Posted on 11/19/2001 2:03:57 PM PST by FF578
UHHHH, PLEASE CONSIDER ME UNCONVINCED.
YOU MUST LOVE SOMETHING ABOUT THEM, or you wouldn't bother with them. . . . maybe you love an excuse to rant, to p*ss against the wind . . . . or to rain on someone else's parade?
The problem with that argument is that has nothing to do with the real issue, which is the MURDER of children. It is in fact a hostage threat. Adopt them or we'll continue to MURDER them.
So then Thomas Jefferson was a Taliban because he crafted Virginia's anti-sodomy law. ;-)
For the record, I think the Taliban reference is far too strong, the point I am emphasising is the forcing of religous beliefs on others who don`t share those beliefs.
Then I'll listen to your values that you wish for everyone else to follow. How many person lives have you touched of young pregnant girls? Please tell me you will visit the pregnancy clinics as soon as possible.
UUHHHH, ARE YOU REALLY TRYING TO SAY that the thousands, ?millions? of adoptions, large foster homes etc. for such children on the part of Christians are a myth? Do you really think that Gloria Steinam and Shrillery et al are KINDER, MORE CHARITABLE, MORE CARING, GIVE MORE FOOD, SHELTER, CLOTHES AND AFFECTION to unwanted children than do genuine Christian believers?
Are you REALLY TRYING TO SAY that a partial birth abortion wherein a tool destroys the brain of the partially born child in a modern infantacide is a MORE loving, thoughtful, caring thing to do? Are your sure your curlers haven't short circuited?
And what kind of society, world would you REALLY like to live in? One where inconvenient, 51% unwanted human beings were killed, murdered without choice on their part? . . . you will likely be such some day, if the world lasts that long. You might want to choose your answer well.
Perhaps you were defending as honorable, charitable, caring and thoughtful Shrillery et al's treatment of the unborn and partially born like used toilet paper as a great thing for society. . . . maybe I misconstrued your point somehow. . . .
Do you also plan on opening A MODEST PROPOSAL restaurant?
None of us, at least that I'm familiar with thinks abortion is some kind of wonderful thing. It's abhorrent. However, you men, what do you do to help the situation? I'm fed up with you moralistic, Christians (I'm probably one too) who PREACH to everyone one else.
Actions speak louder than words.
BTW, I don't know that the things I mentioned are THAT disconnected from the major issues.
That is really the guts of the whole argument isn`t it? You believe in the ultimate authority of God. I respect that and I have absolutely no problem with it. I on the other hand am unsure. Just as you believe in the absolute authority of God, many people don`t believe in God. They believe that when you die you return to non-existence, game over. I also respect their right to believe that, it is their choice. I think that you may well be correct, and if so, on my judgement day, I will have a lot to answer for. Many people believe that they will not experience judgement day. Do you respect that?
MOOSE
We now return to our regularly scheduled fracas.
GOD HIMSELF gave that right. IT IS A NECESSARY RIGHT TO AFFORD THE OPTION OF TRUE LOVE IN RELATIONSHIPS. If the choice for NONLOVE is not there, then there's no possibility of Love. But the choice for nonLove, AWAY FROM PERFECTION AND HIS WAYS has to have REAL CONSEQUENCES. The choice AWAY FROM LIFE is a choice TOWARD DEATH. Not a lot of options on that score.
RESPECTING A PERSON's choice about God does NOT mean I think a society based on lawlessness, evil, selfishness, extreme independence etc. is one I'd like to live and try to raise kids in. . . . I can think of a lot of saner options.
The colors change from time to time. '68 was the first election I watched, and from then until '80, Republican was Blue, and Democrat was Red.
Then all three networks changed in '84. I don't recall ever hearing why, but it was my guess that since Reagan was such an anti-communist, the nets wanted to avoid associating the color Red with the Democrats' anti-anti-communism.
Been Red Reps and Blue Dems ever since.
It does not matter how I believe for it is my choice. However, if someone believes differently from me, and most people do, it is their God given right to have those beliefs and I wasn't put on this earth to JUDGE them for their beliefs, unless they are LEFTISTS, then darn right, I'll blast them. :-)
That`s just commonsense isn`t it. Most reasonable people can agree that they don`t want to live in a lawless, evil society. We`ve gone way off the topic here. I guess my question is this: Do you believe that you have the right to legislate peoples actions based on your religious beliefs, knowing that many people have different religious beliefs from you?
If you believe so, just say yes. I will disagree with you, but I will respect your right to say it.
Anyway, I really get sick and tired of the social liberals (Libertarian), falsely calling themselves Conservative), and equating good, Christian people with the Taliban. I agree, it is pathetic.
I'm with FF578. Pornography, Homosexuality, and Abortion DOES destroy society because it is the work of Satan that tries to destroy the family.
I can't believe I hear the liberal mantra of, "well, that's your belief". What in the world?
It seems as there are more people who are becoming very vocal in their opposition to the teachings of Jesus Christ and His church. What, is wanting a baby to LIVE so bad? Is not wanting a child's head pierced terrible? Is not wanting vile substances in the hands of children, terrible? These include drugs, pornography, etc. In my opinion, these substances are smut, and they should not be allowed to be circumvented throughout society. Yes, yes, I know. That's socialist, isn't it. Actually, it's a social Conservative viewpoint. However, I will say that Jesus is what everyone needs. Without Him, problems will continue to plague this imperfec world. Thus, they'll always continue. However, that doesn't mean that we should turn a blind eye to obscenity, Murder, as well as many other things.
I tend to believe that a lot of you grew up in very liberal households. There is nothing that can explain your beliefs, particularly the Libertarian viewpoint. What I call a Libertarian is an individual who grew up in a Liberal Household, but who managed to become a fiscal and individualistic Conservative, but yet failed to see the importance of social Conservatism for its positive influences in life.
That's basically what most Libertarians are, in my opinion. Most Libertarians are old-liberals who shed 2/3 of the garb, but yet couldn't go all the way to being a Conservative. Most twist the Constitution and the founder's intent to believe that obscenity, even if it effects the children of the relationships that it destroys, is okay. Obscenity is never okay. I'll agree, we do have to be weary of the state, for there is a lot of abuse. However, I believe that the smut and obscenity that is so pervasive in today's society deprives today's children from the right to true Liberty.
Oh well, rip me up if you wish. However, remember, all of you Libertarians, that your views held very little water before the 1960s counter-culturalism movement brewed its ugly head and, in which, many of you were the biproduct or were the children of this disgusting movement that twisted the Constitution's meaning to such perverted levels.
And yes, I don't have any trouble wanting to legislate against Jihad. I don't have any trouble wanting to legislate against a Hindu wife wanting to burn herself to death on her husband's pyre. I don't have any trouble wanting to legislate against Hindu child care that would ignore a child playing with a rattlesnake or cobra so as not to hinder the "natural" karmic working out of the child's dying from snake bite ("so the child doesn't have to go thru that karmic experience again")--yes, I saw such a thing in San Diego--with a live, frayed electric wire.
The fact is, not all beliefs are equal. Fantacies that they are may not be overly helpful.
The fact is that many individual actions in public and in private have large social, public consequences that are not always easily directly connected to the individual actions.
We legislate morality all the time. . . . stop lights, theft, etc.
It is a delusion to think legislating morality will work beyond a certain point. It is a delusion to think that morality needs 0% legislation--or sanction by the body politic.
History is full of civilizations that destroyed themselves because they grew to minimize the importance of individual morality and it's influence on society as a whole. We seem hell-bent to add ourselves to that number.
"IF IT FEELS GOOD DO IT;" "I'm not hurting anyone but myself;" etc. are not good survival mottos. . . . especially in a universe ruled by an Almighty God who tends to prefer personal responsibility over personal irresponsibility.
But even if Almighty God did not exist . . . some things are just socially destructive. . . though their effects can take decades or longer to exact their terminal influence. Individuals reared on the PERSONAL PLEASURE AT ANY COST and INDEPENDENCE above any social constraints--such individuals have a hard time wrapping their minds, wills and certainly their behaviors out of submission to almost any higher good. . . . or any higher authority. . . . they will eventually discover that they are not God or even god.
In the meantime, I don't care to be unduly victimized by their excesses. I have no trouble limiting their excesses by suitable social sanction--even laws in some cases.
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.
