How about the 80's in some areas of the Bible Belt? Define oppression.
You can't show/rent this movie because it has nudity. These movies need to be banned because they have swear words. Sex outside of marriage is illegal. Or at the extreme end, all courses on evolution need to be banned because it contradicts the Bible. Trying to use economic blackmail to force businesses to accept your version of morality.
YOU are allowed your opinions and encourage others to follow you through example and action. You are not allowed to dictate that others accept your opinions and use manipulative tactics to obtain it. That is oppression.
God's law does exist. Theft is always wrong, including theft of the right to decide your own journey on this planet. (Which is why abortion is wrong. It steals the life of another.) There are absolutely lines we all need to respect. Christian fundamentalism crosses those lines. Christianity does not. You can't force your belief structure on others through coercion.
If you think about the government as a way to create a society that you'd personally like to live in, you're doing it wrong.
We should think about the government in terms of right and wrong. It's wrong to use violence (government) to prevent people from having sex and viewing pornography.
There's a massive difference between restricting something (making it off limits) and making people behave in a particular way (compulsory behavior).
Also, the one who desires that which is restricted will ALWAYS view that restriction as oppression. The question then becomes, by what standard is a restriction validated?
We have by and large, two competing definitions of oppression today. (Sure, an over-simplification, but it's simply a frame to view the layout with.)
One, anything that prevents my (immoral, selfish, destructive) behavior is oppression.
Two, anything that prevents my (moral, equitable, constructive) behavior is oppression.
This is, however, ultimately a conflict between two value systems, and if one is right, accurate and good, the other is wrong, incorrect and evil.
But I think it's important to draw a distinction between legal (which is something created and enforced by the state) and lawful (which is something that upholds law, including the natural and common law), on one hand, and also between a legal and a moral (and lawful) imperative on the other.
A community defining what it sees as a moral imperative is not the same thing as a legal imperative.
The fact is, that living in a society, then one's behavior DOES impact on the rest of society. So, what is the imperative to "do not harm"? The justification for broad and indiscriminate acceptance of homosexual behavior has been that "what someone does in their own privacy doesn't affect others", but in reality, if the spiritual world exists, and we are more than merely material beings, it DOES affect others.
However, in a world of relative good and relative evil, it is NOT for the state to interfere in the choices of individuals, regardless of whether those choices are moral, lawful, or constructive or not. IMO.
Kinda curious to hear when you think was the last time Christian fundamentalists oppressed people.
How about the 80's in some areas of the Bible Belt? Define oppression.
You can't show/rent this movie because it has nudity. These movies need to be banned because they have swear words. Sex outside of marriage is illegal. Or at the extreme end, all courses on evolution need to be banned because it contradicts the Bible. Trying to use economic blackmail to force businesses to accept your version of morality.
YOU are allowed your opinions and encourage others to follow you through example and action. You are not allowed to dictate that others accept your opinions and use manipulative tactics to obtain it. That is oppression.
God's law does exist. Theft is always wrong, including theft of the right to decide your own journey on this planet. (Which is why abortion is wrong. It steals the life of another.) There are absolutely lines we all need to respect. Christian fundamentalism crosses those lines. Christianity does not. You can't force your belief structure on others through coercion.
not being able to have casual sex is oppression?
being unable to view pornography is oppression?
id rather live in this "oppressed society" over this clown world where degeneracy runs rampant.
If you think about the government as a way to create a society that you'd personally like to live in, you're doing it wrong.
We should think about the government in terms of right and wrong. It's wrong to use violence (government) to prevent people from having sex and viewing pornography.
Stick with the NAP and you'll do fine.
There's a massive difference between restricting something (making it off limits) and making people behave in a particular way (compulsory behavior).
Also, the one who desires that which is restricted will ALWAYS view that restriction as oppression. The question then becomes, by what standard is a restriction validated?
We have by and large, two competing definitions of oppression today. (Sure, an over-simplification, but it's simply a frame to view the layout with.)
One, anything that prevents my (immoral, selfish, destructive) behavior is oppression.
Two, anything that prevents my (moral, equitable, constructive) behavior is oppression.
This is, however, ultimately a conflict between two value systems, and if one is right, accurate and good, the other is wrong, incorrect and evil.
But I think it's important to draw a distinction between legal (which is something created and enforced by the state) and lawful (which is something that upholds law, including the natural and common law), on one hand, and also between a legal and a moral (and lawful) imperative on the other.
A community defining what it sees as a moral imperative is not the same thing as a legal imperative.
The fact is, that living in a society, then one's behavior DOES impact on the rest of society. So, what is the imperative to "do not harm"? The justification for broad and indiscriminate acceptance of homosexual behavior has been that "what someone does in their own privacy doesn't affect others", but in reality, if the spiritual world exists, and we are more than merely material beings, it DOES affect others.
However, in a world of relative good and relative evil, it is NOT for the state to interfere in the choices of individuals, regardless of whether those choices are moral, lawful, or constructive or not. IMO.