Contra-Contraception

A law that was never enforced.

The opinion of the Court in Griswold says that the two appellants in that case were arrested, convicted and fined.

Of course not. Enough already with the language of individual liberties! It was a barbaric practice that had to stop.

I'm sorry I keep mentioning individual liberties, but I think it's very relevant to the discussion. And I must point out that you were the one who first brought them up. If you'd prefer, I'll use different terms so my writing won't be as repetitive.

I'd also like to point out that it was you who brought up barbaric practices. The only specific practice I mentioned were anti-miscegenation laws. While those laws may not have been fair or just, I don't think you could call them barbaric. The state of Virginia wasn't killing black citizens for trying to marry white citizens, they just didn't recognize those marriages. It's not quite the same as the ritualized murder in India.

These are upheavals. You can't generalize from that type of crazy times to narrow questions of political theory.

It's always a crazy time in some area of American life, and political theory has to address those areas as well as the normal ones. Some would argue that our own time involves sexual upheaval or an upheaval in our understanding of security and civil liberties (aka the "post-9/11 worldview"). These upheavals have to be addressed just like the civil rights upheavals of previous decades.

Judges didn't end slavery or bans on mixed marriages. The culture did. Judges played their role, not always to the good. You do recall Dred Scott and Plessy?

Until the Supreme Court got involved, a black woman and a white man could not be married in Virginia. The law prohibited it, and that was a reflection of Southern culture. After the Supreme Court got involved, Virginia could no longer prohibit these marriages...and neither could any other state. It seems clear that the Supreme Court did end laws against mixed marriage.

But you are correct concerning Dred Scott. The Supreme Court did not end slavery. They actually protected that institution, and struck down the Missouri Compromise as unConstitutional. We both agree this was the wrong decision.

What do you think the right decision in that case would have been? Would it have been better to recognize Scott's right to freedom, or should the Court have deferred to the legislature on this cultural and political issue, and made no decision?

I objected to government shaping the culture because it is the other way around. You seem to be looking for universal, culturally neutral government. It doesn't exist.

I know a perfectly culturally-nuetral government can never exist. Culture influences the government, and the actions of the government will have ripple effects on the culture. I DO think it is possible for a government to keep from explicitly and directly trying to shape the culture.

Let me illustrate the difference. During WWII, the government's war effort required more industrial production. Workers were drawn in to the cities as industrial labor, and the rural character of the country was reduced. I'm fine with this. Yes, the culture was affected, but it wasn't the point of the government's actions. It was a side effect. The point was to produce the materials needed to win the war.

During the Cultural Revolution, Chairman Mao decided to force urban students to live in the countryside to promote "egalitarianism" and fight "intellectualism". I would be very opposed to this kind of action, as fighting "intellectualism" is not a legitimate end of government.

Rather loosey-goosey discussion. Definitely not converging. I don't think we are in a time of upheaval now, and so normative views of the role of the judiciary should hold. Since we are such a very just society, an emphasis by the judiciary on activism is a way for them to amplify their already bloated supremacy. I think there is quite a danger of it evolving into the oligarchy I fear, "shaping the culture." The individual rights thing is a tool that they are using, or their power is using them.

The Constitution is fine as it is. Don't try for perfection. Just everyone do their jobs.

Thanks for the discussion.

Thanks for the discussion.

Likewise, sir.

We can certainly choose any action at any time we wish, the issue is how the society deals with that action. We as a nation have made our god liberty, not the God of creation and the author of life. This is why the disease of homosexuality is now spreading to our school children. It's why we murder our progeny at all stages of pre-birth by the uncountable millions - including by chemical "contraception". It is why we allow the scourge of divorce to ravage our families and hobble society. We allow our teachers, public officials and anyone who chooses to profane Our Lord and remove Him from the public square. It's why we see teenagers mating like canines on national television. At least the canines have to wait until they're in heat and don't kill their offspring. We have no right whatsoever Mark, to govern ourselves this way and to harm each other and others in our circumference in this fashion. The false god of liberty and "freedom" leads people to pain, frowardness, apostasy, unholy disorder and if you believe what God has always told us - hell. We've put the right of the individual above the order, love and peace of our creator. The pursuit of liberty and happiness may be in our constitution but neither of these "rights" have a thing to do with the laws of God, and cannot be found anywhere in scripture.

It's not a matter of forcing His will on others, it's a matter of protecting society - most importantly our women and children - from the eternal enemy and not allowing God's creation from becoming victims of the unholy, or the Father of life from being scrubbed from from society, leading to the loss of souls. It's a matter of embracing NATURAL law and truth, not the laws of men. Our society now (including the majority of our "Christian" demographic) falsely believes one of the worst situations is insisting that it's members not engage in sin, sloth, averice, adultery, sacrilege, hedonism, lust... all in the name of "liberty". We've put the values of our masonic founders above the values of our triune God.

I agree with you about the state of the world we live in. You must understand, I am in no way defending many of the things that have become so prevelant in our society. The difference between you and I is that what you see as problems, I see as symptoms. Treating symptoms does nothing in the long run if the problem itself is not dealt with. The problem is not the things that people do, but the condition of their hearts. You can't change hearts with legislation. I do believe that when behavior crosses the line to the point of affecting innocent victims, that it is then within the governments authority to step in. I draw that line at conception, while you draw the line before conception.

Your sexual habist and practices are not a private matter. They are quite public when they either do not produce reproductive results or do so in abudance. The death of western civilisation is toi a large extent due to the attitude that what one does in private has no public or general effect on society. Quite the opposite is of course true. The "right to privacy" is a modern bourgeois concept that doesn't even exist in the constitution. Societies have a primal imperative to assure their own perpetuation. It has been so since the dawn of mankind. Those societies that become lax in that respect, become extinct as did the Romans and other civilisations before us.

Wow.

If one were to set out to develop a philosophical viewpoint tailor made to justify maximum governmental intrusion into our personal lives at the expense of individual liberty, one would be hard pressed to come up with one better than this. The implications are, to put it mildly, appalling.

Imagine, if you would, a government with this viewpoint, run by the likes of Hildebeast.

-Eric

However, sociallly conservative libertarians understand that when government is used to attempt to achieve the goals of social conservatism, the end results are the opposite of their intentions. Instead of more morality, there is now less morality. The people will, in large part, voluntarily choose morality if they are just left alone.

The words "for the large part" is the tripping point for many so-called "cultural conservatives". They are in reality cultural collectivists, who require unanimity.

Fortunately, they lack the numbers to get their way.

Unfortunately, when we allow their agenda to pollute the fiscal/foreign/defense conservative agenda, we lose.

That agenda, plus cultural libertarianism, gave us Reagan. The same agenda, plus perceived cultural conservatism, gave us Clinton.

-Eric

Ya, and that reminds me of another similarity to the thinking of those on the left.

Seeking to make sure not one single person, 'falls through the cracks', liberals destroy society for everyone, making everyone 'equally miserable' and destitute. Similarly, in attempting to make everyone 'equally moral', Social Conservatives who favor expanding government to achive this aim (not libertarian minded social conservatives) actually would, IMO, end up destroying morality for everyone, making us all equally immoral...

ping