I do not think anybody particularly cares about cash found next to the evidence of an overtly prosecutable crime. The problem is when the cash itself seems to be the target, in the absence of any apparent crime. The examples the made the news were things like driving 64 mph in a 55 mph zone with $5000 cash on hand -- here is your speeding ticket and the police keep the $5000 cash.
I care about the cash found next to the evidence. If the guy isn't found guilty the government shouldn't keep his cash no matter how bad the crime was. Keeping the money as evidence until the trial is ok (so long as it isn't being done just to keep the suspect from being able to afford to defend himself). But keeping it permanently when he doesn't get charged or after he is aquitted violates the 5th and 6th amendment just as keeping him permanently imprisoned in similar circumstances would.
While your examples are obviously extreme to illustrate a point one can lobby peacefully. If you cannot wear your favourite religious clothing item to go to school then go to a different school.
Great libertarian idea provided that the schools aren't government run and funded. But if libertarians have already lost that fight and the schools are government run and government funded telling people to pay for schooling twice is unfair.
The beauty of democracy and why it's so much better despite it's numerous flaws is that everyone has a voice. Where is my voice under religious rule?
I'm not advocating religious rule.
Democracy is not beautiful. It is messy and dangerous. We only put up with it because every other form of government that has every been tried has been even more vulnerable to tyrannical takeover from within. Preventing such tyranny is the point, not providing everyone with a voice. Freedom of Religion is even more important to preventing tyranny.
Said in context it meant that if religion conflicts with the law the law takes precedent.
I can only agree to that if the law is conflicting with religion only for the purpose of protecting another fundamental right. If, to use an example from France, a school has a dress code require no headwear of any kind because they believe it makes for a more respectful atmosphere, then exceptions must be made for people who can show they have real religious objection, whether they be Sikhs, Muslims, Orthodox Jews, or certain Christian groups. Otherwise how can you argue that those people who believe God requires them to wear the headgear should remain peaceful? As was said by a guy protecting Jews in WWII (in violation of the law IIRC), I would rather be with God against man than with man against God. If law is superior to one's beliefs than what is superior to law? Should all those Russians who resisted the Communists should be condemned for following their conscience rather than the law. Should all those Germans who resisted the Nazis should likewise be reviled? Is Lech Walesa a horrible person for breaking the law?
In one case, a person is right in your face insulting your mother. That is generally going to be a physical confrontation, the person is probably puffed up his chest and picking a fight.
A more civilized society would allow dueling as a reaction to such an insult. In other words, instead of being able to immediately punch the person who insulted your mother you could challenge him to a duel (perhaps the law might put limits on the lethality of such a duel) giving the person who was insulted a chance to defend the mother's honor but also giving the insultor a chance to apologize or simply chicken out before any blood is spilled.
It's been said that an armed society is a polite society.
France is a law abiding country. The law is above religion. The law protects freedom of expression as a fundamental right.
Would you also say the law is above speech? Can the law be above something and that something still be free?
The law can't be above religion without being above speech because freedom of speech and freedom of religion cannot be separated. Without freedom to think and think and believe, how can you have things to say that are different from what the government approves? And without the freedom to communicate your thoughts and believes, people have no way to learn and adopt ways of thinking and believing that are different from that the government approves.
A separate thing to consider - most people's beliefs outweigh their loyalty to country and law. I suspect this is true even with you - if the law required you to kill your mother would you do it? For me, a country that does not allow me to freely practice my religion is not one that I can be loyal to. A country that considers its laws superior to the laws of God is not a country I can be loyal to. Limits on religious practice are allowed not because the law is superior, but because we recognize that even our fundamental rights must be limited in some cases so that they do not destroy other persons' fundamental rights. The right to conduct human sacrifice for an Aztec religion conflicts with the right to life, so one of them must bend. Religion is thus not subject to law, it is subject to respecting the rights of others so that we can have a peaceful society.
Anthropomorphism is degenerate no matter the situation.
True. Anthropomorphism is always trying to get into trouble and ruin other people's lives.
I don't know, but I'll take a guess.
It's a big issue for a lot of people - but generally the kind of people who work and don't have a lot of spare time to get out and protest. As for "reform", enforcement is a major part of the reform - in fact it is the reform that makes all other reforms possible. But to be comprehensive enforcement has to come first before any other reforms are passed because we know from history and from the behavior of current leaders that a deal won't be honored by those who oppose enforcement. In fact we already did a comprehensive reform that included enforcet ment and amnesty in 1986. We got the amnesty but not the enforcement. Fool me once...
9. Why do you need a political party for that? The govenrment can't control your personal life, unless you let them. As for "when working", well, that's not personal any more is it?
I spend a huge portion of my time at work and I'm lazy. Some people spend more time at work than they do with their family. At work I want to be able to practice my religion free of government interference. I want to be able to choose who I spend time with and form relationships with free of government interference. Whether you agree with me or not, there are a lot of people who agree with me
11. Government bashing, again? It's not the government that's the problem, it's the powerful. The government is only a problem if it's too easy for the powerful to corrupt and control it, and it is no longer answerable to the people.
Who has more power than the one who can use force for any and all purposes beyond self-defense? When you say "powerful people", you mean the government. No matter how much power Bill Gates has, he can't order me to use Windows and send armed men to my home if I don't comply. He can't tackle me in the street and sit on me until I die because I was selling competing operating systems without paying him.
You really prefer living in an anarchy? Then move to Somalia.
False dichotomy straw man. I didn't say "eliminating government", I said "shrinking government". The point of government is to protect our rights. To do that we have to allow it to use violence. Having given it the power to use violence we should recognized that we have created a dangerous creature and make sure we limit what it does.
We make sure the military is firmly under civilian control and we limit what the military can be used for because we realize how dangerous a military is. But a government is similarly much better armed than the general population and it too should be tightly restricted.
They are? OK, please answer for me:
1. Which party wants to decrease corporate money in politics? 2. Which party is for decreasing the length of copyright? 3. Which party supports jail time for fraudulent bankers? 4. Which party would increase the penalty for crimes committed by corporations, instead of the current toothless fees we currently have? 5. Which party is for reducing our illegal surveillance both here and abroad? 6. Which party is for eliminating the NSA?
I mean, sure, they're different on a bunch of minor crap no one (should) care about, but when it comes to major issues, they're identical.
And let's not forget:
7. Which party is for enforcing immigration laws?
8. Which party is for ending corporate welfare?
9. Which party is for limiting the role of the federal government in our personal lives (including when we're working)?
10. Which party is for limiting the rolling back regulations that keep small companies from growing?
11. Which party is for shrinking government spending (and thus giving us more free time so less of our economic output has to be diverted to government functions)?
Life is a healthy respect for mother nature laced with greed.