The media generally ignored the nature of Santorum's argument, preferring to simply accuse him of Catholic intolerance, Kurtz contended. For example, none of the three pieces published by the New York Times on April 22 on the matter mentioned "the real meaning of Santorum's slippery-slope argument."
Too bad many here on this "Conservative News Forum" made the same mistakes as the NYT.
Religion Increasingly Pilloried in the Public Square & elsewhere.
Nietzsche Between Jews and Jurists: A Note on the Christian Filiation of The Anti-Christ -Anton Schütz
Where are We When We are Beyond Good and Evil? - Tracy B. Strong
Nietzsche and Aretaic Legal Theory - Kyron Huigens
Limits of Tolerance: Law and Religion After The Anti-Christ - Marie Ashe
Nietzsche and Socrates / Or the Spirit of the Devil and the Law -Anthony Carty
Gay Science as Law: An Outline for a Nietzschean Jurisprudence - Jonathan Yovel
Stealing the Natural Language: The Fiction of the Social Contract and Legality in the Light of Nietzsche’s Philosophy - Jiri Pribán
Law’s Beatitude: A Post-Nietzschean Account of Legitimacy - Richard K. Sherwin
From a Biopolitical Point of View: Nietzsche’s Philosophy of Crime - Friedrich Balke
Individual Law: On Some Aspects of Nietzsche’s Juridical and Aesthetic Discourse - Wolfert von Rahden
Nietzsche and the Nazis: The Impact of National Socialism on the Philosophy of Nietzsche Charles M. Yablon
Nietzsche’s Gnosis of Law -Frederick M. Dolan
NOTES ON "THUS SPAKE ZARATHUSTRA" BY ANTHONY M. LUDOVICI. London, February 1909.
(A.) Nietzsche and Morality.
In morality, Nietzsche starts out by adopting the position of the relativist. He says there are no absolute values "good" and "evil"; these are mere means adopted by all in order to acquire power to maintain their place in the world, or to become supreme. It is the lion's good to devour an antelope. It is the dead-leaf butterfly's good to tell a foe a falsehood. For when the dead-leaf butterfly is in danger, it clings to the side of a twig, and what it says to its foe is practically this: "I am not a butterfly, I am a dead leaf, and can be of no use to thee." This is a lie which is good to the butterfly, for it preserves it. In nature every species of organic being instinctively adopts and practises those acts which most conduce to the prevalence or supremacy of its kind. Once the most favourable order of conduct is found, proved efficient and established, it becomes the ruling morality of the species that adopts it and bears them along to victory. All species must not and cannot value alike, for what is the lion's good is the antelope's evil and vice versa.
Thus spake Zarathustra ELIZABETH FORSTER–NIETZSCHE. Nietzsche Archives, Weimar, December 1905.
"Zarathustra" is my brother’s most personal work; it is the history of his most individual experiences, of his friendships, ideals, raptures, bitterest disappointments and sorrows. Above it all, however, there soars, transfiguring it, the image of his greatest hopes and remotest aims. My brother had the figure of Zarathustra in his mind from his very earliest youth: he once told me that even as a child he had dreamt of him. At different periods in his life, he would call this haunter of his dreams by different names; "but in the end," he declares in a note on the subject, "I had to do a PERSIAN the honour of identifying him with this creature of my fancy. Persians were the first to take a broad and comprehensive view of history. Every series of evolutions, according to them, was presided over by a prophet; and every prophet had his ‘Hazar,’—his dynasty of a thousand years." Ñ
Already at the beginning of this history I hinted at the reasons which led my brother to select a Persian as the incarnation of his ideal of the majestic philosopher. His reasons, however, for choosing Zarathustra of all others to be his mouthpiece, he gives us in the following words:— "People have never asked me, as they should have done, what the name Zarathustra precisely means in my mouth, in the mouth of the first Immoralist; for what distinguishes that philosopher from all others in the past is the very fact that he was exactly the reverse of an immoralist. Zarathustra was the first to see in the struggle between good and evil the essential wheel in the working of things. The translation of morality into the metaphysical, as force, cause, end in itself, was HIS work. But the very question suggests its own answer. Zarathustra CREATED the most portentous error, MORALITY, consequently he should also be the first to PERCEIVE that error, not only because he has had longer and greater experience of the subject than any other thinker—all history is the experimental refutation of the theory of the so–called moral order of things:—the more important point is that Zarathustra was more truthful than any other thinker. In his teaching alone do we meet with truthfulness upheld as the highest virtue—i.e.: the reverse of the COWARDICE of the ‘idealist’ who flees from reality. Zarathustra had more courage in his body than any other thinker before or after him. To tell the truth and TO AIM STRAIGHT: that is the first Persian virtue. Am I understood?...The overcoming of morality through itself—through truthfulness, the overcoming of the moralist through his opposite—THROUGH ME—: that is what the name Zarathustra means in my mouth."
Well Governor,What's it gonna be?
On some issues there can be no compromise, at least not morally. Sometimes there is just right and wrong, and that is not necessaarily even a religious argument. It seems the left expects politicians to abandon their religious beliefs during their terms of service. That is preposterous. A man, or woman, who is unfaithful regarding his most intimately held beliefs, will be unfaithful in anything as public policy promoted by the democRATs has shown repeatedly. To my knowledge, there have been no Republicans asked to disassociate themselves from their religious institutions, but it has happened numerous times with democRATs, with Bill Clinton himself being the first I am aware of. Think about it. How bad do you have to be for your church, on a national level, to ask you to remove yourself from it? That would bring such deep humiliation to the average person that it would be hard to show one's face in public. But alas, not for the leftist RATs. They know neither shame nor decency and are committed to nothing apart from the acquisition and maintainance of power.
'The Bible is the Book upon which this Republic rests." (ANDREW JACKSON)