I’ll be posting the results to the beer tasting. It was definitely not what I expected. :) I’m almost embarrassed.

I would have commented last night in place of Ryan, but I was holding a beer tasting with some family in my home and had to play host. :) An enjoyable evening spent with family always takes precedence.

Anyway, Mr. Hake, thank you for your insightful comments, and I wish you well in your race. I think we can both agree that the current 2-party system is not working, and will be a bear to overcome. Libertarian or Constitution Party…either would be light-years beyond what we’re currently stuck with.

Thank you again, and God bless.

“Again, we are not calling for a ban on Pornography. We are declaring that it should not be protected.”

As far as the government is concerned, this is essentially the same thing. It’s roughly akin to saying that “Well, we’re not actually calling for a ban on guns, we’re just saying the right to own them shouldn’t be protected.” Instructing government to cease protection of any right–in the case of pornography, freedom of speech or expression regardless of the quality of that speech or expression–is, to all effects, the same thing as a ban. How would one even begin to go about instituting a “lack of protection” that would be different in any meaningful way from a ban?

“Studies have been done which conclude that pornography leads to deeper involvement in criminal activity.”

Yes, and alcohol often leads violence–that doesn’t mean we should ban alcohol because some users may commit crimes.

“Prostitution is often a forced buisness arrangement between a girl often a young runaway with no where turn and a pimp or john.”

Of course, all use of force in business transactions should be punished. But, again, this doesn’t mean that all business should be punished because some business transactions involve the threat of force.

“These relationship often end in the death of the girl who is quickly replaced by another.”

This is tragic, and no one wants this violence to continue. But this system of violence is caused not by prostitution, but by the prohibition of prostitution. When you create a class of people who cannot turn to the police without risking imprisonment, you perpetuate victimization of that class of people. In this case, the ones being victimized are prostitutes: if they’re beaten by their pimp or by a john, who can they turn to? No one. If they go to the police, they’re going to get into trouble themselves. The violence continues because of the laws we demand to relieve our self-righteous sense of moral outrage.

If we actually care about the violence and care about those involved in the trade, the solution is legalization and protection of those who were previously victimized. Prohibition never fixes anything, because it always leaves control in the hands of the criminal and the violent. We’ve seen it with alcohol, we’ve seen it with drugs, and as you pointed out, we’ve seen it with prostitution.

“If alcohol or porn is restricted from a school proximity it should be the community vote that creates it. Not some government agency.”

I understand what you’re saying, but I don’t think mob rule is the solution. I don’t have the authority to tell my neighbor where he may and may not sell alcohol; ergo, I may not delegate such a task to the government. Unless my neighbor’s commercial enterprises cause me direct and measurable (“measurable” being key) harm, I have no right to compel him to cease those enterprises.

Community vote isn’t any different from the actions of a government that is elected by community vote. Preventing this sort of tyranny of the majority is one of the primary reasons we have the Constitution in the first place.

“The very reason we have laws that set a moral standard is to protect the innocent in our society.”

That’s not a valid reason for law. Innocence is not measurable, and so we may not have laws which exist only to protect “innocence,” just as we may not have laws which exist only to make sure a specific group of people aren’t offended.

“It’s far too late to worry about legislating morality it has already been done.”

I don’t really think that’s a good reason to continue.

“Gambling promotes an increase in crime, destruction of family values, and a decline in the moral fiber of our country. We are opposed to government sponsorship, involvement in, or promotion of gambling, such as lotteries, or subsidization of native American casinos in the name of economic development. We call for the repeal of national legislation that usurps state and local authority regarding authorization and regulation of tribal casinos in the states.”

If you read the above quote carefully you will not see a ban on gambling, but rather a ban on government promotion and funding of gambling.

“Pornography
We declare that pornography is not protected speech.”

Again, we are not calling for a ban on Pornography. We are declaring that it should not be protected.
I am sure you will agree that there are many degrees of pornography. It’s a very subjective area. Some would call Playboy an art form as it is very mild compared to underground child porn. So the degree of involvement and interpretation would have a lot to do with the level of protection if any.

I am the Richard D. Hake running for Congress so I feel compelled to give you my stand on the so called victimless crimes of prostitution and pornography. First let me start by saying my subjective stand comes from being a police officer and having street level experience with these so called victimless crimes.
Studies have been done which conclude that pornography leads to deeper involvement in criminal activity. Prostitution is often a forced buisness arrangement between a girl often a young runaway with no where turn and a pimp or john. This is kind of a slave master relationship where the master provides drugs, food & shelter and doesn’t physically beat his slave up if she gives him all of her earnings. These relationship often end in the death of the girl who is quickly replaced by another. The prostitute often is the main star in porn films and pictures.
There are some great rescue efforts going on by groups like Project Rescue and others helping to get these kids out of that life, but it’s dangerous for the girls and the rescue folks.
So while the Constitution parties stand is mild mine is not. I would like to see communities voting on what kind of porn they allow in their city limits, and I would like to see Prostitution vigerously prosecuted.
One last thing you mention zoning. To my knowledge we are all against zoning of any kind. If alcohol or porn is restricted from a school proximity it should be the community vote that creates it. Not some government agency.
BTW in my county we can’t have a Bible Study, Prayer Meeting, or Church in our private residence without a permit.

My statement about legislating morality was perhaps too broad. My main point is that we ought not attempt to legislate Christian morality, or assume that it’s the government’s job to do something that causes no measurable or quantifiable harm to another human being.

You mention rape or incest. Perhaps you could have just as easily mentioned murder. Of course there should be laws against such behavior. It’s easy to see how such behaviors harm others. But it’s a far cry from that to saying that gambling should be banned, which is a position of the Constitution party. Or that alcohol should not be sold near schools and churches. Why not? I should be able to buy alcohol when and where I want. Should people sell alcohol to minors? That’s another discussion, but even if you assume the answer to that is no, why not sell near churches?

If I want to enjoy myself by gambling, I should be able to. If I want to buy beer at a store near my house, and I live near a school, I should be able to. Pornography is not good…but on what grounds does the Constitution Party seek to ban it? I find pornography morally reprehensible, but apart from what it says in the Bible, I find no basis for telling people that they ought not be able to procure it for themselves.

I DO, however, find that churches ought to seek to preach to the lost. They ought to seek to win souls for Christ. When a man is converted, and the Word of God is rightly preached to him, he begins to hate his sin. He will then work to eliminate pornography in his own life. He will then seek to become more like Christ. Then this stuff becomes a non-issue.

I don’t see, however, that the government has any right to seek to ban these things. Abortion, yes. Abortion is murder…simple enough. But not gambling…not pornography….not strict zoning regarding alcohol. No matter how morally reprehensible we as individuals may find things, the Constitution party also says they stand for the rights of the individual. Those rights appear to go away when it comes to what the Christian feels is wrong, regardless of whether that individual is a Christian or not.

BTW, if you’re the same Richard D. Hake that is running for U.S. Congress, and ran for Attorney General in 2004, both in Oregon, very cool!

I like a lot of what the Constitution Party says–taxes, sovereignty, foreign policy, and so on–, but the ideals of liberty are not equally protected throughout the party platform. What the platform seems to indicate is that the Constitution Party stands for the protection and enforcement of everything conservatives find morally upright, and regulation and restriction and punishment of everything that runs contrary to our sense of morality, regardless of whether the government has any right to interfere in that area.

What I see the Constitution Party wanting (and don’t get me wrong…I agree with a lot of what they stand for) is to impose a specific set of moral values upon a group of people.

I don’t feel that it’s the government’s job to impose morals. That is the realm of churches. If you say you want a government based upon the principles in the Word of God, what you’re saying is that you want a government based upon Christianity. You’re right…it’s not a theocracy. It’s worse. It’s a theocracy without Theos. It’s more of a religiocrasy, which is worse, in my opinion.

I think the government needs to stay out of moral issues. Let the churches be the voice of morality. Let them preach the Gospel. The Lord will convert His people, and they will begin to hate their sin. What America needs is not a Bible-based government, but a revival of changed hearts. Legislating morality isn’t going to change hearts. Only the preaching of the Gospel will do that. Only the preaching of the gospel will convince men of their own sin. And it’s DEFINITELY not the realm of the government to preach the Gospel.