in Paranamasana and have some understanding of acknowledging the blessing in all. In Church, when we Share Peace I will Namaste in Paranamasana to my neighbors too distant to touch.

    When our Pastor was newly arrived I teased him that he prayed in Paranamasana - a formal Yogic pose of hands pressed together with wrists bent perpendicular at mid-chest heart.

    And I can say Shalom Aleichem knowingly.

    When our recent ... Namaste-ed with other than peace in his heart, that was enough.
    Last edited by Nightmare; 08-09-2016 at 06:23 PM.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •