These opinions warrantied for the lifetime of your brain.

Loading Table of Contents...

Sunday, September 28, 2008

Four Red Herrings From Cody Quirk

Cody Quirk, my definition of theocracy wasn't "invoking religious themes" or "simply expressing JC or God as Our Creator".  My definition was "imposing the laws of your god(s) on your fellow citizens for no other reason than that they are the laws of your god(s)."   Absolutely NOTHING in the DoI imposes the revealed laws of any god(s) for no other reason than that they are such revealed laws.  However, the CP Platform says: "The U.S. Constitution established a Republic rooted in Biblical law [...] The law of our Creator defines marriage as the union between one man and one woman." Are you ever going to even try to defend those specific quotes as not theocratic?
Yes, North Korea is the exception that disproves your silly claim that communism is theocracy.  A cult of personality is just not the same thing as theocracy, and any freshman PoliSci major could explain the difference to you.  Here's my challenge for you: quote Soviet or Red Chinese official propaganda that invokes anything like "Biblical law" as an unquestionable source of moral revelation -- as opposed to a conclusion demonstrated using communist theory.  You can try, but you will fail.
I already told you: "I didn't have space to list that or all the many other things we agree on. If you want to criticize my article, then either 1) identify an important disagreement that I didn't list, or 2) show that I've claimed a disagreement where there isn't one." You've failed to meet either challenge.  Give up?
You invoking Libertarian bloggers and child porn and Mary Ruwart and Bob Barr's past are just textbook red herrings, with zero relevance to the differences between the CP and LP platforms. Thank you for implicitly admitting that you can't meet my challenge above.
Your "thou shalt not kill" point is already a smoking cinder.  In the very comment to which you're replying, I made the unrebutted point: 
) murder is illegal because it's universally held to be a violation of natural law.  Murder is not illegal merely because Moses read it in a tablet on Mt. Sinai.  You'll notice that several other items in the Ten Commandments are not illegal -- at least until the Constitution Party "restores American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations". (
I've already explained with textual evidence how the CP platform meets my definition of theocratic. As for "bias against the CP in my articles", all my articles have done is highlight the objective differences between the CP and LP platforms.  To a freedom-lover, my articles would indeed seem biased against the CP.  To a theocrat, my articles would seem biased against the LP. That you take the former perspective instead of the latter suggests hope for you yet.
Or maybe not, since you're apparently against legalizing sexual commerce among consenting adults. By the way, why would you be against that?  Because Yahweh told you so, or because it's your interpretation of natural law? If natural law and biblical law are identical, then why does the CP platform theocratically invoke the Bible where the DoI doesn't?  And if natural law and biblical law are non-identical, then how is that not an admission that the CP is theocratic?