Posted on 04/02/2010 9:24:47 AM PDT by ICAB9USA
Good posts. I guess we can say, let’s just be reasonable. Do the libertarians want whorehouses on ever corner? Many probably do, legalizing all sin seems to be the single issue for many of them. Most don’t though. Do they want their neighbors having orgies in their front yards for their kids to see? Laws against such things are Blue Laws are they not?
The "religious right" created this nation and ran it until the 20th century when the liberals started getting the upper hand, in the last 40 years the left, and libertarians have had a stunning run of victories against American culture and traditions, and it has turned this nation into something of a hell hole, with a more bleak, more government empowered future to look forward to.
So many elements in America unite to defeat our natural, American, social conservatism and make us more hip and European, and the result is always a negative effect on our culture and society.
“I’m saying that to really change someone’s life, Christians need to stop looking to government to solve things because it is misdirected. They need obey the Great Commission.”
You’re absolutely right! There’s never been a truer statement. But many libertarians want to tear down every law against sin. And many of them want to tax the new legalized sin which leads me to believe they’re not against government, they’re for sin.
GK Chesterton wrote about this in The Superstition of Divorce. I’m usually a moron when it comes to remembering stuff I read but this stuck with me.
“As a matter of fact, instead of invading the family with the blundering bureaucracy that mismanages the public services, it would be far more philosophical to work the reform the other way round. It would be really quite as reasonable to alter the laws of the nation so as to resemble the laws of the nursery. The punishments would be far less horrible, far more humorous, and far more really calculated to make men feel they had made fools of themselves. It would be a pleasant change if a judge, instead of putting on the black cap, had to put on the dunce’s cap; or if we could stand a financier in his own corner.”
So, basically, you don't like the competition for who gets to be the nanny.
So many elements in America unite to defeat our natural, American, social conservatism and make us more hip and European, and the result is always a negative effect on our culture and society.
Yeah, we followed the Europeans and did some bad stuff like finally banning slavery.
So you openly support the gains of the left of the last 40 years, and compare it favorably to what you call our Christian “nanny state” of earlier America.
You also support the left’s and libertarian efforts to make us like European nations and you mix that up with 19th century slavery somehow.
You guys are rarely this open.
I don’t support most of the gains of the left. I don’t like that most of them simply want to replace one nanny state with another. I don’t like that so many “conservatives” simply want to reinstitute and strengthen the Christian nanny state.
The idea is that nobody can be your nanny. With that is liberty. With a nanny comes tyranny, as C.S. Lewis warned. Notice how he said the well-meaning tyrants think this will get them into Heaven? Do you think he was talking about atheists or Christians?
Being a governmental conservative can coexist with being a social conservative only if you don’t think the socially conservative views can be enforced by law. Otherwise, you’re big-government, just on the other side of the coin from the big-government liberals.
Evidently you know nothing of America before the 1960s, it was a great place and getting stronger and better all the time, and it was so strictly socially conservative that you wouldn’t recognize it.
Today America is in decline and has become a very unpleasant place to live and raise families in for many Americans, because we got away from that social conservatism and we have become more European.
We were far beyond what you can probably imagine as being a “nanny” state, yet people were freer and happier and our communities and society thrived.
www.monergism.com
Yeah, the niggers weren't so uppity back then.
we got away from that social conservatism
On a personal level, yes. I'm fairly socially conservative myself, I just don't believe in enforcing that upon others through laws. Whatever happened to shunning? That was the right way to deal with these people. We used to have the concept of the social outcast, but now everything is supposedly acceptible. This isn't a law thing, it's how society changed. The law did help though, in pushing the power of the federal government down in to the community. These days a good shunning would probably be called a federal rights violation.
The government education system, plus welfare destroyed the natural social consequences of bad behavior.
Are you at least for vouchers?
This isn’t just a religious message. Science has finally caught up to religion.
We know that 80%+ of poverty is directly attributable to premarital births by non-HS graduates in their teens.
Science is finally overcoming the lies/fraud of Kinsey and Freud to discover that sex outside of marriage is harmful, especially to women, both physically and psychologically.
Someone who espouses legalizing prostitution and drugs doesn’t have a firm grasp of reality. Legalization doesn’t solve the underlying problem of the soul.
You seem to have a problem with blacks and somehow want to mix that up with porn, drugs, prostitution, prayer in school, homosexuals in the military, gay marriage, abortion and such, I don’t why.
The government led by the left/libertarians declared war on America and it’s social conservatism, and they used the power of government to impose their artificial standards on the American people and our communities, destroying both.
Now old fashioned Americans migrate away from the ares where your goals are most victorious, and they strive to live in the ever shrinking portions of places where your governmental powers have not found them out.
Very good answers. And of course vouchers are a good idea.
Far better men than me have already said what you need to learn and understand about forcing YOUR beliefs on others through legislation:
“As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguisable from the evil that they set out to destroy.”
-Christoper Dawson
“It is better by noble boldness to run the risk of being subject to half the evils we anticipate than to remain in cowardly listlessness for fear of what might happen.” -Herodotus
If YOU or any other “religious” person is given the power to regulate all others, “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?”
“I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it.” - Thomas Jefferson (1791)
Our Founders may have believed in morals, honor and (Judeo-Christian based) ethics, but they did NOT believe that the tenets of “Chistianity” (as opposed to acting as a “christian”) should be enshrined in the laws of government, forcing MORAL choices dictated by religion on others.
“Indeed, when religious people quarrel about religion, or hungry people quarrel about victuals, it looks as if they had not much of either among them.”
-Benjamin Franklin
“Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprize [sic], every expanded prospect.”
-James Madison, in a letter to William Bradford, April 1,1774
“The declaration that religious faith shall be unpunished does not give immunity to criminal acts dictated by religious error.”
-Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1788
If YOU argue that you or your like minded “religious conservatives” should be allowed to regulate by law and be the determiners of exactly which behaviors “break down society itself”, then you would also agree that Sharia law and Islam should be given the same “rights”. They are, after all, “religious conservatives” - in their eyes, anyway, just like you view yourself- so what is good for the goose is good for the gander, huh?
“Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others?”
- Thomas Jefferson (1801)
The Founders may have believed in the teachings of Jesus, but they did not believe that “Christianity”, as practiced by the Church at the time should be the basis of oppressive laws regulating the citizenry.
“The United States is in no sense founded upon the Christian doctrine.”
-George Washington
“...we may safely affirm (though contradicted by all the judges and writers on earth) that Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.” -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, 1814
“In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.” -Thomas Jefferson to Horatio G. Spafford, 1814
“Good intentions will always be pleaded for any assumption of power. The Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.”
- Daniel Webster
“The more taboos and inhibitions there are in the world, The poorer the people become... The more articulate the laws and ordinances, The more robbers and thieves arise.” - Lao Tzu, Tao Teh Ching
The one thing we DON’T need are “religious conservatives” like you legislating YOUR morals for everyone else, whether they agree with you or not. Tyranny for religious principles (your “morals”) is no less tyranny for any other reason.
No thanks. I don’t want YOUR morals legislated for me. And believe me, you don’t want MINE enshrined in legislation for you.
It’s, “Far better men than ‘I.’”
If you add the verb on the end, you will never make that mistake again. “Me” is an object. “I” is a pronoun.
Correct grammar can assist in making compelling points without hyperbole, mis-characterization, or the overuse of capital letters.
I understand and disagree with most of those quoted.
But thank you for your kind reply.
If you're too conservative then you never change. Smart people changed their attitudes towards blacks, but they did it over time. Social change always happens, but doing it too fast is not good for a society. Generally social change happens slowly by default. How does it happen fast? Using the power of government to force it.
Porn, drugs, prostitution, all consensual crimes. I don't believe in criminalizing it. As soon as you do you're a nanny state, and the libs when in power can use that same justification to ban other things like cigarettes, fatty foods, salty foods, non-PC language, etc.
Homos in the military should just be a military issue. The brass says no, it should stay no. No nanny state. Gay marriage is simply a matter of tradition, which has always been that marriage is man and woman -- anyone who understands basic evolution should understand why. No nanny state, just what the state decides to recognize (actually, I'd like to get the government out of the marriage business completely), And to abortion, it's murder. There's no nanny state issue about it.
Enforcing social mores should happen at the community level between people. The government shouldn't be in that business.
>>”I understand and disagree with most of those quoted.”<<
And most reasonable and educated people will thus completely understand how totally worthless your “opinion” therefore is. Just enhances my distrust of ever having anyone like you in a position of responsibility or with the power to legislate.
Look, opinions should consist of conclusions based upon facts.
We are all selective in the facts we take in to make those conclusions. We differ in our abilities, our exposures, and our predispositions.
That does not warrant personal attacks.
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.