I’m reading around the ‘net and people touting various candidates say their candidate supports the Constitution. OK. It is good PR. But there is a test. Say to them:
“I never noticed a Prohibition Amendment. Except for Alcohol.”
So when a candidate supporter says “my candidate supports the Constitution” check them on it. Ask: “Where is the Drug Prohibition Amendment?”
Funny thing is that a commenter decrying my effort to elevate the Drug Prohibition issue stated the Tea Party Manifesto which is (approximately):
So my friend. Where is the Drug Prohibition Amendment? If we don’t have one then the Federal Government’s institution of such a program is a usurpation of power. Funny how few notice these things.
Cross Posted at Power and Control
Comments
13 responses to “Supports The Constitution”
Now you are making sense.
Good for you. My point exactly.
jb,
Thanks!
I still got to ask you jb, “Why are the churches missing in action an this one?”
The dog that didn’t bark so to speak. Maybe for the same reason. They are closely involved with the perpetrator. If you have a better idea I’d like to hear it.
The Drug War is at its core a spiritual question (given the current state of knowledge – PTSD etc). Why are our so called moral betters almost totally MIA?
We should (and that goes for you jb and newrouter too) embarrass them on the question. Teach them the current state of knowledge (I can help) and then ask them to speak out. If you don’t want to have a personal interaction write posts and comments.
You can start with this:
Heroin
And this stat: 70% of female heroin users were sexually abused as children.
And then ask: “Is it moral to persecute these women?”
So we have a moral AND a Constitutional question.
Churches are MIA on the WOD simply because the last 2-3 generations of church-goers like the laws that criminalize recreational drugs.
They think the current drug laws make it much easier for their children to stay away from the temptations of drug use, something many find sinful. They’ve convinced themselves that they are doing drug users a favor by siccing the law on them. Also, the current drug laws set up a situation where Christian parents can tell their children that drug use is not only displeasing to God and sinful, it’s also against the law!
Many Christians see the punishing of sinners as a good thing as it will help steer their children stay away from sin. Better that some random sinner get punished in the here and now if it will help keep me and mine on the narrower road one must travel to get to heaven.
Standard libertarian disclaimer. When talking about sin in the context above, I’m referring to what Christians call “vice”, and not real criminality.
Randy—
You need to get over yourself.
Where do you come up with such conclusive actions by Christians and Christian parents?
You blindly, and without the first statistic, make accusations left and right, assumptions to bolster your non-argument, and then grimly shake your head as you pronounce judgment on us all.
I’m thinking, personally (no proof, mind you, but then, that is your MO), that you ought to toke just a tad less and do some research into matters about which you so boldly assert your certainties.
Simon . . .
You are speaking to an issue that has polarized the church and politics. When the liberals in the church initiated and carried out the agenda for the social gospel, conservatives went nuts. When evangelicals reacted and backed conservatives, the left went nuts.
The Church, which I am sure will soon be blamed for roaches and mosquitoes, is not of this world. For my part, I detest politics, because politics has proven singularly that it can succeed only at taxes and war. There is nothing in history that can say otherwise.
Some will jump up and point to all the advances in civilization. Well, sure, because some individuals and groups decided to work around gummint and those who try to tell others what to do and went and did what they knew was right and good and proper. They helped out those who needed help along the way.
And it is there you will find the ongoing and constant witness of Christians in the world. Charities, hospitals, orphanages, shelters in the inner cities, food drives—countless little things no one notices unless they notice what the Church does.
I understand what your point is on the War on Drugs. But the Church did not start it, they do not fund it, and they gain no profit from it, and as the recent matters with cartels and gun running and drugs over the border make clear, the whole thing is a scam run from deep within gummint, which I abhor.
The Church gets blamed no matter what stance it takes. I suppose that is the nature of the political game—when the politicians and their supporters see their policies fail so spectacularly, a scape-goat is needed.
They never think to blame themselves. The War on Drugs was invented by Nixon, and has been a financial and political hobby-horse for politicians ever since.
You might as well blame the Church for roaches and mosquitoes if you are going to blame it for the War on Drugs. Set aside your disdain for the “organized” church as you put it, and be objective. You cannot take what is, at best, a passive support/reluctance, turn it into a virulent support of something, and then play it back over against a given group.
That’s what politicians do constantly.
Thinking men delve deeper for answers.
“I got nuthin’” is 473 fewer words than jb used to say the same thing
Rustbelt
Go start your own site and try to be important all by yourself.
And you are right . . .
You have nothing. That proves you have something to build upon. 🙂
Simon . . .
I might add . . .
Melson just got his ass canned. Of course, Holder and the Bammster are still holding the reins of the drug war and the cartels and the gun-running.
As I said, in war, shoot at the right foe.
Fragging is not helpful.
But the Church did not start it,
Evidently you are unaware of the involvement of Billy Sunday in alcohol prohibition. And that movement was part and parcel of the Drug Prohibition movement.
As with slavery, Alcohol Prohibition is a mixed bag. Some for, some against. Roughly – Evangelicals and Methodists for, Catholics against.
But I would expect a fairly strong division on unsettled moral questions.
The Drug Prohibition case has been unsettled by new information (see heroin link above) and yet the moral question is not being looked at again in light of this new information.
So why aren’t any of the dogs barking? The UU is objecting on libertarian grounds. The Reform Jews say: you can’t deny people (with regular problems) medicine.
Not one single church org is saying: “we must stop punishing the afflicted”.
The most total moral abdication I have seen in my lifetime (I was too young to see the German horrors – just read about them).
In time all this will be obvious. And the Church will suffer for its unwillingness to go to the mat for sinners.
All our “elites” are failing us. Our economic elites. Our moral elites. So far we are lucky that our engineers remain relatively uncorrupted.
jb,
The people I’m fragging are not in the fight. No great loss. Maybe a few explosions their midst will wake them up.
Think of me as a fire and brimstone preacher. REPENT. Before your judgment day.
I still don’t get why the church is not standing for the afflicted. The medical profession has already quietly done a 180 (in about 3 to 5 years – pretty fast). Church people interact with the medical people all the time. And yet the Church remains untouched by this question.
That leads to one of two obvious choices:
1. They are morally deficient
2. They are corrupt
Neither option is going to look good on their resume.
JB
Oh please. I’m not trying to play sociologist in my posts. I’ve merely posted my thoughts as to why, IMO, Christians miss the mark on this and other personal behavior issues, both in the here and now and over the centuries.
I will spell it out for you one more time, a bit differently this time. And this time, do try to keep up.
My assertions (standard libertarian disclaimers apply):
1) Buying, selling and consuming drugs are peaceable acts.
2)Peaceable acts, by definition are not crimes.
3)Laws that criminalize peaceable acts are immoral because they bring violence or the threat of violence to bear against people engaging in peaceful activities.
4)As far as I can tell (YMMV JB), a sizable majority of Christians support these laws. IOW, IMO they support the immoral use of violence (or threat thereof) against peaceable people.
5) Number 4 above doesn’t seem very Christian/Christ-like to me (YMMV JB).
6) In an effort to explain why folks that see themselves as a force for good in the world can sanction evil, I’ve posted criticisms of Christianity in an effort to bring said un-Christ-like behavior out in the open. (BTW, the failure for Christianity here is not living up to the Golden Rule, FYI).
7) JB bitches at me because I don’t have a precise citeable peer reviewed number for # 4, even though “crickets” best describes the amount of noise being made by official church pronouncements on reforming the drug laws.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Christians, among others, have helped pave that road with their political support for immoral drug laws. Sorry dude.
And whether you believe it or not, I don’t take pleasure in stating this.
I eagerly await your next non-response.
Cheers.
As Simon has asked, were are the mainstream Christian voices speaking out against the WOD, particularly church leaders? Sure there are individual Christians that speak out, but I’m not aware of any major Christian denomination that’s taken an official stance against the
Oops! Meant to delete that last paragraph. My bad.
[…] Supports the Constitution? Here's a test. […]