Padded-glove Righties...

[Canceled2]

The family and marriage have always been the bedrock of society, but they have not always been legally recognized via contracts and so forth. That is what I mean.

Hamilton wanted a strong central government that was not handicapped from doing its job. He believed that officials must be able to be taken seriously abroad in order to build security and public credit. For this same reason, Adams embarrassed himself in the Titles episode regarding the president. Sadly, so many people have made a mockery out of state's rights over the years that they have been easily taken away.

In the Church, marriage has ALWAYS been considered a contract. Outside of the Church I am not so familiar? But logic would dictate that their must have been some sort of legal binding that took place when marriage was performed by a civil servant outside of the Church; and we are talking about marriages in this country.

Hamilton wanted a large federal government. To say he wanted a "strong central government" translates into large, meaning spending. He was not a states rights guy and he wanted life time appointments to office. So when you say you are a Hamilton conservative, do you support those tennants? Or just his willingness to spend large?

 

[Adam Weinberg]

The religious freedom we enjoy in this country should be sufficient for many of the ethical and moral choices people need to make in their lives. It is not a prerequisite to being a conservative that you must believe that government must enforce what is perceived to be traditional social values.

If anything, a basic requirement of a conservative in any country would be to conserve traditions in the system of government and the liberties the people enjoy.

If the religious institutions and adherents in this country really believe in what they stand for, they certainly don't need government duplicating their purpose, or for that matter advocating policies that may prevent free exercise of their faith. Regulating one peculiar life style is no different than another in terms of the power government exercises.

The idea that government should not make laws based on morality is certainly flawed, but that is not to say government should be the decider in all or even most issues of morality. There are plenty of moral and ethical issues we leave as personal business.

I'm personally frustrated by social conservatives who seem to believe that government policy determines their efficacy. The ability to practice a socially conservative lifestyle and persuade others to do the same is really the only assistance they can count on to achieve their goals.

This is the freest nation in the world for every brand of religious fundamentalism or practice, and I do hope that we can eventually find an agreement between religious and secular that limited government is the contract both sides need to prosper. People who do not wish to practice a religious lifestyle as it relates to their own conduct with themselves should be entitled to the same liberties as those who do practice.

They are protected by the same institutions, and they could be deprived of their cherished freedoms by the same methods in different times.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

The religious freedom we enjoy in this country should be sufficient for many of the ethical and moral choices people need to make in their lives. It is not a prerequisite to being a conservative that you must believe that government must enforce what is perceived to be traditional social values.

If anything, a basic requirement of a conservative in any country would be to conserve traditions in the system of government and the liberties the people enjoy.

If the religious institutions and adherents in this country really believe in what they stand for, they certainly don't need government duplicating their purpose, or for that matter advocating policies that may prevent free exercise of their faith. Regulating one peculiar life style is no different than another in terms of the power government exercises.

The idea that government should not make laws based on morality is certainly flawed, but that is not to say government should be the decider in all or even most issues of morality. There are plenty of moral and ethical issues we leave as personal business.

I'm personally frustrated by social conservatives who seem to believe that government policy determines their efficacy. The ability to practice a socially conservative lifestyle and persuade others to do the same is really the only assistance they can count on to achieve their goals.

This is the freest nation in the world for every brand of religious fundamentalism or practice, and I do hope that we can eventually find an agreement between religious and secular that limited government is the contract both sides need to prosper. People who do not wish to practice a religious lifestyle as it relates to their own conduct with themselves should be entitled to the same liberties as those who do practice.

They are protected by the same institutions, and they could be deprived of their cherished freedoms by the same methods in different times.

The thing is, you are doing the same thing as the others, and distancing yourself from religious beliefs as they may pertain to government. You feel compelled to take this "stand" against social conservatives, who you claim have somehow tried to force their religious beliefs on you. What have the Religious Right forced on you? The argument that all life is sacred, including the unborn? The argument that we do not need to redefine "marriage" and base it on a sexual lifestyle choice? Other than being able to actually HOLD a Christmas Parade, in observance of the Federal Holiday known as Christmas, I don't really see what you think has been "forced" on you by the social conservatives.

I understand your point about not entangling government and religion, and I agree, the affairs of state and church should remain separate. I don't know of any Fundamentalist Christians who favor a theocracy, I don't know of anyone from any religion who feels that way. But let's be clear about something, unless there is some obscure religion out there, which is totally devoid of moral beliefs, I think most organized religions teach and preach morality. So, if you remove from government, that which is taught and preached in any church, you have effectively stripped government of any morality. Now, you have done this with every good intention of simply removing religious dogma from our government, but nonetheless, you have cleansed government of anything moral.

As a free society, without the constraints of a ruling king or emperor, with the mandate of self-governance, we have a fundamental responsibility to society, to maintain some level of morality. If you allow the argument to prevail, that government should be completely devoid of anything associated with any religious belief, you effectively kill all law based on morality. The problem with this, aside from the obvious problem of a society without morals, is that it also effectively endorses Atheism as the national religion.

You are right, there must be a "common ground" obtained by the secular and non-secular. I think that begins with a comprehensive understanding of the brilliance in which our Founding Fathers established this great nation. While our Creator has endowed us with rights that can't be taken away by man, we use this endowment of rights to guarantee each citizen has the right to worship as they desire, or not to worship, if that is what they desire. This is not an endorsement of any religious belief, but of all religious beliefs. Freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. Our nation was founded on the principled belief that Our Creator gave us rights which can't be taken by man, and we are all equally endowed those rights, regardless of our personal beliefs. Atheists are entirely welcome to denounce the very forces which endowed us the right to not be a slave to man, and proclaim these rights in the name of our Creator. No problem!

What has been the problem, in case you hadn't really noticed, is the ongoing leftist liberal war on Christianity. The systematic demonizing of the "religious right" ...AKA: Social Conservatives. Cajoling the otherwise "reasonable" mild-mannered fiscal conservative into denouncing social conservatism. Oh, you are too scared of what people might think, if you speak up for the importance of family values in our culture and society. You simply have to pay homage to liberal causes on the social level, because you lack the balls to stand up for what you know is right. It's just easier to disassociate yourself from "religious wackos on the right" and pretend to be "objective" and "forthright" in the name of social progress, you see... *cough bullshit*

In effect, you have sold out foundational conservative principles. Oh, you can still have a self-centered fiscal conservative philosophy... that will be just fine for the liberals... after all, it's much easier to destroy a heartless evil rich bastard than followers of God. If you lack the foundational principles of Conservatism, the belief that God endowed us with the rights the Constitution upholds, and they can not be taken by man.... if you haven't based your conservative philosophies around that, you can't have a basis to believe that every person in America is capable of living their dreams. Without believing every person is capable of living their dreams, then you have to think that not everyone is really equal, some have more than their share, while others have less than they are entitled to... do you see where your conservatism is heading yet? The foundational support for all conservative philosophy, rests in the belief that all men are created equal. That we are endowed the liberty we claim, and Supreme Court judges can't take that away from us. It is on this foundation we build a conservative ideology, and without it, conservatism simply becomes greed and lust, and is easily illustrated as such by the left.

So, you guys go ahead and throw the "religious right" under the bus, your ideology is destined for failure because you've overlooked your foundational principles. In your rush to garner some level of "respectability" from the left, you've given up the one thing your entire philosophy rests upon. And you do so, to appease liberal ideologues who will never accept your viewpoints, regardless of what you throw under the bus. I will continue to stand up for what I know is right, and it doesn't really matter what the left thinks of me.

 

[Cancel3]

The thing is, you are doing the same thing as the others, and distancing yourself from religious beliefs as they may pertain to government. You feel compelled to take this "stand" against social conservatives, who you claim have somehow tried to force their religious beliefs on you. What have the Religious Right forced on you? The argument that all life is sacred, including the unborn? The argument that we do not need to redefine "marriage" and base it on a sexual lifestyle choice? Other than being able to actually HOLD a Christmas Parade, in observance of the Federal Holiday known as Christmas, I don't really see what you think has been "forced" on you by the social conservatives.

I understand your point about not entangling government and religion, and I agree, the affairs of state and church should remain separate. I don't know of any Fundamentalist Christians who favor a theocracy, I don't know of anyone from any religion who feels that way. But let's be clear about something, unless there is some obscure religion out there, which is totally devoid of moral beliefs, I think most organized religions teach and preach morality. So, if you remove from government, that which is taught and preached in any church, you have effectively stripped government of any morality. Now, you have done this with every good intention of simply removing religious dogma from our government, but nonetheless, you have cleansed government of anything moral.

As a free society, without the constraints of a ruling king or emperor, with the mandate of self-governance, we have a fundamental responsibility to society, to maintain some level of morality. If you allow the argument to prevail, that government should be completely devoid of anything associated with any religious belief, you effectively kill all law based on morality. The problem with this, aside from the obvious problem of a society without morals, is that it also effectively endorses Atheism as the national religion.

You are right, there must be a "common ground" obtained by the secular and non-secular. I think that begins with a comprehensive understanding of the brilliance in which our Founding Fathers established this great nation. While our Creator has endowed us with rights that can't be taken away by man, we use this endowment of rights to guarantee each citizen has the right to worship as they desire, or not to worship, if that is what they desire. This is not an endorsement of any religious belief, but of all religious beliefs. Freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. Our nation was founded on the principled belief that Our Creator gave us rights which can't be taken by man, and we are all equally endowed those rights, regardless of our personal beliefs. Atheists are entirely welcome to denounce the very forces which endowed us the right to not be a slave to man, and proclaim these rights in the name of our Creator. No problem!

What has been the problem, in case you hadn't really noticed, is the ongoing leftist liberal war on Christianity. The systematic demonizing of the "religious right" ...AKA: Social Conservatives. Cajoling the otherwise "reasonable" mild-mannered fiscal conservative into denouncing social conservatism. Oh, you are too scared of what people might think, if you speak up for the importance of family values in our culture and society. You simply have to pay homage to liberal causes on the social level, because you lack the balls to stand up for what you know is right. It's just easier to disassociate yourself from "religious wackos on the right" and pretend to be "objective" and "forthright" in the name of social progress, you see... *cough bullshit*

In effect, you have sold out foundational conservative principles. Oh, you can still have a self-centered fiscal conservative philosophy... that will be just fine for the liberals... after all, it's much easier to destroy a heartless evil rich bastard than followers of God. If you lack the foundational principles of Conservatism, the belief that God endowed us with the rights the Constitution upholds, and they can not be taken by man.... if you haven't based your conservative philosophies around that, you can't have a basis to believe that every person in America is capable of living their dreams. Without believing every person is capable of living their dreams, then you have to think that not everyone is really equal, some have more than their share, while others have less than they are entitled to... do you see where your conservatism is heading yet? The foundational support for all conservative philosophy, rests in the belief that all men are created equal. That we are endowed the liberty we claim, and Supreme Court judges can't take that away from us. It is on this foundation we build a conservative ideology, and without it, conservatism simply becomes greed and lust, and is easily illustrated as such by the left.

So, you guys go ahead and throw the "religious right" under the bus, your ideology is destined for failure because you've overlooked your foundational principles. In your rush to garner some level of "respectability" from the left, you've given up the one thing your entire philosophy rests upon. And you do so, to appease liberal ideologues who will never accept your viewpoints, regardless of what you throw under the bus. I will continue to stand up for what I know is right, and it doesn't really matter what the left thinks of me.

Your continued insistence that we are doing this because we want "respectability" or because we want to appease liberals is, again, nonsense.

At least give people the benefit of the doubt that they, like you, are doing what they believe in. Why is it that it is only you who follow what you think is best, and the rest must have some ulterior motive?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Your continued insistence that we are doing this because we want "respectability" or because we want to appease liberals is, again, nonsense.

At least give people the benefit of the doubt that they, like you, are doing what they believe in. Why is it that it is only you who follow what you think is best, and the rest must have some ulterior motive?

I have no idea why you are a liberal wanting to pretend to be conservative, or an Atheist pretending to be a Christian, that is between you and your shrink. I do think there are quite a few on the right, who feel like they have to give the obligatory slight to social conservatism, because it is stigmatized as extreme. I see examples of it all the time, some otherwise reasonable conservative, dumping social conservatism to be popular with the left.

I don't know what anyone's motive is for anything, but I do know that liberal socialism has an agenda, and they are working it brilliantly. Useful idiots like yourself, just make their objectives that much easier. You've obviously rationalized your viewpoints, and nothing I can say will ever get through to you. I am speaking mainly to those on the RIGHT, who have become a little disillusioned with social conservatism, and the flack conservatives sometimes catch for it. Conservatives can't be afraid to stand for social conservative principles... because they are the root of all conservatism. The foundational belief that all men are created equal, and we are endowed rights by our Creator, not a court or government. It is on that basis which all other conservative principles rest. Without those principles, you are either a liberal pretending to be a conservative, or you are a greedy heartless bastard who has no real basis for his ideology, other than personal profit.

 

[Cancel3]

I have no idea why you are a liberal wanting to pretend to be conservative, or an Atheist pretending to be a Christian, that is between you and your shrink. I do think there are quite a few on the right, who feel like they have to give the obligatory slight to social conservatism, because it is stigmatized as extreme. I see examples of it all the time, some otherwise reasonable conservative, dumping social conservatism to be popular with the left.

I don't know what anyone's motive is for anything, but I do know that liberal socialism has an agenda, and they are working it brilliantly. Useful idiots like yourself, just make their objectives that much easier. You've obviously rationalized your viewpoints, and nothing I can say will ever get through to you. I am speaking mainly to those on the RIGHT, who have become a little disillusioned with social conservatism, and the flack conservatives sometimes catch for it. Conservatives can't be afraid to stand for social conservative principles... because they are the root of all conservatism. The foundational belief that all men are created equal, and we are endowed rights by our Creator, not a court or government. It is on that basis which all other conservative principles rest. Without those principles, you are either a liberal pretending to be a conservative, or you are a greedy heartless bastard who has no real basis for his ideology, other than personal profit.

Or I am a conservative who does not need to force religious beliefs into a political equation. It is not because I have no religious beliefs. It is because I do not need to use the power of the government to give those beliefs meaning.

I am a fiscal conservative because I believe in the principles of freedom for all. That is also why I am not a social conservative.

The reason many conservatives have moved away from social conservatives is not because they catch flack or because of any stigma. Its because we don't agree with it. There was a time, not so long ago, that you didn't dare speak out against the religious right. That time is passed us now.

 

[uscitizen]

The finiancial sector of the right already spent about 30% of our retirement.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Or I am a conservative who does not need to force religious beliefs into a political equation. It is not because I have no religious beliefs. It is because I do not need to use the power of the government to give those beliefs meaning.

I am a fiscal conservative because I believe in the principles of freedom for all. That is also why I am not a social conservative.

The reason many conservatives have moved away from social conservatives is not because they catch flack or because of any stigma. Its because we don't agree with it. There was a time, not so long ago, that you didn't dare speak out against the religious right. That time is passed us now.

When you say "force religious beliefs into a political equation" ....don't you mean, to stand up for morality and decency? Because I don't recall a bill to require you read the Bible, or a resolution demanding you attend church. I don't see this "forcing of religious beliefs" as you do, I see religious believing people, standing up for morality and decency, which coincidentally, is taught by their religious belief. Now it's all good and well that you've decided to declare your own personal war against religion, but removing everything associated with religion from government, yields a government without morals. Government is bad enough, I don't really need immoral government.

The crusade you've embarked on, will deliver an Atheistic government, it's guaranteed. Apparently, that is what you desire! I can understand a Socialist having such desire, after all, Socialism is much easier to implement with God out of the way. People are forced to believe in Government as their God instead.

You claim you believe in "freedom for all" but based on what? A piece of old paper? What 9 men in black robes decide is freedom? Maybe it's whatever the current political party in power determines is freedom? It's obviously not based on the belief that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator, certain inalienable rights. No, you base your beliefs on the powers of man, and what man can give you, he can also take away. It's all good and well to stake your beliefs on a 200+ year-old document called the Constitution, but without belief in the founding principles, you must accept that man can alter and change the meaning of that document on a whim. So, really, what good is your style of "freedom for all?"

You keep speaking as if my points are directed at you, but I've already revealed, you are not a Conservative. You are an Atheist Socialist who wants to destroy the foundation of our country. You conveniently hide behind the Conservative label, fooling people into thinking you are some kind of courageous new conservative who is denouncing social conservatism. Your hopes are, that some ignorant conservatives will follow you into the abyss. And I have to hand it to ya, to some degree, your techniques are working! You've so stigmatized the religious right, it's easy to get people to buy your blather about religious beliefs being forced on us.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

The finiancial sector of the right already spent about 30% of our retirement.

LMFAO.... No, the DEMOCRATS you elected are responsible for that, and it's more like 120% of our retirement. It's funny as shit, you automatically classify the financial sector as being "of the right" ...does the left not have any finances? And wow... I am impressed with the political power of the right, who is essentially sitting bound and gagged in the corner of the capitol, yet they are somehow still able to be responsible for every poor legislative action taken!

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Oh my fucking god you are so long-winded.

 

[Adam Weinberg]

The thing is, you are doing the same thing as the others, and distancing yourself from religious beliefs as they may pertain to government.

No, not entirely. As I said, it's silly to say government shouldn't enforce morality at all. The basis of our liberties is established with a moral mission, and as you indicated, the traditional belief is that these rights come from The Big G. But that doesn't mean every moral issue is appropriately handled by government as perhaps the Schlaflys would want, where pornography, sodomy and alcohol would still be banned even for people who like pornography, sodomy and alcohol.

I think the answer for people who are against pornography, sodomy and alcohol is to not partake in those things and practice their religion. As you know, many of the best known public policy crusaders seem to have a hard enough time doing that.

The advantage of religion is that if you don't like introducing vices to your life, you have every motivation to use the other obligations of your faith to keep you from those things. And this is a perfectly fine kind of opportunity to have in churches, families and communities.

Although growing up among many religious people in my own faith, I can report that not going with the crowd has its own controversies and disincentives. And it is a kind of coercion that might be tolerable as a private matter, but is intolerable with government coming into the picture and endorsing one view over another.

We don't need to have a theocracy to have a government which wrongly thinks it is capable of restoring our spirituality and virtue. This is in every way a kind of a nanny state, with governments like the Taliban only being the extreme example of this notion.

As it relates to marriage, one need only look at the religious picture itself to realize that government setting some of these social standards prevents the people from coming to their own best conclusions based on their moral principles.

Some churches and temples do support same-sex marriages, while many do not. That seems to be the best compromise for a free society. It seems if government (and the forces using government) would step out of the way that the problem would solve itself, if some more people could stand to live in a country where somebody may be doing something you disagree with.

And that kind of resentment of different people seems to be what incites so much legislation in the country.

 

[Minister of Truth]

In the Church, marriage has ALWAYS been considered a contract. Outside of the Church I am not so familiar? But logic would dictate that their must have been some sort of legal binding that took place when marriage was performed by a civil servant outside of the Church; and we are talking about marriages in this country.

Hamilton wanted a large federal government. To say he wanted a "strong central government" translates into large, meaning spending. He was not a states rights guy and he wanted life time appointments to office. So when you say you are a Hamilton conservative, do you support those tennants? Or just his willingness to spend large?

The only civil laws that existed back in the day were common law marriages, where if you lived with someone for a certain length of time, you were considered married. The Church considered the Sacrament to be conferred by the couple on one another, as opposed to other Sacraments where the clergy confer the honors.

This is why you could be married by a ship's captain, a civil official, and as long as someone is there to witness it, the Church considers it valid. The point of a Church marriage is foremost to have witnesses.

Historically, there were no "marriage contracts" and licenses. It is a new concept.

 

[Cancel3]

When you say "force religious beliefs into a political equation" ....don't you mean, to stand up for morality and decency? Because I don't recall a bill to require you read the Bible, or a resolution demanding you attend church. I don't see this "forcing of religious beliefs" as you do, I see religious believing people, standing up for morality and decency, which coincidentally, is taught by their religious belief. Now it's all good and well that you've decided to declare your own personal war against religion, but removing everything associated with religion from government, yields a government without morals. Government is bad enough, I don't really need immoral government.

The crusade you've embarked on, will deliver an Atheistic government, it's guaranteed. Apparently, that is what you desire! I can understand a Socialist having such desire, after all, Socialism is much easier to implement with God out of the way. People are forced to believe in Government as their God instead.

You claim you believe in "freedom for all" but based on what? A piece of old paper? What 9 men in black robes decide is freedom? Maybe it's whatever the current political party in power determines is freedom? It's obviously not based on the belief that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator, certain inalienable rights. No, you base your beliefs on the powers of man, and what man can give you, he can also take away. It's all good and well to stake your beliefs on a 200+ year-old document called the Constitution, but without belief in the founding principles, you must accept that man can alter and change the meaning of that document on a whim. So, really, what good is your style of "freedom for all?"

You keep speaking as if my points are directed at you, but I've already revealed, you are not a Conservative. You are an Atheist Socialist who wants to destroy the foundation of our country. You conveniently hide behind the Conservative label, fooling people into thinking you are some kind of courageous new conservative who is denouncing social conservatism. Your hopes are, that some ignorant conservatives will follow you into the abyss. And I have to hand it to ya, to some degree, your techniques are working! You've so stigmatized the religious right, it's easy to get people to buy your blather about religious beliefs being forced on us.

"When you say "force religious beliefs into a political equation" ....don't you mean, to stand up for morality and decency?" No, that is not what I mean. WHat I mean is that I do not believe that my religious beliefs are necessarily part of my political standards. And I certainly do not believe that any religious beliefs are needed to be a good, moral conservative.

"You keep speaking as if my points are directed at you, but I've already revealed, you are not a Conservative. You are an Atheist Socialist who wants to destroy the foundation of our country."

Yep, you found me out. It has been my goal all along to destroy the church and this nation. Dixie, your paranoia is showing.

Just because you want social conservatism to be the only conservatism out there does not make it happen. I am a fiscal conservative. Your claims that I am a liberal spy, like your claims that I am an atheist, are just wild accusations to avoid admitting that you do not represent the entirety of the conservative movement.

As for your "You keep speaking as if my points are directed at you" nonsense, if I may quote you "...last time I checked, no one appointed you my supervisor of affairs, so you can basically go fuck yourself.".

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

No, not entirely. As I said, it's silly to say government shouldn't enforce morality at all. The basis of our liberties is established with a moral mission, and as you indicated, the traditional belief is that these rights come from The Big G. But that doesn't mean every moral issue is appropriately handled by government as perhaps the Schlaflys would want, where pornography, sodomy and alcohol would still be banned even for people who like pornography, sodomy and alcohol.

I think the answer for people who are against pornography, sodomy and alcohol is to not partake in those things and practice their religion. As you know, many of the best known public policy crusaders seem to have a hard enough time doing that.

The advantage of religion is that if you don't like introducing vices to your life, you have every motivation to use the other obligations of your faith to keep you from those things. And this is a perfectly fine kind of opportunity to have in churches, families and communities.

Although growing up among many religious people in my own faith, I can report that not going with the crowd has its own controversies and disincentives. And it is a kind of coercion that might be tolerable as a private matter, but is intolerable with government coming into the picture and endorsing one view over another.

We don't need to have a theocracy to have a government which wrongly thinks it is capable of restoring our spirituality and virtue. This is in every way a kind of a nanny state, with governments like the Taliban only being the extreme example of this notion.

As it relates to marriage, one need only look at the religious picture itself to realize that government setting some of these social standards prevents the people from coming to their own best conclusions based on their moral principles.

Some churches and temples do support same-sex marriages, while many do not. That seems to be the best compromise for a free society. It seems if government (and the forces using government) would step out of the way that the problem would solve itself, if some more people could stand to live in a country where somebody may be doing something you disagree with.

And that kind of resentment of different people seems to be what incites so much legislation in the country.

It may be silly to say that government shouldn't enforce morality at all, but that is precisely the argument from some! Morality is quite frequently tied to religious viewpoint, and protested on those grounds. Morality and Religion are irreversibly connected, and if you strip "religion" completely out of government, you essentially strip morality as well. However, anti-religious movements have been largely successful at doing just that.

I asked for examples of how the "religious right" has forced their "religious views" on the rest of society, and I got no response. What has happened is, religious groups have advocated for moral issues which are foundational in their beliefs. They have every right to do this in a free society. And society has an obligation to abide by the moral standards we collectively agree on. It shouldn't matter that a certain moral standard is also prevalent in the church.

Reading your post, I get the impression we're not that far apart on what we believe, but you seem to have reconciled the abandonment of principles for the greater good here. I think the general public has become too hypersensitive against religion as it pertains to government. The whole "wall of separation" argument is a great example. Incrementally, through the years, the left has convinced people that this "wall of separation" exists, and that we must be diligent in tearing down anything associated with religious beliefs in our government. From my perspective, that is a recipe for Atheist Communism. I don't think it's what the Founding Fathers intended, or what Jefferson meant by a "wall of separation" between church and state.

It's pretty much gotten to be "in vogue" to denounce the "religious right" even for devout conservatives! Time and time again, I read a thread on this board, where a poster is making some sense and a good case for fiscal conservatism, but they go out of their way to make it understood, they don't support social conservatism. Yet, that is the bedrock of all conservative ideology.

When you base your conservative beliefs on no God, no endowing Creator, you establish that men are not created equally, they are simply born into their situation, for better or worse. When you remove the idea that every American has the inalienable right to pursue happiness, you admit those rights are indeed alienable, and government becomes the means by which they are controlled. Therefore, your conservative views are largely self-serving, mean-spirited, greedy and selfish. This works out well for those on the left, like I said, it's much easier to demonize heartless greedy bastards than church-going Bible-thumpers.

What we have to do, is return to the basics. Remember what it is we stand for, and not be afraid to admit it. This fear mongering about becoming a Christian theocracy, about having religion shoved down our throats through government, that needs to stop. We need to become realistic about the fact that essentially anything moral is connected in some way to religious belief. To denounce those religious beliefs, is to denounce morality in general. We can re-establish a nation founded and based on decent values and morals, without becoming the United Christian Theocracy of America.

 

[Canceled2]

No, not entirely. As I said, it's silly to say government shouldn't enforce morality at all. The basis of our liberties is established with a moral mission, and as you indicated, the traditional belief is that these rights come from The Big G. But that doesn't mean every moral issue is appropriately handled by government as perhaps the Schlaflys would want, where pornography, sodomy and alcohol would still be banned even for people who like pornography, sodomy and alcohol.

I think the answer for people who are against pornography, sodomy and alcohol is to not partake in those things and practice their religion. As you know, many of the best known public policy crusaders seem to have a hard enough time doing that.

The advantage of religion is that if you don't like introducing vices to your life, you have every motivation to use the other obligations of your faith to keep you from those things. And this is a perfectly fine kind of opportunity to have in churches, families and communities.

Although growing up among many religious people in my own faith, I can report that not going with the crowd has its own controversies and disincentives. And it is a kind of coercion that might be tolerable as a private matter, but is intolerable with government coming into the picture and endorsing one view over another.

We don't need to have a theocracy to have a government which wrongly thinks it is capable of restoring our spirituality and virtue. This is in every way a kind of a nanny state, with governments like the Taliban only being the extreme example of this notion.

As it relates to marriage, one need only look at the religious picture itself to realize that government setting some of these social standards prevents the people from coming to their own best conclusions based on their moral principles.

Some churches and temples do support same-sex marriages, while many do not. That seems to be the best compromise for a free society. It seems if government (and the forces using government) would step out of the way that the problem would solve itself, if some more people could stand to live in a country where somebody may be doing something you disagree with.

And that kind of resentment of different people seems to be what incites so much legislation in the country.

A government has a responsibility to protect. That's why we have laws. Laws set boundaries on behavior. All laws are moral. Does restricting or forbidding ponography protect society? Our laws have said restricting pornography protects vulnerable persons i.e. children. The same can be said for the other vices you mention.

When it comes to bigger questions such as homosexual marriage or abortion, again the government asks itself is a law required to protect. Is society at large served best by protecting marriage as an institution that is best equipped to raise and nurture children; medical studies have all shown that children are most stable and become most productive when raised in a two parent household with a mother and a father.

Do stable and productive children need to be protected? Does society as a whole play a part in that by being outspoken via protecting the intituion of marriage as being between one man and one woman (the best equipped to raise stable productive children) This is a legitimate question for the government to ask as the norm is being challenged.

This same kind of rationale is applied to all laws. The ones that get the heat are the ones that are most associated with the church, and that's a canard as again, all law is moral. All questions of law are by nature something to be redressed via legislation or the courts. That half of the American population are divided over these two issues, on both sides of the aisle, to dismiss them as being of religious interest and not having a place in political debates is irresposible.

 

[Adam Weinberg]

Not all laws are moral. Some laws are judged to be immoral!

Just because morality can and in some cases should be applied in the law for the preservation of our rights does not mean that all morality or even most of it should be in the law. Rights have a moral backing because we get them from a very sacred source, but that doesn't mean all law should have a moral backing (sometimes it's just practical), or that all moral purposes should have a law.

A lot of morality has nothing to do with your rights, it has to do with your expectations of yourself and of other people...and that doesn't embrace the spirit of limited government! Religion is a private theocracy, and I'm all for keeping it private so that each person can have their own King that governs over their lives if they so choose.

But I don't think people should make subjects of others who are unwilling. Religious morality is quite extreme in its requirements on personal conduct, and that's why it should remain a personal issue.

It is a moral question in my religion of whether I observe the Sabbath day, who I engage in relations with, how I dress and what foods I can eat, etc.

This is all very precise and not subject to argument, and in theocratic countries, these things are enforced because the authorities believe that they help the moral underpinnings of their society. That, and it makes it easier to control people. I for one do not need the U.S. Government to be my other Jewish Mother.

This is no different than the belief that government can protect us and build a more virtuous society by making limitations on our private, personal conduct (it's just less extreme in its application).

If these ideas worked to better provide for society, then we could depend on government to ban divorce, sexual relations outside marriage, and single parent adoption, in addition to providing cradle to grave services for our well-being, with no negative consequences.

This is not a debate about government vs. no government. This is a discussion about the proper limitations of government.

There are many social questions we don't leave up to a vote or for legislation because government would be dishonest in claiming to be able to better provide for us. Not to mention, it would require more limitations on our personal freedoms.

There are many things that are not good for people, children, families, communities, etc. that the majority allows to continue because that is the level of social freedom we expect. My generation expects more social freedom and more personal choice than the last one, even if they themselves don't wish to exercise unorthodox choices. And that's a very important thing for the conservative movement to understand.

That half of the American population are divided over these two issues, on both sides of the aisle, to dismiss them as being of religious interest and not having a place in political debates is irresposible.

But they are of religious interest, or at least of social interest more than they are really political questions. They are even better addressed as one of the two rather than subjecting them to an endless battle of whether something is legal or not.

If the interest of religious institutions and followers are the values of the people in the country, they would be better to focus on the people rather than the social freedoms people enjoy under the system of government. Which, as I said, are the same social freedoms which permit their religious practice.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

But they are of religious interest, or at least of social interest more than they are really political questions.

But therein lies the rub... most all moral issues are also religious interests. Should we devoid ourselves of societal morality because morality is associated with the church? This seems to be the paranoid argument being made by some on the left. I'm sorry, but from my perspective, free society has an obligation to govern itself with some level of moral constraint. If you are going to remove morality from the equation and allow "moral law" to wither on the vine, I'm not sure this is a society in which I'll want to live in the future.

 

[Canceled2]

Not all laws are moral. Some laws are judged to be immoral!

Let me rephrase all laws deal with the issue of morality.

Just because morality can and in some cases should be applied in the law for the preservation of our rights does not mean that all morality or even most of it should be in the law. Rights have a moral backing because we get them from a very sacred source, but that doesn't mean all law should have a moral backing (sometimes it's just practical), or that all moral purposes should have a law.

Again, you miss the motivation for law in civil society, it is not morality in and of itself, it is governments responsibility to protect.

A lot of morality has nothing to do with your rights, it has to do with your expectations of yourself and of other people...and that doesn't embrace the spirit of limited government! Religion is a private theocracy, and I'm all for keeping it private so that each person can have their own King that governs over their lives if they so choose.

Limited governemnt is fine and good, However when an attack on societal good is either perceived or determined to be real, it deserves to be redressed via the political or legal avenues available.

But I don't think people should make subjects of others who are unwilling. Religious morality is quite extreme in its requirements on personal conduct, and that's why it should remain a personal issue.

No one is asking someone to be a subject of "religious" morality per se. They are asking their government, who being charged with protecting its citizenry from harm, to judge the merits of the question raised. Whether that harm be to the whole or the individual, regardless of if it is also held sacrosanct by a religious belief.

It is a moral question in my religion of whether I observe the Sabbath day, who I engage in relations with, how I dress and what foods I can eat, etc.

This is all very precise and not subject to argument, and in theocratic countries, these things are enforced because the authorities believe that they help the moral underpinnings of their society. That, and it makes it easier to control people. I for one do not need the U.S. Government to be my other Jewish Mother.

This is not about food or clothing, it is about governements role in protecting life from harm. Babies are killed in the womb. 97% of them are killed because of irresponsible sex that resulted in an unwanted pregnancy. Half of Americans believe this is killing human beings. The religious have been the most outspoken because yes, their faith would lead them to believe this murder. But because they have religion does not make their position one that shoves religion down ones throat, their position is that the unborn are human beings deserving of the governments protection, making abortion a legitimate issue to redress legally and politically

This is no different than the belief that government can protect us and build a more virtuous society by making limitations on our private, personal conduct (it's just less extreme in its application).

Yes, it is different for the resons I have already stated.

If these ideas worked to better provide for society, then we could depend on government to ban divorce, sexual relations outside marriage, and single parent adoption, in addition to providing cradle to grave services for our well-being, with no negative consequences.

Society falls apart as the laws protecting the family are erroded. Governments truest role is to protect its citizens so that they might prosper. Dealing with issues that have a potentially harmful effect on the family are legitimate roles for government to be involved in.


This is not a debate about government vs. no government. This is a discussion about the proper limitations of government.

I agree.

There are many social questions we don't leave up to a vote or for legislation because government would be dishonest in claiming to be able to better provide for us. Not to mention, it would require more limitations on our personal freedoms.

That's why each issue is looked at and judged on its merit as to whether or not the harm of an individual or society as a whole is being threatend. Eating kosher food would obviously fail that test. Pig might kill you eventually, but you chose to eat it; abortion kills you instantly and no one asks if you want to die.

There are many things that are not good for people, children, families, communities, etc. that the majority allows to continue because that is the level of social freedom we expect. My generation expects more social freedom and more personal choice than the last one, even if they themselves don't wish to exercise unorthodox choices. And that's a very important thing for the conservative movement to understand.

Just go with the flow eh? No matter that in 2007 40% of children were born to unwed mothers? That since we started on this road to free love, welfare, and abortion society has been tanking in education, family values, menatal health, civility and the list goes on. Conservatives need to get back to being the opposing voice to the madness that calls itself progressive.

But they are of religious interest, or at least of social interest more than they are really political questions. They are even better addressed as one of the two rather than subjecting them to an endless battle of whether something is legal or not.

If the interest of religious institutions and followers are the values of the people in the country, they would be better to focus on the people rather than the social freedoms people enjoy under the system of government. Which, as I said, are the same social freedoms which permit their religious practice.

Again, the role of government is to protect. The issues of abortion and homosexual marriage are issues that meet the criteria for legal and political redress.

 

[Adam Weinberg]

Should we devoid ourselves of societal morality because morality is associated with the church?

No. We should simply not believe that the government is going to provide us with this morality. Not only can it not, but in attempting to do so it will rob us of our freedoms. This is the job of society and social institutions if we want solutions that actually work to address what we feel ails our country, and the only trade-off is that we will never get 100% of what we want.

I'm sorry, but from my perspective, free society has an obligation to govern itself with some level of moral constraint.

We agree completely. In a free society, people govern themselves.

If you are going to remove morality from the equation and allow "moral law" to wither on the vine, I'm not sure this is a society in which I'll want to live in the future.

Again, we have already established that laws that protect our rights have moral foundations. But I have also said that not every moral deserves a law. I don't think this abandons morality in government at all, it simply accepts the reality that morality and virtue can only be achieved if they are accepted as responsibilities of a free people.

It is one thing to have moral law to protect the people against danger, but to protect someone from their own free choices against their will misses the point of virtue entirely.

 

[Adam Weinberg]

Some of the concerns you cite needing protection from are protections from uncertainties and discomforts much more than they are protections of rights and liberties. Going down this road has always brought us to more government and less freedom.

The question of where rights begin and end is certainly more open for discussion on life issues, but on the issue of same-sex marriage it is not. You say that it is a legitimate issue for political debate, and perhaps from a constitutional and legal position that may be.

But your opinion on whether this is a fine topic for the people to decide by majority is from a comfortable position of not being the subject of the ban and the uncomfortable position of your aversion to the idea of someone else going out and forming a non-traditional family.

If we took this same scenario and put a liberty you cherish on the line you would call it a moral outrage. Consider if the majority of people became tired of supporting a growing population of other people's children and they pushed for a one-child policy in the United States, because it was determined that would the best way to "protect" the public from future social and economic problems.

And to be part of and subject to this kind of social engineering is not only counter to what free people would otherwise do, but it has the perverse consequences of depriving a basic institution of our founding from innocent people. These are just as perverse consequences to same-sex couples, their families, and their churches which are prepared to marry them as they may be perverse ideas to those opposed to these unions.

Why should anyone needlessly suffer by the hand of government because of the hysteria of the majority?

It has no impact on your rights, even if it may be morally detestable to you. You cannot know that it will damage your society, that is only your concern and your worry. If worrying for what would happen to the "decency" of the majority was the final gatekeeper for establishing rights for minority groups, this country would not have moved ahead very far. It has always been a roadblock, unfortunately.

The door that is opened by this concept that the government's job is to protect us collectively from every unpleasant social outcome--which you said yourself is a perception--is the same one that leads to various kinds of political extremism. Not to mention an abandonment of personal responsibility.

And to say we're stopping at same-sex marriage and abortion because they meet the 50% test lacks credibility. Ten to fifteen years ago these were the same institutions that believed in anti-sodomy laws, that wanted prohibition, bans on pornography, and risque subject matter and language in the media. These are the same forces that wanted FCC control of cable television in the last few years, and bans on internet gambling, not to mention what else we've got going on around here.

Not enough of these people have died yet for me to really believe that some new standard bearers have come along and decided that the aforementioned all are American pastimes now worth preserving.

If you really care about making a difference, you've got to roll up your sleeves and take some responsibility for the society you're living in. If the goal is a free society, a lot of these things are going to be up to the people. And part of the point of a free society is that you don't get it all...you just get more personal satisfaction from what you're doing than you would get any other way.

If freedom isn't as important then we can certainly charge our government with bringing us salvation and moral strength, but as we can see in other countries, that is really a facade that requires the violation of some of the most sacred morals in order to function.

Government helps bring some order to society, but it can never begin to replace it...or then we're in trouble.