Okay...
--- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, Boris Karpa <microbal...@...> wrote: > > Claiming something is nonreligious doesn't make it morally right > > On Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 7:00 PM, Zack Bass <zak...@...> wrote: > > > > From Jan. 21, 2008. > > 2008, see? > > > > --- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, "Zack Bass" <zakbas@> > > wrote: > >> > >> > >> Do you remember what we are talking about? > >> Can you read the quoted previous posts? > >> > >> YOU said that all Malum Prohibitum is Religion. > >> Therefore I said that "practicing medicine without a license" is an > >> example of Malum Prohibitum but it is NOT religion. A like > >> counterexample like get it. > >> Focus. > >> > >> duh > >> > >> > >> > >> --- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, Valentine Michael Smith > >> <bkoehler8@> wrote: > >> > > >> > You're joking. > >> > > >> > Why should anyone need a license ? > >> > Must be your religion. It's not mine. > >> > > >> > Zack Bass wrote: > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > Another example: > >> > > practicing medicine without a license > >> > > What religion is THAT? > >> > > > >> > > --- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com > >> > > <mailto:LibertarianEnterprise%40yahoogroups.com>, Valentine > >> Michael Smith > >> > > <bkoehler8@> wrote: > >> > > > > >> > > > You are in fantasy land. > >> > > > All malum prohibitum > >> > > > is religion. You can > >> > > > fantasize about other > >> > > > reasons but when you > >> > > > impose your other reasons > >> > > > you have unlimited power . > >> > > > Traffic laws are a matter > >> > > > of ownership if I own the > >> > > > road I should be able to > >> > > > decide how it is used. > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > Zack Bass wrote: > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > --- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com > >> > > <mailto:LibertarianEnterprise%40yahoogroups.com> > >> > > > > <mailto:LibertarianEnterprise%40yahoogroups.com>, Valentine > >> > > Michael Smith > >> > > > > <bkoehler8@> wrote: > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > What if I create a church that makes > >> > > > > > all drug use a sacrament? > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > The Drug Law we have in the U.S. right now is NOT Religion > > enacted > >> > > > > into Law. Obviously you CAN invent a religion that makes, say, > >> > > > > reckless driving a Sin; but the Law we have has nothing to > > do with > >> > > > > Religion - Religion is NOT the reason the Law was Enacted. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > Malum prohibitum is religious law. > >> > > > > > Any way you slice it. > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > No, it is merely Enacted Law, that is, something that is > >> considered > >> > > > > wrong ("Malum") BECAUSE it is against The Law. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/malum%20prohibitum > >> > > <http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/malum%20prohibitum> > >> > > > > <http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/malum%20prohibitum > >> > > <http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/malum%20prohibitum>> > >> > > > > "an offense prohibited by statute but not inherently evil or > >> wrong" > >> > > > > (e.g. Drug Handling) > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > And murder is malum pro se. > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Weird. Google has TWO count 'em TWO hits on "malum pro se", and > >> > > > > 16,600 on "malum in se". As I wrote it. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > > >
