+ Reply to Thread
+ Post New Thread
Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 46

Thread: A True Test of Morality

  1. Default A True Test of Morality

    Department of Justice Honors Slave Catchers for Their Service to the Law

    The Department of Justice has a “roll call” page listing federal marshals and possemen who died in the line of duty to “honor their memory and their sacrifice”. The list includes at least two men who died while trying to capture fugitive slaves in the 1850s. Edward Gorsuch, the second entry on the list, was a slave owner killed while trying to capture six of his fugitive slaves. From the Maryland State Archives:

    Gorsuch received a letter from William Padgett, a farm worker in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, saying that he knew where his slaves were hiding. Gorsuch gathered some of his family members and local whites and headed to Pennsylvania via train. Once in Philadelphia, they met up up with Deputy Federal Marshal Henry Kline, completed the necessary paperwork, and then continued in pursuit of the escaped slaves. On September 11, 1851, as Gorsuch, his party, and Padgett were making their way to capture the slaves. Early on they were spotted by one of the slaves, who then hid in the home of William Parker, a known Black abolitionist in Christiana, a small town in Lancaster County. Parker met Gorsuch and his party at the door and refused to give the slaves up. As Parker confronted Gorsuch, Parker's wife Eliza opened a second floor window and blew a horn, which was an alarm for local African Americans. She was shot at (but not hit) by a member of Gorsuch's entourage, but not before townspeople armed with guns and various weapons responded to the alarm. Gunfire was exchanged, and Gorsuch's son, Dickinson, was badly wounded but managed to flee to a nearby cornfield. Edward Gorsuch himself was killed. Thirty-six Blacks and five white men were indicted for high treason against the United States as a result of the so-called 'Christina Riot.' All of the defendants were found not guilty.
    http://reason.com/blog/2013/07/29/de...rs-slave-catch
    So, for all of those that stand on the premise that law is law, and no matter what, folks should oblige by it. How do you feel about the above article? Do you agree with giving the officers of the 'law' this award?

    What I want to see is how you truly feel. Here's my answer, I absolutely, positively, disagree with giving them this award. Slavery isn't something that should be honored, not even when it comes to honoring someone for upholding the law on slavery. I have no remorse over those that were killed by this heinous act against human rights.

    Now, for everyone else, I want to see if you'll remain consistent or not. If you agree that law is law, then you should stand with the Department of Justice and honor those fallen men who've upheld the law. If you disagree with this award, then law isn't law and to make the claim that law is law goes to show that it's no longer a valid argument.

    Let's see who takes the test...any takers?
    Last edited by Libertarian ForOur Future; Jul 30 2013 at 05:12 AM.


  2. #2
    usa
    Location: USA
    Posts: 47,176
    Blog Entries: 2
    My Latest Mood: Yeehaw

    Default

    Government is always a double-edged sword, but I err on the side of having law enforcement officers obey the laws rather than break them.

    So, the listing of the names of people killed in the line of duty (what award?? sounds like they got hot lead to me) should stand.

    I hold the civilian elected legislators, elected executives, and elected or appointed judges responsible for the law's justice or lack their of.

    Ultimately, the people are to blame for unjust laws in our constitutionally-limited republic.
    Last edited by DonGlock26; Jul 30 2013 at 06:21 AM.

  3. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DonGlock26 View Post
    Government is always a double-edged sword, but I err on the side of having law enforcement officers obey the laws rather than break them.

    So, the listing of the names of people killed in the line of duty (what award?? sounds like they got hot lead to me) should stand.

    I hold the civilian elected legislators, elected executives, and elected or appointed judges responsible for the law's justice or lack their of.

    Ultimately, the people are to blame for unjust laws in our constitutionally-limited republic.
    I appreciate your honesty. However, if the cops didn't do anything to with the slaves, during that time, they technically wouldn't have broken any laws.If they purposely went out of their way not to return the slaves or whatever, then it can be stated that they broke the law.

    In my opinion, by simply not enforcing that law isn't really breaking the law. How many times have cops caught someone speeding and just gave them a verbal warning? Would you consider they broke the law because the individual should've gotten either a written warning or a ticket? I don't, thus, I don't believe that if those cops didn't enforce the slavery law, they would have been breaking the law.

    They chose to uphold a heinous law, met an untimely end because of it, and should've shown moral judgement instead.

  4. #4
    usa
    Location: USA
    Posts: 47,176
    Blog Entries: 2
    My Latest Mood: Yeehaw

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Libertarian ForOur Future View Post
    I appreciate your honesty. However, if the cops didn't do anything to with the slaves, during that time, they technically wouldn't have broken any laws.If they purposely went out of their way not to return the slaves or whatever, then it can be stated that they broke the law.

    In my opinion, by simply not enforcing that law isn't really breaking the law. How many times have cops caught someone speeding and just gave them a verbal warning? Would you consider they broke the law because the individual should've gotten either a written warning or a ticket? I don't, thus, I don't believe that if those cops didn't enforce the slavery law, they would have been breaking the law.

    They chose to uphold a heinous law, met an untimely end because of it, and should've shown moral judgement instead.
    They took an oath to uphold the laws. Not just the ones they like. Their office was set up by law.


    He received a complaining letter for assistance. It was his duty to act.

  5. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DonGlock26 View Post
    They took an oath to uphold the laws. Not just the ones they like. Their office was set up by law.

    He received a complaining letter for assistance. It was his duty to act.
    Not saying they didn't, all I'm saying is if they didn't uphold that law, it isn't breaking a law.

    My point is cops act under the context of law and it doesn't always lead to great things (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013...poor-lighting/). Cases like this will always occur, the police officer won't be identified, the wife of the man will be paid off, and it will be quickly brushed under the rug as a 'mistake'. You can say these cops were upholding the law as well, but they killed an innocent man, because of "dim lights" & being in the wrong house.

    My point is just because they have an oath to uphold the law doesn't make it a valid argument of law is law. Hypothetical, if there was a law that stated that if anyone with a gun could be shot on sight by an officer, without penalty under the law, would you still support the officers who shoot and kill every one with a gun, even if they pose no threat to them?

    Better yet, what if this law was in place and the arresting officer of George Zimmerman shot & killed him because Zimmerman told him he had a gun, would you still support that officer?
    Last edited by Libertarian ForOur Future; Jul 30 2013 at 07:34 AM.

  6. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DonGlock26 View Post
    Government is always a double-edged sword, but I err on the side of having law enforcement officers obey the laws rather than break them.

    So, the listing of the names of people killed in the line of duty (what award?? sounds like they got hot lead to me) should stand.

    I hold the civilian elected legislators, elected executives, and elected or appointed judges responsible for the law's justice or lack their of.

    Ultimately, the people are to blame for unjust laws in our constitutionally-limited republic.
    Right, the officers can't be blamed. They are just doing their jobs!

    Personal responsibility is also a double-edged sword. If one is called upon to commit immoral acts, even in the course of one's duties, one is not absolved of responsibility because there is a human being who claims to be a higher authority. If it were true what you argue, then government can absolve anyone of any responsibility whenever it wishes to do so. From where does it lawfully obtain this power and authority?
    "The principle that the end justifies the means is, in individualist ethics, regarded as the denial of all morals. In collectivist ethics it becomes necessarily the supreme rule" -- F. A. Hayek.
    "A day, an hour, of virtuous liberty is worth a whole eternity in bondage" -- Joseph Addison's "Cato, A Tragedy" (1713)
    "The only way to deal with an unfree world is to become so absolutely free that your very existence is an act of rebellion." - Albert Camus

  7. Likes Libertarian ForOur Future liked this post
  8. Default

    Let me not be understood as saying that there are no bad laws, nor that grievances may not arise for the redress of which no legal provisions have been made. I mean to say no such thing. But I do mean to say that although bad laws, if they exist, should be repealed as soon as possible, still, while they continue in force, for the sake of example they should be religiously observed.

    Abraham Lincoln

    Laws should be just and consistent, no one class of people should be exempt, or be given special consideration or preferential treatment, or be allowed to use the law for their own specific benefit. These are not laws but impositions.
    Government is a disease masquerading as it's own cure.

    Politics is the dishonest art of misleading the gullible and manipulating the ignorant & emotionally distraught to get votes from the poor and election funds from the rich by promising to protect each from other.

  9. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JoeSixpack View Post
    Let me not be understood as saying that there are no bad laws, nor that grievances may not arise for the redress of which no legal provisions have been made. I mean to say no such thing. But I do mean to say that although bad laws, if they exist, should be repealed as soon as possible, still, while they continue in force, for the sake of example they should be religiously observed.

    Abraham Lincoln

    Laws should be just and consistent, no one class of people should be exempt, or be given special consideration or preferential treatment, or be allowed to use the law for their own specific benefit. These are not laws but impositions.

    No society can exist unless the laws are respected to a certain degree. The safest way to make laws respected is to make them respectable. When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law. These two evils are of equal consequence, and it would be difficult for a person to choose between them. Another effect of this tragic perversion of the law is that it gives an exaggerated importance to political passions and conflicts, and to politics in general.

    Frederic Bastiat
    "The principle that the end justifies the means is, in individualist ethics, regarded as the denial of all morals. In collectivist ethics it becomes necessarily the supreme rule" -- F. A. Hayek.
    "A day, an hour, of virtuous liberty is worth a whole eternity in bondage" -- Joseph Addison's "Cato, A Tragedy" (1713)
    "The only way to deal with an unfree world is to become so absolutely free that your very existence is an act of rebellion." - Albert Camus

  10. Default

    The problem I see here is that we are placing today's standards on those that lived in a different time with very different standards. They did their job as it was given to them, under the standards of the time. I don't feel we are able to fairly judge those of times past, as none of us can say we wouldn't do the same in their circumstances, we can only pretend we would do as we think we would now...
    "Every nation has the government that it deserves." - Joseph de Maistre

  11. Likes Wake_Up, DonGlock26 liked this post
  12. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DonGlock26 View Post
    They took an oath to uphold the laws. Not just the ones they like. Their office was set up by law.


    He received a complaining letter for assistance. It was his duty to act.
    I agree entirely with DonGlock26 here. It isn't up to individual law enforcement people to decide which laws they feel like enforcing. As social mores change over time, laws change to fit. We could go back through time finding large numbers of laws that today we'd find absurd, offensive, or immoral. And people generations from now will find that true of many of OUR laws as well.

    How arrogant, to blame a law enforcement officer for enforcing the law, because he's too immoral to realize that the law itself will be poorly regarded 150 years in his future. He did his job.

  13. Likes Wake_Up liked this post
+ Reply to Thread
+ Post New Thread
Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Does the Bible support forceful coercion as a means to true morality?
    By Olivianus in forum Religion & Philosophy
    Replies: 300
    Last Post: Apr 19 2013, 12:45 PM
  2. Does the Bible support forceful coercion as a means to true morality?
    By Olivianus in forum Political Opinions & Beliefs
    Replies: 149
    Last Post: Apr 12 2013, 08:40 PM
  3. A test of morality
    By FreedomSeeker in forum Religion & Philosophy
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: Mar 22 2013, 11:47 AM
  4. Replies: 7
    Last Post: Aug 22 2011, 02:08 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks