[skeeter]

Fiscal conservatives must come to understand that they need social conservatives, too.

The last time this happened republicans won the white house for 12 years.

[darkangel82]

“I’m conservative, but...”= seminar poster

[Finny]

Dear Dennis Prager:

What force empowers abortion and homosexual marriage? Why was it that before Roe v Wade, TWO THIRDS of the states outlawed abortion? Why is it that homosexuals have to go to court in order to have what they consider their "rights" respected?

Dennis Prager, government IS A FORCE. It isn't a philosophy, it isn't an intangible bundle of wishes, it isn't a theory, it isn't "just on paper." Government is a force.

Without the FORCE of government behind them, the homosexual AND abortion agendas would be DEAD IN THE WATER. Government, socially "involved" government, is the FORCE that has nourished and enabled the abortion and homosexual lobbies to override the majority of Americans who are obviously opposed to both; if they weren't opposed to abortion and the gay agenda, then government wouldn't need to step in and force Americans to accept abortion and homosexuality.

The best way to achieve a MORAL society, the best way to see America become MORE moral, more in keeping with the Judeo-Christian ethic, is to REDUCE government. Social conservatives fail to understand that, and that is Christian conservatives like me see them as righteous statists with Christian morality; they are ONLY "conservatives" if the word "conservative" is code for "Judeo-Christian morality." To make "conservative" code for "Judeo-Christian morality" is stupid and self-defeating.

Lack of government "prohibiting" gay marriage (an oxymoron, and outlawing gay marriage is like outlawing unicorns) and lack of government preventing abortion, is not the problem, Dennis!! Before government stepped in, Americans, who are on balance moral and righteous, REJECTED BOTH all on their own. It was ONLY when government stepped in to force the majority to surrender to both the gay and abortion lobbies, that this problem happened.

Reduce government, reduce the problem. Morality in American would THRIVE if the FORCE of government was neutered and reduced to the bare essentials FORMED ON THE JUDEO CHRISTIAN ETHIC as the Founders did at the start.

[TheThirdRuffian]

The problem is the fiscal liberals and social conservatives like Huckabee give social conservatives a bad name.

[DManA]

Note to the religious right - fiscal conservatives are your allies.

[First_Salute]

There is no religious right, nor middle, nor left.

What there was ... was the Republican Party brass who established a gravitational point in order to raise votes.

Yet with those votes, came the voters and their expression.

Now *that,* the RNC/Republican Party Hair Club for Men could not tolerate. In meetings, some Bible-thumpers were obstinate. The RP brass were indignant; how dare anybody challenge the RINO! Soon after, came a rise of conservative grass roots rebellion among *immigrants* particularly in Florida, who objected to the Clinton/Reno “progressives” sending young Elian back to Cuba.

Since then, the Money Talks RINO have been trying to distance themselves from grass roots conservatives -and- get as close to being Progressives with Money But for Lower Taxes for Themselves.

[TADSLOS]

The entire American experiment in smaller government — and even in secular government — was based on the presumption that Americans individually would be actively religious. Unlike Europeans of the Enlightenment era — and unlike the Left today — the Founders understood that people are not basically good. That is a defining belief of Judaism as well as of Christianity. Therefore, to be good, the great majority of people need moral religion and belief in accountability to a morally judging God. In other words, you will have either the big God of Judaism and Christianity or the big state of the Left.

Unfortunately, that idea went to the wayside at the turn of the century when socialists like Wilson entered the scene. We have been sliding into the leftist big state abyss ever since.

[Responsibility2nd]

The battle within the conservative ranks rages on.
 

Can one really be a fiscal conservative and reject social and moral values? I'm not so sure.

 

 

Moral Absolutes Ping!

Freepmail Responsibility2nd or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list. FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search [ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]

[Drango]

A big tent works for me. That said...Can we give the Losertarians to the green party?

[redgolum]

Fiscal conservative/social liberals are often fiscal liberals who only want someone to pay for their specific vice.

[A CA Guy]

The conservative Religious stay home for religious reasons over their fiscal reasons IMO at times.

[CitizenUSA]

To those people who vote Democrat because they claim to be socially liberal but fiscally conservative, it appears you value immorality, aka social liberalism, far, far more than you value fiscal conservatism. In other words, I agree with Dennis Prager. I very highly doubt you would ever jettison the Democrat Party if Republicans surrendered the so-called social issues.

Dennis Prager is also right that small government absolutely requires Judeo-Christian morality. The two go hand in hand, because immoral people inevitably turn to government to help mitigate the results of immorality. Find yourself at 24 with two children from different (and absent) fathers and a minimum wage or no job? You’re likely going to vote for help from Uncle Sam.

An immoral person might not vote for more government of course, but it’s the lack of moral principles like self restraint that typically get people in a bind in the first place. Plus it doesn’t even matter if there are a few holdouts. What matters is numbers, and small numbers of libertarian libertines will be quickly outnumbered and out voted by people looking for government security.

Finally, social liberals tend to have an irrational fear of religion, especially Christianity. I’m a Christian, and I don’t know of anyone who wants a theocracy. That doesn’t mean there might not be a few left who would love to make things like porn and booze illegal, but let’s be real here. Those few outliers can’t muster voting majorities anywhere.

Christians might talk about their faith, but they’re not going to force you to worship Jesus (Muslims might be a different matter of course). What I’m saying is social liberals who claim to be fiscally conservative really need to weigh the relative risks. Which is more likely to occur, a Christian theocracy or a Democrat controlled, big spending, all intrusive government?

[discostu]

I don’t know any fiscal conservatives that vote Dem. We vote GOP when they manage to put up a candidates that doesn’t suck, libertarian or “screw you guys” when they don’t. The big problem is these days the GOP seems to be incapable of finding candidates that aren’t a sick joke.

[Theophilus]

The most fiscally conservative words ever spoken: "Thou shalt not covet"

[Ron H.]

An article that tells it like it is. I agree completely. The two sides need each other politically but this social conservative will no longer compromise his religious or moral beliefs for the sake of allying with socially liberal libertarians or RINOs to win a political race until they prove they WILL compromise their core beliefs and principles for the very same reasons.

I have nothing to worry about though regarding compromising my deeply held religious beliefs and moral principles as the left never does nor will they ever compromise anything with the social right. There is just much history to bear this out. So, why waste my breath trying to.