[Cultural Jihad]

Why, indeed?

** The Government **

The government has a responsibility to enforce the laws. But it does much more than that. It sets a moral standard, based on the knowledge that some practices have evil consequences.

Doctors are aware how harmful sodomy is. The intestines were not designed for this purpose, and expensive operations have to be done to repair the damaged muscles and intestinal tissue. Diseases, also, are introduced through sodomy.

Practices which are harmful to the practitioners, as well as society, should not be encouraged. Such practices should be frowned upon, and not allowed. It would be cruel to allow people and society to suffer. We have no problem decrying the harmfulness of tobacco. But not sodomy, and other sexual perversions.

Why is this so?

The word "liberal" used to be religious term, denoting generosity of giving. Now, it's a secular term of licentiousness.

The vast majority of people are moral and decent. But in all the areas of power in this country, in the media, the advertisers, the entertainment industry, the government, the universities and schools, there are powerful groups of liberals who think if only people would fall into a "let live" attitude in morals, everything would be fine.

The whole liberal power-structure is geared to lowering morality, and they see it as a "crusade" to bring "freedom."

The bottomline, though, is greed. That is the driving-force behind their campaign against morality. Immorality generates money, and they're right behind, scooping it up.

[Lurker]

" It sets a moral standard,"

You mean like Bill Clinton?

L

[Hank Kerchief]

Practices which are harmful to the practitioners, as well as society, should not be encouraged. Such practices should be frowned upon, and not allowed.

So, if you happen to believe in a religion that teaches anyone who is not saved, in terms of your religion's teaching, will suffer forever in hell, what could be more self-destructive that that than rejecting your religion. They should be forces to adhere to your religion, because the practice of denying your religion would be the ultimate self-destruction. (I'm not saying this is your religion. It's just an illustration.)

It would be cruel to allow people and society to suffer. We have no problem decrying the harmfulness of tobacco. But not sodomy, and other sexual perversions. If people choose practices and lifestyles that are self-destructive and cause them suffering, it is their business. No one appointed you, or anyone else, the protecter of all mankind.

What is cruel is to force decent people, who use all their resources to improve the lives of themselves and their loved owns, to pay for cleaning up after those who ruin their lives. Why should a decent hard working, productive parent be forced to pay for government programs that will force those too evil or too stupid to live their lives decently, to behave they way the government thinks they ought to.

You want to ease the lives of the perverts and indecent at the expense of the normal and the decent.

In an objectivist society, anyone who wanted to help these perverts straighen out their lives would be allowed to, but no one would be forced to.

Please come back when you have your moral principles straigtened out.

Hank

[Anamensis]

What on earth does Ayn Rand have to do with sodomy? Her attitude toward gays was about the same as Dr. Laura's. I don't get it, are you taking the standard Libertarian point of view as representative of Rand's writing?

[Beck_isright]

"The bottomline, though, is greed. That is the driving-force behind their campaign against morality. Immorality generates money, and they're right behind, scooping it up."

So Billy Graham is Immoral? That's what your diatribe is inferring.....

[tpaine]

Objectivists would rob people of their right to decide what kind of a society they are to live in, and that makes them anti-freedom. 3 -cj-

Why?
Why, indeed?
-bettyboop-

** The Government **
The government has a responsibility to enforce the laws. But it does much more than that. It sets a moral standard, based on the knowledge that some practices have evil consequences.

Not so. Under our constitution the government is ~not~ empowered to set moral standards.. Or to decree what is evil.
We agree to obey our constitutional rule of law, not to the rule of moralizing men.

Doctors are aware how harmful sodomy is. The intestines were not designed for this purpose, and expensive operations have to be done to repair the damaged muscles and intestinal tissue. Diseases, also, are introduced through sodomy. Practices which are harmful to the practitioners, as well as society, should not be encouraged. Such practices should be frowned upon, and not allowed. It would be cruel to allow people and society to suffer. We have no problem decrying the harmfulness of tobacco. But not sodomy, and other sexual perversions. Why is this so?

Because you are obcessed with sodomy? -- Bizarre point, CJ.

The word "liberal" used to be religious term, denoting generosity of giving. Now, it's a secular term of licentiousness. The vast majority of people are moral and decent. But in all the areas of power in this country, in the media, the advertisers, the entertainment industry, the government, the universities and schools, there are powerful groups of liberals who think if only people would fall into a "let live" attitude in morals, everything would be fine. The whole liberal power-structure is geared to lowering morality, and they see it as a "crusade" to bring "freedom." The bottomline, though, is greed. That is the driving-force behind their campaign against morality. Immorality generates money, and they're right behind, scooping it up.

Another weird little rant CJ, - but what does it have to do with Rand?

[ThinkLikeWaterAndReeds]

if you weren't so concerned about your ass, you might be able to remove your head and realize that objectivism concerns your right to decide for yourself - government has one and only one purpose, to protect society against armed intervention and against internal fraud