Posted on 12/30/2013 5:11:02 AM PST by SeekAndFind
You have posted what stands at the crux of freedom: Virtue. The founders and, generally, the citzenry of the 18th century America, were nearly universal in their understanding that religion was essential to civil society in that religion begat virtue and virtue begat liberty. Freedom is not man-made, it is a gift from God. Wonderful post!
I listened to the piece and Boortz makes a good point that the future of this country depends on Republicans regaining the Senate. Otherwise, Democrats will be able to fill D.C. courts with partisan judges allowing Obama to rule by Executive Order.
We can't afford to blow winnable Senate seats with candidates like Akin, Mourdock, O'Donnell, Angle, etc. who embrace massively unpopular positions on conservative issues and send voters fleeing. His current fear is that we're going to lose retiring Senator Saxby Chambliss' seat in Georgia to Democrat Michelle Nunn (daughter of Sam) by running Paul Broun, a tea party favorite who also happens to be a die-hard young earth creationist and conspiracy nut.
Unfortunately it doesn't work like that. Condoning immorality by doing nothing to oppose it, is tacit approval. When the immoral nation goes down, all suffer, including the citizens who are moral.
You are confusing the founder's opinions toward particular biblical doctrines with their views on virtue. An additional and vital purpose of religious freedom was so that the common virtues espoused by the world's faith trandition could have easy access to the public square. As Madison said, "before one can be a member of civil society, he must be subject to the Governor of the Universe." The founders recognized that there was a civil manifestation of faith in God. . .not as dogma, but rather as virtues that were germaine to the practice of good citizenship. . .thus the need to adhere to "the laws of nature and of nature's God". .that is, to be subject to the Governor of the Universe, was essential for a people to be free. Thus "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams
First of all, I know exactly where Boortz is coming from and has been coming from for decades on this: and you and Neal are basing your arguments on a several VERY VERY FLAWED templates. First, the idea that the tea party is the problem and the estabs should get their candidates is at the bottom of this. The tea party folks on NET were POSITIVE.
Second, that these people support MASSIVELY unpopular positions is wrong. In the case of Akin and Mourdock, they said profoundly stupid things. Akin, btw, is NO tea party guy…he was a stupid estab hack who was already in congress six terms and who won the primary with McCaskill voters crossing over.
Third, the positions are not unpopular, but some folks like Santorum and Huckabee do lead with them, and that is a problem IMO, and I've said so here often. And in AT and in my books….often
But fourth, Phil Robertson showed the way to WIN - do not back down, do not agitate for government action, but be yourself. The Pajama boy V Phil model for manhood is a WINNER.
And fifth, the idea of "blowing winnable seats" is Rove bullsh-t, Haley Barbour bullsh-t. If they want us to accept Mike Castle in Delaware, then they need to work with us to defeat Graham in SC, Cornyn in Texas, Chambliss in Ga, Alexander in TN, Corker in TN, Burr in NC, etc. They only like to look at this "winnable "thing from the liberal blue state side.
BTW I will not take Boortz' comments on Hannity separate from his decades old hatred of Christians, at least in the political sense, that he's held for years. His supposed libertarianism is full of philosophical holes, he accepts the liberal media premise of social conservatives (I am a LImbaugh Reagan Levin Palin type myself, NOT a Santuckaee at all) - and he's an anti smoking Nazi. Boortz is an intellectual mess.
Boortz posts his program notes on the internet each morning and Boortz rarely has guests.
It's no secret in Atlanta (or the broadcasting business) that Hannity would read Boortz's program notes each morning and then plan his show based on those notes. The difference is that Hannity's people would scramble to find a guest or two to speak on the show.
Did he sub for Hannity? I heard him when he subbed for Herman Cain last week.
My liberal friends will be delighted to hear that they're free to use the state to increase taxes to fight immoral selfishness or to create speech codes opposed to hate speech or speech that implies a judging of others.
We are commanded to "love thy neighbor" and to "judge not". After all, doing nothing would be condoning greed and hate, right?
Like Bobby said, “You’re gonna have to serve somebody.”
“Either you’ll be governed by God, or, by God, you’ll be governed.”
You are jumping to your own conclusion and you are not understanding the point I made.
The founders were not suggesting the need for the imposition of virtue via the State or via legislation. Virtue was to be "self-imposed." It is the foundation of "self-government" which is the root of freedom. A free people play a role in the government of the self. Hence the importance of religious freedom and a public square that is frequented by a people of virtue and faith. ..those for whom the constitution was written. (read the full Adam's quote)
Great quote!! and so true.
“One cannot legislate morality, but one can legislate morally.”
Thank you. I feel smarter just reading it.
I will put you down a a Cristy supporter then, may as well lose big.
>> Boortz masquerades as libertarian while in reality being nothing more than a liberal on the moral issues of our time.
The statement implies the libertarian is conservative which is incorrect, but neither is the libertarian necessarily liberal. But I favor the implication of conservatism to which, in my opinion, true libertarianism naturally gravitates.
ant to buy some French postcards?
Libertarianism my not itself be perverse, but it allows perversion to flourish, no society has ever survived it and neither will this one.
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." --October 11, 1798 John Adams
That will be done before the next Senate is sworn in.
>> how can Bortz or Stassel, watch an out of control gay pride parade and say it is okay.
When the law forces homosexuality on the citizens, the libertarian must admit it’s not okay. And neither should the libertarian support abortion.
Many that belong to big Libertarianism are liberals that support law to advance their beliefs. They’re not libertarians.
The founders were not suggesting the need for the imposition of virtue via the State or via legislation.This is what the Libertine lobby would have you believe. The reality is at odds with that claim.
itsashoot wrote:
“There is something that Libertarians always ask:
ant to buy some French postcards?
Libertarianism my not itself be perverse, but it allows perversion to flourish, no society has ever survived it and neither will this one.”
Libertaianism does not deny “the human condition”, but does ask, “By what right does government have to legislate it, at any level?”
You use the word ‘perversion’. What do you call all of those things ‘allowed’ under Sharia Law, then?
You attempt to connect Libertarianism, even in an offhand manner, with perversion.
To you, I say this, “NO happy new year for you, buster!”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.