Excuse me. You have already posted an article regarding this. Must you post all that you find?
Jim, please remove this!!
Interesting to see how the Palin supporters spin this one
there is no conservatism without social conservatism. end of discussion. if Sarah is part of the “post social issue” wing, that is profoundly discouraging. Let’s hope this is typical MSM spin.
Yet another reason why Palin continues to drop on my list of 2012 contenders.
A person has to be pretty undiscerning not to recognise that these are all interconnected.
A person has to be pretty undiscerning not to recognise that these are all interconnected.
The gays are the ones on offense.
I found the article very difficult to ‘follow’.
A WHOLE BUNCH OF KERFUFFLE (as used by the author).
The only ‘point’ I could find was that Palin seems to be on the side of having the homosexuality be left to morality and church, and keep it out of politics and the military (as far as it being made an issue by EITHER side).
I agree with that concept.
Fifty years ago, atheists, humanists and so-called “progressives” - some of whom considered themselves religious but not necessarily Conservative - set the tone in education, initially, that having an electoral majority did not give that majority the right to impose a particular moral stance - particularly on issues of morals, God or sex - in PUBLIC education.
The general idea was that PUBLIC education - the public education institution - should be an agnostic in those areas - not a proponent or an opponent of one side or the other; mute more often than not.
But, we all know what happened.
Instead of insuring that PUBLIC education became an agnostic on such issues, it simply turned itself over 180 degrees and became a very active advocate for secular humanists and progressives - on God, morals and sex - in PUBLIC education; disenfranchising the rights of devoted religious believers to NOT have their moral values trashed in their own childrens PUBLIC education.
The Conservative position on this issue should be to oppose the insertion of the secular humanist and progressive agendas in public education, on matters of morals God and sex, not to again turn over the PUBLIC education institutions 180 degrees, in those areas, and re-impose a “social Conservative” agenda on them, BUT, instead, to demand the SMALL GOVERNMENT, LIMITED GOVERNMENT agnosticism that PUBLIC education should have on such topics, which means NO ONE’S social agenda on those topics should be inserted into the curriculum (in PUBLIC schools).
The easier way to say this is that we simply need to get PUBLIC education OUT OF the SOCIAL AGENDA business altogether, in matters of morals, God and sex. It’s none of their damn business. We are looking for them to train our children in very specific academic ways. We are not looking for them to interfere in the moral tone we set for our children in the home, the family and from our religious affiliations. They need to stay out of this stuff, altogether.
TOLERANCE is not about changing your values or ACCEPTING the values of anyone else. TOLERANCE is about the right to NOT AGREE, and most of what it requires is to conduct ourselves with civil respect for that right; AND NO MORE.
I honestly do not care who twittered what, I will not stop seeing homosexuality as anything but an abhorant behavior and sin.
-J.S.
Let’s not get all twee-twee’d up about this.