And that battle should be societal, not political. Government's job is the protection of the rights of its citizens, the security of the nation, and the maintenance of a civil structure that permits the society to impact culture in any way it chooses. A government should be moral, but not impose morality.
Four long years with any of the likely Democrat nominees in the Oval Office may be enough to return some degree of reality to the FR lemmings who seem to be eager to follow their idol of the moment over the precipice.
If by FR lemmings you are referring to those of us who believe in conservative principles rather than a social right agenda, that may include more than you realize. We can likely agree though, that 4 years of Democrat leadership will not make any of us happy.
I think I can speak for at least a few of FR's social conservatives when I say that we will never vote for any nominee the other side can put up given it's stance on virtually every moral and social issue.
That being the case, they may find they are even more marginalized than ever. That the social issues are more important that the protection of the rights of citizens, the war on terror, immigration reform, tax and budget reforms, tells me that they have no civic interest, but merely some moral-religious agenda which will be ultimately rejected by this Country.
Talk about your truth in advertising law, Rudy breaks it open wide enough to drive an Abrams tank through.
I didn't think we were discussing a specific candidate, but rather political agendas, the FR policy, and the desires of the American people.
I agree that criminalizing the deliberate killing of human life in the womb is an imposition of a moral code, but then criminalizing the deliberate killing of innocent human life at a later stage is no less an imposition of a moral code. Most criminal laws originated in someone's or some culture's moral code. Moses' laws were not too dissimilar to Hammurabi's, and both sets of laws reflected the moral codes of their respective cultures and to a large degree our criminal laws reflect those same moral codes today.
I doubt that you or anyone else who approve the relatively recent decriminalization of acts such as abortion, adultery, sodomy, etc, that you consider to be immoral but victimless violations of the Judeo-Christian moral code would want to also decriminalize murder, rape, theft, perjury, etc, even though those acts are also violations of the same moral/criminal law codes as the first ones I mentioned. So how should government decide which moral laws should be imposed by criminalization and which should not be? By the will of the people as expressed through their representatives, or by unelected, unaccountable judges and Justices? I would criminalize violations of the traditional Judeo-Christian moral code that has been the standard for most of western civilization for 2 thousand years, and ask my representatives in government to vote in favor of my viewpoint. But I'm reasonably sure that we are 180 degrees apart on the correct answer to that question.