Thursday, August 17, 2006

America Should Be A Nation Of LAWS!!
And other liberal lies

Yes, we've all heard the Battle Cry of the Great Unwashed a million times ~ "America should be a nation of laws, blah, blah, blah, wonk, wonk, wonk."

To all the ACLU enamored, oxygen deprived, bong-water drinking, hand wringing, limp wristed, Francophile, tie-dyed hippie scum... I ask of you the following;

Was it not a "nation of laws" that made slavery legal?

Was it not a "nation of laws" that made indentured servitude legal?

Was it not a "nation of laws" that made the internment of thousands of Americans of Japanese blood legal?

Was it not a "nation of laws" that made butchering a child in their own mother's womb legal?

You know what, hippie scum... America shouldn't be a nation of laws. America should be a nation of justice.

But that won't work for you, will it? After all, that would involve something you have failed to ever attain. Namely, moral absolutes.

4 Comments:

Blogger Angry Orthodox said...

Moral absolutes?! OH NO!

9:03 PM  
Blogger Gaufridus said...

VSC,

I generally agree with your latest missive. However, you're in danger of kicking it in the groin, metaphorically speaking, by arguing against slavery from the standpoint of justice.

The legality of slavery as an institution is subject to change; that is a matter of law. The manner in which masters treat their slaves is a matter of justice.

I would go so far as to say that the internment of the Japanese may not have been morally wrong, within the context of the war to which I am sure you're referring. Again, it is not their internment that is necessarily unjust: a nation has the right and duty to defend itself. What may or may not be just is the manner in which they are treated during their internment.

I know that's splitting hairs and may not be a politically-correct way to look at a practice that amounts to limiting people's relatively unrestricted freedom of mobility. Nonetheless, I think the distinction must be made for the sake of maintaining justice.


Pax tecum

7:44 AM  
Blogger Former Altar Boy said...

Gauf,
I get the differentiation you're trying to make, but have to disagree. Man can write bad laws. Slavery may have been legal according to the law of the land, but as it is morally wrong for one man to own another, so -- in my opinion --the law was wrong (illegal) as soon as it was written.

Separate question. Let's say it was both legal and just for the gov't to inter the Japanese-Americans as potential spies, seditionists, or sympathizers. Was it also legal to confisacte all their property without compensation during the period they were away?

7:25 PM  
Blogger Gaufridus said...

FAB,

I not sure that it is not morally wrong for one man to own another. After all, Our Lord didnt preach to slaves to revolt: He told them to obey their masters.

Being God, you figure He could've set the example and come out against slavery right then and there. But He didnt.

Concerning the internment of the Japanese-Americans and the disposition of their property... Again, it is not a matter of legality, but of justice. Was it legal to confiscate their property, &c.? Clearly, or else it wouldnt have occurred.

Now, was it moral? I'd have to say "no" without due process, i.e. without a fair trial, the production of witnesses and evidence, a vote by a jury of their peers, etc.

I dont have any problem with rounding them up per se, if the intent is to make sure they're not up to no good. If China were in the process of bombing us, I'd probably want to talk to some people within the Chinese-American community.

But, if they are innocent of any wrong-doing, then by all means leave them in peace.

I think a problem occurs when you have found a trouble-maker: what then? Do you compensate him for his property? I'd say, "yes", then either kick him out of the country or -- if his crime reached the level of treason -- treat him as a traitor.


Pax tecum

11:16 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home