I don't know a guy on National Television that expresses his Opinion more than that of the 700 Club's Pat Robertson.  Now personally I like the guy. He's very moral and realizes that the world is often shades of gray but somethings are still black and white.  He is extremely moral and stands for nothing Satanic or evil even in the least bit. He's a man of God and he's not afraid to show it. He can often be biased but on the other hand, that's a good thing cause it shows strength in what he believes in. He can be stubborn and he isn't afraid to tell people what he thinks about them.

Well I like the guy....sorta like Howard Cusell but he deals with Politics and issues more than he does sports.

What do you guys think of the ever so Liberated Pat Robertson?

If you like Pat, you won't like what I've got say...
DON'T GET ME STARTED!
:-X

Manohmanohman. You gotta be kidding.

Am I joking as in this post? No
Am I joking as in I like the guy? No

I consider him to be a person that talks about the current issues and politics all the time.  And that's what this part of the message boards are all about.......so? where did I go wrong?

and I know that not everyone is going to like Pat Robertson.  Believe me....way different thing here....but everyone is a fan of Kurt Angle BUT me.

I don't mind him, but I haven't watched him enough to develop any deeper opinions of the guy. 

I don't know a guy on National Television that expresses his Opinion more than that of the 700 Club's Pat Robertson.  Now personally I like the guy. He's very moral and realizes that the world is often shades of gray but somethings are still black and white.  He is extremely moral and stands for nothing Satanic or evil even in the least bit. He's a man of God and he's not afraid to show it.

What do you guys think of the ever so Liberated Pat Robertson?


Well, Harmonica, what do you think of former Liberian Dictator and indicted war criminal Charles Taylor?

Messrs. Robertson and Taylor worked together on a gold mining project in Liberia before Taylor's unceremonial ouster.  And it has now come out that Taylor was helping Al Qaeda agents to launder money through diamond trades in his country.

Taylor was indicted for war crimes performed under his direction in neighboring Sierra Leone, where he financed rebels there, who were mainly motivated to fight as a way to loot that country's diamond resources.

Robertson and Taylor were more than business associates.  Robertson has come out in public to decry the war crimes indictment of this "Baptist Christian President".

While Robertson often attempted to minimize the connection of his gold mining venture to Charles Taylor, once it was clear that Taylor would not last in Liberia, Robertson's point man in the project abruptly resigned.

In the past Robertson has come out in favor of Third-World despots such as the Congo's Mobutu, and El Salvador’s Roberto D’ Aubuisson, head of an extremely right-wing faction that had a nasty habit of eliminating opponents, including an archbishop.  He was cozy with Mobutu because he was trying to get a diamond-mining business going in the Congo.

Diamond mining in Africa is a dirty, deadly business, and Mr. Robertson has connections to it through his close friends who also happen to be (or were) ruthless, bloodthirsty dictators.

So what do I think of Robertson?  Just look at who his friends are and you can guess what I think of him.

LyricBoy and I don't usually agree, but we agree on Pat Robertson.  Incidentally, he is no longer a "reverend."  He gave up his ordination when he ran for president in 1988.

LyricBoy mentions his connections with former Liberian dictator Charles Taylor, gold, and diamond mining.

Robertson, in the most flagrant and vulgar ways, has always been most passionate about amassing a financial fortune via televangelism, media-moguling, marketing ventures, and gold and diamond mining than he has been with Christianity.  For Robertson, the Christian faith is merely a means of political influence and financial gain. 

The Bible makes it perfectly clear, you cannot love God and Mammon at the same time.  It's obvious Pat made his choice for Mammon, but God is a much better marketing tool.

Here is a column by my favorite investigative reporter, Greg Palast.  This one does go back five years, so it doesn't mention Robertson's most recent exploits...but it mentions enough to give you a fine idea of the operations of Mr. Robertson.

http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=49&row=1

Though he doesn't mention it in the article, Palast did spend some time with Robertson.  He was even on Robertson's jet for a voyage to Africa.  Before departing Robertson instructed all aboard to pray...for diamonds!

Robertson's father was a wealthy Virginia senator, so Pat (whose real name is Marion) was born with silver cross in his mouth and great political connections.

Seems we have a multi-partisan view of Pat.  AND... there are people who are not fans of Kurt Angle,as a matter of fact there are those of us who didn't have an idea as to who he was until  we googled him.  ???

well for one I didn't exspect anyone to know anything about Kurt Angle..

and for 2 I learned somethings about Mr. Robertson that I didn't know, today while reading what lyricboy and MaxwellSmart had to say about him.

I can see using God as a marketing tool.

Are their any real good people out their?  It makes me wonder.

Are their any real good people out their?  It makes me wonder.


There are. Just don't expect to find the good in money grubbing televangelists like that a$$flap Robertson. :)

Max, me and Lyricboy agreeing?  The sky must be falling  ;)  Pat Robertson is DIRTY, DIRTY, DIRTY. 

Max, me and Lyricboy agreeing?  The sky must be falling  ;)  Pat Robertson is DIRTY, DIRTY, DIRTY. 


Yeah, this is bad news Don Carlos.  I wouldn't be surprised to see the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse show up any minute now, now that we have agreed on something.  ;D

I personally know one of the "gentlemen" who went to work in the mining ventures and when you read the P.R. that Robertson's people put out on this guy it sounded like he was some sort of engineering expert with great experience.  In fact, the guy was a lower-middle-management pencil pusher who had been passed over for promotion at my company so many times he had skid marks on his chest.  He left our company after I, ahem, "arranged" for him to get some REAL responsibility assigned to him and he didn't like it.  Figured I did our company a good service there!

:P

Yeah, this is bad news Don Carlos.  I wouldn't be surprised to see the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse show up any minute now, now that we have agreed on something.  ;D




Just shows to go ya.

Max, me and Lyricboy agreeing?  The sky must be falling  ;)  Pat Robertson is DIRTY, DIRTY, DIRTY. 


What?  I don't count?  Is it because I'm just a girl?  I'm gonna tell Cat you dissed me. >:(

                                        CAT!!!!!!!!!!!

I like Pat Robertson too. But I don't agree with some of his ideas. He can push his agenda a little too far. And his association with politics has dimmed his religious opinions. I don't believe that anything he says will come to fruition any time soon. Now Jerry Fallwell is someone I don't care about. ::)

I like Pat Robertson too. But I don't agree with some of his ideas. He can push his agenda a little too far. And his association with politics has dimmed his religious opinions. I don't believe that anything he says will come to fruition any time soon. Now Jerry Fallwell is someone I don't care about. ::)


The biggest problem that I have with Robertson is interjecting himself into GENERAL POLITICS as a religious "leader" (not sure who exactly he is leading, but OK).  I feel similarly about the "reverend" Jesse Jackson.

I have no problem with religious figures getting involved with individual issues (abortion, race rights, etc) but when a "reverend" interjects himself into generalize anti-Repub or anti-Dem partisan BS, I have no interest in it whatsoever.  Goes for "conservative" as well as "liberal" ministers.

As for Falwell, I think he seriously needs to get a sense of humour.  What a complete waste of time and money when he tried to sue Larry Flynt over that satire article.

Are their any real good people out their?  It makes me wonder.

Of course there are.  I'll bet you're one of them.  The good people are more likely to be the ones you find down the road at your local churches than the ones hobnobbing with pundits and politicos on television.
It's too bad that Robertson gets a bully pulpit in which to preach "Christianity" to the world.  It's similar to the trouble with the aforementioned Jerry Falwell, and Graham & son, about whom there is another thread, or the Rev. Ian Paisley of Ulster (is he still around?).
Robertson's avarice and mendacity is more blatant than any of the others I've seen.  I get the sense that the Grahams and Falwell, corrupted though they are, hold sincere religious convictions.  Robertson seems like a total phony, a political operative and business mogul using faith as a ruse.

Speaking of Falwell and Flynt.  The libel case Falwell brought against Larry Flynt has become a landmark case, standard in basic law textbooks.  It generates great First Amendment discussions.  When I took "Journalism and the Law" in college, my professor, a very straightforward woman, explained, "For those of you not familiar with Hustler, '@ssh*le of the Month' is a regular feature..."
Falwell had enough money and power to push the case forward, but he is a very public figure, and Hustler DID print clearly, "Ad parody.  Not to be taken seriously." 
If you saw "The People vs. Larry Flynt," you know it was a spoof on the Campari ads in which celebrites talked about their "first time"...the hook being their drinking Campari Liqueur.  The Hustler spoof had Falwell discussing conjugal relations with his mother in an outhouse.
Here is a link to that ad, but I warn you, it's tasteless.
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/campari.jpg

The People vs. Larry Flynt is basically factual about the case, but it portrays Flynt as a big entrepeneur and First Amendment crusader.  Well, he was both, but he was also a total scumbag.  The movie does not fairly portray Flynt's scumbaggery.

What?  I don't count?  Is it because I'm just a girl?  I'm gonna tell Cat you dissed me. >:(

                                        CAT!!!!!!!!!!!



LMAO-yeah, I got him for you. (And he enjoyed every minute of it.  ;) )




Cat

        Sisterhood is powerful.  ::)

Hey, how come your the Cat, but he's the one who's purring?  Don't feel it necessary to answer. ;)

         Sisterhood is powerful.  ::)

Hey, how come your the Cat, but he's the one who's purring?  Don't feel it necessary to answer. ;)



ROTFLMAO!!!



Cat

ROTFLMAO!!!



Cat


I'm 53, I'm out way out of the loop, please help, what is ROTFLMAO

I'm 53, I'm out way out of the loop, please help, what is ROTFLMAO



Rolling On The Floor Laughing My A$$ Off    ;)




Cat

Rolling On The Floor Laughing My A$$ Off    ;)




Cat


ROTFLMFAOAPIMP  ;D

ROTFLMFAOAPIMP  ;D


OOOHHHHH MANNNN,  there you guys go doing it again

Don't feel bad, I'm only 33 and for the longest time, I didn't know what that meant either.  Here's a hint...The second F is a "type" of A$$, and the last 4 letters are what you might do if you ROTFLMAO (that is, if you don't make it to the potty in time ;))


OHHHHHHHHHH,  I get it ::) ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Doonata, Cheers, I have been duely reprimanded, upbraided, dressed down, and beated within an inch of my life with a wet noodle.  I humbly appologize for me unforgivable ommission.  Please forgive me.  No slight was intended,I assure you.  And the purring was part of my penatance (and Cat purred too  ;))

Doonata, Cheers, I have been duely reprimanded, upbraided, dressed down, and beated within an inch of my life with a wet noodle.  I humbly appologize for me unforgivable ommission.  Please forgive me.  No slight was intended,I assure you.  And the purring was part of my penatance (and Cat purred too  ;))


See what kind of trouble you get into when you agree with me?

Heh heh...  ;D

See what kind of trouble you get into when you agree with me?

Heh heh...   ;D


I'll keep that in mind  ;)

Glad to see that you have a sense of humor  ;D

Wish other conservatives did.

  One thing Bush and Robertson have in common with the terrorists - They all get their orders from God, or some-such.

  The problem, however, is Robertson's influence. Pat Robertson isn't a preacher at a local church; he's a right-wing politician with a fair-sized following.

  So at the outset, that's how many votes in Bush's pocket?

  How many folks under Robertson's influence will vote for Bush before they even listen to a Democrat? (P.J. O'Rourke, in Modern Manners, wrote that his grandmother would not speak the word, "Democrat," in front of children, preferring, "bastards," instead. A different day, admittedly, but still worth its weight in a cheap smile.)

   One thing Bush and Robertson have in common with the terrorists - They all get their orders from God, or some-such.

   The problem, however, is Robertson's influence. Pat Robertson isn't a preacher at a local church; he's a right-wing politician with a fair-sized following.

   So at the outset, that's how many votes in Bush's pocket?

   How many folks under Robertson's influence will vote for Bush before they even listen to a Democrat? (P.J. O'Rourke, in Modern Manners, wrote that his grandmother would not speak the word, "Democrat," in front of children, preferring, "bastards," instead. A different day, admittedly, but still worth its weight in a cheap smile.)

I wish P.J. O'Rourke would fall off the face of the Earth, and take Dennis Miller with him!
:P

   One thing Bush and Robertson have in common with the terrorists - They all get their orders from God, or some-such.



Fair enough, but many of their most vociferous opponents worship at the altar of the Politically Correct, whose ideology is that freedom of speech does not apply to non-minority or religious groups, and that the pockets of the wealthy are there for the looting by government.

Or, there are opponents like Kerry who profess to be devout Catholics, then aggressively pursue and promote policies that are diametrically opposed to his so-called "beliefs".

By the way... I have absolutely no problem with someone promoting political causes that run counter to Catholic faith, and I have no problem with Catholic officials who must enforce or go along with established laws that are against their faith in the course of following "The Rule of Law".  However, professed Catholics who say they believe one thing, then PROMOTE and ADVOCATE the opposite are hypocrites, plain and simple.  And a hypocrite is what John Kerry is on the issues of abortion and stem cell research.

A non-Catholic or an athiest, for example, can promote abortion and stem cell research and still have my respect because they are not being hypocrites about it.

Fair enough, but many of their most vociferous opponents worship at the altar of the Politically Correct, whose ideology is that freedom of speech does not apply to non-minority or religious groups, and that the pockets of the wealthy are there for the looting by government.
The REAL altar of Political Correctness today is that of the right-wing.  Some have called it "patrotically correct."  They're the ones that want to snoop into everybody else's business.  The passe "political correctness" found on university campuses is a phenomenon I don't like, but it's a paper tiger.  It has been roundly discredited.  The only ones who buy into it are campus conservatives whose capacity for self-pity knows no bounds.

Or, there are opponents like Kerry who profess to be devout Catholics, then aggressively pursue and promote policies that are diametrically opposed to his so-called "beliefs".

By the way... I have absolutely no problem with someone promoting political causes that run counter to Catholic faith, and I have no problem with Catholic officials who must enforce or go along with established laws that are against their faith in the course of following "The Rule of Law".  However, professed Catholics who say they believe one thing, then PROMOTE and ADVOCATE the opposite are hypocrites, plain and simple.  And a hypocrite is what John Kerry is on the issues of abortion and stem cell research.
I never heard Kerry advocate abortion, I've only heard him say it shouldn't be outlawed.  Stem cell research does not necessarily mean use of fetal or embryonic stem cells.  Anyway, we don't live in a theocracy.  A politician can support Roe v. Wade and stem cell research without forfeiting his or her religious convictions.  George W. Bush supports all kinds of policies contrary to Christian doctrine.

I never heard Kerry advocate abortion, I've only heard him say it shouldn't be outlawed.  Stem cell research does not necessarily mean use of fetal or embryonic stem cells.  Anyway, we don't live in a theocracy.  A politician can support Roe v. Wade and stem cell research without forfeiting his or her religious convictions.  George W. Bush supports all kinds of policies contrary to Christian doctrine.



Bush only banned funding on EMBRYONIC stem cell research.  Private researchers can still do what they wish with Embryonic stem research.  Government can fund all but Embryonic.

Kerry OFTEN and VOCIFEROUSLY talks of his "fight to preserve abortion rights" and the "need for stem cell research".  Both abortion and EMBRYONIC stem cell work are completely against Catholic doctrine.

If Kerry was saying "hey, we have to enforce the law of abortion rights", I would have no beef with him.  There are abortion rights laws out there, and we must live by the rule of law, as long as those laws are on the books.  But when he talks of his fight to PRESERVE and EXTEND those rights, he has entered into PROMOTION of legalized abortion, which is against the religion he openly and often professes to hold.  Ditto for PROMOTING embryonic stem research.

I don't object to someone who promotes these causes (even though I do not believe in them).  Just don't promote those causes then say you are a devout Catholic, because those causes are in violation of core Catholic faith.

Take a stand, John.  If you want to be a devout Catholic, great.  Be one.  If you want to promote the disposal of feti and embryos, go ahead.  Just don;t try to tell me both at the same time.

--------------------
By the way, I am a Catholic if you have not figured that out yet.  My problem is the hypocrisy.

  My issue isn't with the idea that you criticize the Democrats, LyricBoy, but rather that you wish to start from the GOP line.

  I agree that Kerry's position is politically ballsy, but Kerry's position rings true with many Catholics as well as Protestants. The only boundary he seems to be outside of is the conventional wisdom of politics, and we know that CW is hardly wise. And as people in the internet age weary of cheap punditry and foolish conventional wisdom, it might be that bucking the norms of political debate and appealing to something far more personal is the thing to do. In addition to speaking more toward people's hearts than their identity politics, Kerry's position on abortion, like his allusions toward the possible inevitability of a draft, may also strike favor with some voters on the grounds that he is specifically bucking the CW trend.

--------------------
By the way, I am a Catholic if you have not figured that out yet.  My problem is the hypocrisy.


You may be a Catholic - I was raised one - and you may truely believe in the Church's position on both abortion and stem cell research, that's fine but lots of Catholics don't.  But is that the issue?  When JFK ran, there was a subscript to the republican campaign to the effect that he would be a "tool of the Vatican".  You seem now to be critical of Kerry because he is demonstrably NOT a tool of the Vatican.  As a former Cathoilic I personally oppose abortion.  That is a moral position stemming from what I believe to be the sanctity of human life.  As a secular humanist and "feminist" I recognize the right of a woman to control her own reproductive desitiny. 

I think it important for all of us to separate our personal moral codes from our  advocacy of public policy positions.  So I, personally, oppose abortion, I find abhorant the idea of trying to inforce my personal morality on others, and I refuse to agree that in doing so that I am a hypocrit, or that others, who see the same distinction are.

In other threads LyricBoy has argued for a strict interpretation of the Constitution.  As I read that document, there is a reference to privacy, but no reference to a requirement to deliver an unwanted child.  Abortion is a privacy issue, ideally decided between a husband, wife, doctor, and spiritual leader, not an issue of public policy.

Cheer, Doonata, I was hoping for a response, have you forgiven me?

You may be a Catholic - I was raised one - and you may truely believe in the Church's position on both abortion and stem cell research, that's fine but lots of Catholics don't.  But is that the issue?  When JFK ran, there was a subscript to the republican campaign to the effect that he would be a "tool of the Vatican".  You seem now to be critical of Kerry because he is demonstrably NOT a tool of the Vatican.  As a former Cathoilic I personally oppose abortion.  That is a moral position stemming from what I believe to be the sanctity of human life.  As a secular humanist and "feminist" I recognize the right of a woman to control her own reproductive desitiny. 
Good point about JFK.  When Al Smith ran for President back in 1928, the Klan met him on his southern whistle stops with burning crosses!  You made the same point about abortion I made, except I don't have a Catholic background.  The other issue is you can't unring a bell.  Roe vs. Wade has created a silent majority in favor of abortion rights.  That is, the noisy activists are not the only ones who support abortion rights.  A whole generation grew up with Roe vs. Wade, and a second generation is on its way.  If the Supreme Court overturned Roe vs. Wade, the ubiquitous outcry would shock pro-lifers/anti-choicers.

I think it important for all of us to separate our personal moral codes from our  advocacy of public policy positions.  So I, personally, oppose abortion, I find abhorant the idea of trying to inforce my personal morality on others, and I refuse to agree that in doing so that I am a hypocrit, or that others, who see the same distinction are.

In other threads LyricBoy has argued for a strict interpretation of the Constitution.  As I read that document, there is a reference to privacy, but no reference to a requirement to deliver an unwanted child.  Abortion is a privacy issue, ideally decided between a husband, wife, doctor, and spiritual leader, not an issue of public policy.

Even strict interpretation of the Constitution is open to a wide margin of interpretation.  Look at the 2nd Amendment.  Just a few sentences equals thousands of volumes worth of argument.  "Strict constructialist," as the right-wing defines it is merely a euphemism for "white supremecist."

You may be a Catholic - I was raised one - and you may truely believe in the Church's position on both abortion and stem cell research, that's fine but lots of Catholics don't.  But is that the issue?  When JFK ran, there was a subscript to the republican campaign to the effect that he would be a "tool of the Vatican".  You seem now to be critical of Kerry because he is demonstrably NOT a tool of the Vatican.  As a former Cathoilic I personally oppose abortion.  That is a moral position stemming from what I believe to be the sanctity of human life.  As a secular humanist and "feminist" I recognize the right of a woman to control her own reproductive desitiny. 

I think it important for all of us to separate our personal moral codes from our  advocacy of public policy positions.  So I, personally, oppose abortion, I find abhorant the idea of trying to inforce my personal morality on others, and I refuse to agree that in doing so that I am a hypocrit, or that others, who see the same distinction are.

In other threads LyricBoy has argued for a strict interpretation of the Constitution.  As I read that document, there is a reference to privacy, but no reference to a requirement to deliver an unwanted child.  Abortion is a privacy issue, ideally decided between a husband, wife, doctor, and spiritual leader, not an issue of public policy.


In summary, I expect the following behaviors from Catholic politicians.  You will see that these do not mean "tool of the Vatican":

1.  Uphold the Rule of Law  Uphold all laws that are on the books, regardless of whether or not they are for or against Catholic teaching.

2.  Not Be a Hypocrite If a politician is not following the Catholic faith, that's OK with me.  No problem. My Dad was a Presby and no harm no foul.  But if on one hand you claim to be a devout Catholic, and on the other hand you are "fighting" to enact laws that are diametrically opposed to your professed faith (and they are constitutional), then you are a hypocrite.

There is a HUGE difference between upholding the "rule of law" that does not agree with your professed faith, and "fighting" to enact laws that are counter to it.

So, how is Kerry not doing the above?  Abortion and stem cell research are BOTH legal.  I'm not sure if there are any laws regarding stem cell research, but there are about abortion.  As far as I know, Kerry has had nothing to do with these laws being enacted, he's just fighting to preserve people's right to do them under the laws.


There are no laws against embryonic stem cell research, other than the Administration's ban on FEDERAL funding of "new lines" of embryo cells.

Kerry vociferously fought the "Laci Peterson Law" (the law that makes it a federal crime to kill a fetus during the commission of any other federal crime) because he thought that it might lead to further changes in law to limit abortion.  That means that he is fighting to keep abortion legal.  And he often talks about his crusade to keep abortion legal.  This means that he wants the law to stay that way, or to even more explicitly and expansively allow abortion.  There is a difference between "upholding the rule of law" and "fighting to preserve the law".

That Judge in Alabama who wanted to keep the 10 Commandments in his courthouse:  I have no problem with him wanting to have the laws changed to allow it (I object to his proposal, but have no problem with him trying to sell the idea).  But I (and the courts) completely rejected his actions, which were to ignore the rule of law by defying lawful orders to get rid of the statue.  Therefore he was found unsuitable to be a Judge because a Judge specifically is sworn to uphold the rule of law.  His actions exposed him as a hypocrite.

So...

-If Kerry works to make sure that his constituents can get an abortion as long as that is the law, I have no problem with it.  He is sworn to uphold the law.  That is his job.

-If Kerry fights to preserve or extend laws that are against his spoken religion that he claims to be a devout member of, it is not a matter of "Rule of Law", it is a matter of Hypocrisy.

Again, this is not an anti-abortion thread.  If Kerry were an Athiest or otherwise was not trying to get mileage out of being a Catholic, I would not be making this post.

President Clinton held about the same view on these issues as Kerry.  But he was not being a hypocrite because he did not claim to be a devout member of a religion that, at its core, abhors the practice!

My basic issue is "you can not have it both ways".

What does it mean to be a "devout Catholic"?  Since I ain't one, I have no idea, and I suspect that those who consider themselves to be such would give hundreds of answers.  To many Catholics it does not mean accepting everything the vatican says.  My guess is that lots of "devout Catholics" would have problems with some of the precepts advanced in Pope Leo #?'s 1900 encyclical - I forget its name - especially regarding the rights of labor.  Lots of Catholics would also have difficulty with the precepts of Liberation Theology, which were accepted by, if memory serves, John 23. 

I don't understand...how can he "make sure that his constituents can get an abortion as long as that is the law" without "fighting to preserve the law"?  It makes no sense. 

Back to hypocrisy, ANY politician who claims to be "religious" and votes to go to war against "country X" is a hypocrite.  In the course of war, people are murdered.  Therefore, they are going against the 10 commandments (#6) by supporting the killing.  And, let's not forget #9:  Thou shalt not lie.  I won't even go into the numerous politicians who have violated #7 ;)


Very well put, Cheer.  WMDs anyone?

I don't understand...how can he "make sure that his constituents can get an abortion as long as that is the law" without "fighting to preserve the law"?  It makes no sense. 



cheer,

Let me use another example.  Let's say that a road in your home town has a posted speed limit of 25 mph.  It is a 4-lane highway and has all the modern safety conveniences.  You are a law abiding citizen, but you object to the 25MPH speed limit.  You think it ought to be changed to 55MPH.  The town council has also proclaimed that it will start posting a 25MPH speed limit for every 4-lane highway in your town.

Now, when you drive that road with your children, are you going to drive at 55MPH, or are you going to obey that speed limit and drive at 25MPH?  My guess is that you will set a good example for your kids and drive within the posted speed limit, even though you do not agree with it.

And, I suspect, you might also set a good example for your kids and show them how you petition the local government (town council, etc) to get the speed limit on that road raised to 55MPH, and/or to stop the unproductive lowering of speed limits on other roads.

So.... In this example... You are upholding the rule of law (a law that you personally do not like), yet are also fighting to get it changed.  That is not hypocrisy.  That is functioning as a good citizen under the rule of law.

Would it make any sense in this situation for you to say "I personally think the 25 MPH speed limit is wrong" and "I am fighting to preserve the 25MPH speed limit?"  You would look silly in that case.

cheer,

Let me use another example.  Let's say that a road in your home town has a posted speed limit of 25 mph.  It is a 4-lane highway and has all the modern safety conveniences.  You are a law abiding citizen, but you object to the 25MPH speed limit.  You think it ought to be changed to 55MPH.  The town council has also proclaimed that it will start posting a 25MPH speed limit for every 4-lane highway in your town.

Now, when you drive that road with your children, are you going to drive at 55MPH, or are you going to obey that speed limit and drive at 25MPH?  My guess is that you will set a good example for your kids and drive within the posted speed limit, even though you do not agree with it.

And, I suspect, you might also set a good example for your kids and show them how you petition the local government (town council, etc) to get the speed limit on that road raised to 55MPH, and/or to stop the unproductive lowering of speed limits on other roads.

So.... In this example... You are upholding the rule of law (a law that you personally do not like), yet are also fighting to get it changed.  That is not hypocrisy.  That is functioning as a good citizen under the rule of law.

Would it make any sense in this situation for you to say "I personally think the 25 MPH speed limit is wrong" and "I am fighting to preserve the 25MPH speed limit?"  You would look silly in that case.


Interesting LB, but I have some problems with it.  Frankly, I don't remember the speed limit on I-95 through Boston, but I don't think it was 55.  Lets  say it was 40, just for argument sake.  The issue here is the safty of the driving public.  It is not an issue of how I control aspects of me personal life nor an issue of imposing my version of morality on anyone else.  I may believe that the 40 MPH limit is overly cautious, but that is an issue of public safty, not of morality, so I might decide to support the lower speed limit even thopugh I disagree with it.  As I have stated before, I am  personally opposed to abortion, like Kerry, but politically support a woman's right to choose.  You may consider me to be a hypocrit too, but I don't see it that way.  Its one thing to have a personal moral perspective and another to oppose the introduction of a personal moral code regulating some of the most personal decisions of ones life into the legal code.

On this one we disagree BIG TIME.

Now, when you drive that road with your children, are you going to drive at 55MPH, or are you going to obey that speed limit and drive at 25MPH?  My guess is that you will set a good example for your kids and drive within the posted speed limit, even though you do not agree with it.


I don't know about all that, my dad always drove like a bat out of hell, whereas I'm a more easy-going driver with only one speeding ticket in his life.
:)

Interesting LB, but I have some problems with it.  Frankly, I don't remember the speed limit on I-95 through Boston, but I don't think it was 55.  Lets  say it was 40, just for argument sake.  The issue here is the safty of the driving public.  It is not an issue of how I control aspects of me personal life nor an issue of imposing my version of morality on anyone else.  I may believe that the 40 MPH limit is overly cautious, but that is an issue of public safty, not of morality, so I might decide to support the lower speed limit even thopugh I disagree with it. 

Fair enough, and a reasonable perspective.  There are laws that, though we disagree with them, are not enough of a nuisance to cause us to want to change them.  I am assuming that Boston is not artificially cutting speed limits on roads just to run a "speed trap" industry.  In Detroit's "Downriver suburbs", 25MPH limits are regularly set on 4-lane boulevards for the sole purpose of community fund raising via radar.

However, the issue of one person's morality is also the issue of one fetus' safety.

Fair enough, and a reasonable perspective.  There are laws that, though we disagree with them, are not enough of a nuisance to cause us to want to change them.  I am assuming that Boston is not artificially cutting speed limits on roads just to run a "speed trap" industry.  In Detroit's "Downriver suburbs", 25MPH limits are regularly set on 4-lane boulevards for the sole purpose of community fund raising via radar.

However, the issue of one person's morality is also the issue of one fetus' safety.

The immorality of our domestic policy screams from every statistic of childhood privations.  Of course, once a child is BORN, the fetus fetishists care nothing for him or her.  It's just personal-responsibility-lecture-city!

Fair enough, and a reasonable perspective.  There are laws that, though we disagree with them, are not enough of a nuisance to cause us to want to change them.  I am assuming that Boston is not artificially cutting speed limits on roads just to run a "speed trap" industry.  In Detroit's "Downriver suburbs", 25MPH limits are regularly set on 4-lane boulevards for the sole purpose of community fund raising via radar.

I agree with this from Max


However, the issue of one person's morality is also the issue of one fetus' safety.



But the question isn't about choice/anti abortion.  The question is, can one hold a personal moral perspective and support laws that run countere to it without being a hypocrit.  I believe that in some cases one can.  You seem to be saying that one can't.  In this case, since I personally oppose abortion, but defend a woman's right to chose you seemingly think me a hypocrit.  I'm not offended, by the way, and I understand your logic, I just reject it.