Posted on 07/12/2004 12:05:47 AM PDT by neverdem
American law is founded on the basis of English common law, which drew from Biblical examples to a large extent. As an example, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Law make far more allusions to Biblical verses than to secular authors. Because of the effects of the Enlightenment on American thought and the wide religious diversity of the American colonies, the Founding Fathers largely rejected the concept of union between state and church. Because of the religious diversity and the wide support for a limited Federal government, the Constitution forbade test oaths to hold public office and denied the Federal government the power to intervene in religious matters. However, the state constitutions of the Founding era mostly recognized the existence and, in some cases, the sovereignty of God and asked for His blessings. Test oaths continued on the state level until the 20th Century.
American political rhetoric from the days of George Washington to Harry Truman made frequent allusions to God, in a context usually indicating the Judeo-Christian God, and to specific Biblical passages. Even political liberals like John Kerry or Bill Clinton, despite the secular humanist bent of their political philosophy and their nonadherence to the sexual mores of their respective churches, make it a point to be seen as faithful churchgoers.
All political thought is ultimately grounded in morality, which in turn is predicated on metaphysics. The question arises: whose political thought will be reflected in the laws of the land? If secular humanists, like the RINOs in charge of the GOP, tell Christians to leave their beliefs at the church door, it is those secular humanists who are trying to foist their morality upon Christians.
Just curious--have you read Human Events lately?
Howlin, are you gonna post a
thread for W's Oakridge, TN
speech? Supposed to a VIP one.
Yep....working on it now!
Not all, but many of them. I don't see any particular moral imperative in dictating wheather I should drive on the right side of the road, or the left.
At any rate, there seems to be a degree of disingenuouness in the argument that evangelical SC's only want to advance their agenda by persuasion and not compulsion, while demanding more opportunity to try and pesuade those with the poewer to compel.
Let's face it: a smaller Government would mean that the wives, children, nieces, and nephews of Exec Branch and Congresscritters couldn't find jobs.
After all, what really counts?
Question for all the dim-bulbs on the thread who keep insisting that Bush should follow Reagan's example to steer the GOP in a more conservative route...
Please post lists of Reagan's 100% pure, unadulatered, supporting-every-scrap-of-the-GOP-platform conservatives that were the prime-time speakers at his two conventions.... or shut up.
To this day, most people have "lines" they will not cross. Due to the constant bombardment by the liberal media and academia, that line has regularly been defined downward. In 1900, most people would have been aghast at the thought of permissive divorce laws or form revealing clothing on women. In 1950, these areas would have been more acceptable, but most people would have rejected casual sex and abortion on demand. Tolerance of these areas formerly condemned was widespread in 1980, but most people still regarded homosexuality and transvestism beyond the pale. The barriers against both these areas are falling in public opinion in 2004, but most people would still object to incest, polygamy, and child pornography. If the past is prologue, we may see these perversions accepted as "lifestyle choices" by 2025 or 2030.
Outside of Puritan New England, America never had anything like a religious police. Where personal morality was written into the law, it was the local sheriff or district attorney that enforced such laws, along with numerous other statutes. Laws against vice were enforced as were laws against pollution or disorderly conduct, so that civil order may be maintained. Furthermore, these were local matters. Someone who wanted the "wild" life could find it in the large port cities or the frontier mining towns.
Historically, centralized government has been a far greater foe of liberty than local ones. New York City under Boss Tweed or Louisiana under Huey Long may have been despotic, but no one had to live in either place if he had to. From the 1950s onward, the Supreme Court eviscerated the common law authority of local governments to control vice. Was liberty expanded? Not in the sense the Founding Fathers meant. Did Federal power usurp states' rights? Yes, under the adoption of political theories that have gradually turned our decentralized nation into a centralized one, like those countries in Europe the Founders considered to be poor examples of governance. It may be more difficult for a Huey Long to arise on a state or local level, but centralized government means that America may face a Huey Long writ large. In fact, Bill Clinton was to some extent just that.
IMHO, the toppling of "Mrs. Grundy" was abetted by Comstock and his ilk, who eleveated her to a precariously high pedestal on that high horse, and made it no longer a matter of "self policing", but government policy at the highest level.
Evangelicals do not advocate mandatory Sabbath worship, state support of the church, or even test oaths to hold public office. Some would want to wrest the public schools from its present control by secular humanists, and bring back public prayer and Bible reading. This is, of course, an attempt to compel people to outwardly conform with Judeo-Christian standards of behavior. However, most players in he public education arena do likewise for their causes, e.g., sex educators who promote premarital sex, liberals who try to promote multiculturalism and political correctness, minority advocates who favor public recognition of and honor to their particular race, nationality, religion, and sexual orientation. Too few people advocate the separation of school and state, which is the most reasonable solution to this matter.
If some social conservatives are disingenuous in this respect, so are the RINOs and liberals who promote sexual license, multiculturalism, and PC in the name of freedom and tolerance.
That would leave out all democrats that come to mind, and most republicans, sadly enough. I know many catholics, and other varities of christian sects, and I don't readily affix the title of social conservative because of church affiliation.
Most "social liberals" are such due to media disinformation. Many christians lean left for the same reasons.
Most american families are social conservatives, and vote democrat out of ignorance.
I believe you and I differ vastly on the definition of statesman. I'm talking colonial American type statesman.
Which means Kerry has won.
To all of you who are going to 'stay home' because Bush isn't doing exactly what you want, please remember to keep your mouths shut about how much you hate Kerry if he wins the election. It will be you that helped put him there.
Your post #56 is very well put, good job.
That kind of comment is just as stupid as someone staying home because Bush didn't do exactly what they want.
If some social conservatives are disingenuous in this respect, so are the RINOs and liberals who promote sexual license, multiculturalism, and PC in the name of freedom and tolerance.
If I choose the advocation of separation of school and state, then I have as much reason to oppose the evangelical SCs as the RINOs and liberals, in terms of the means. Failure to consider the means as a separate issue from the desired end result means the end is justifying the means - and there is a fair amount of conservative philosophy that finds that a disagreeable proposition.
Yes, and they would have been absolutely apoplectic about the notion of some n****r marrying a white woman.
If you're going to discuss the merits of constraints based on public opinion, and/or of laws written to enforce those contraints, you have to deal with the whole package.
You make it clear to him, and the other Big Government Republicans, that they will lose the election without committing (in a non-spinnable way) to reverse course and rein in the government.
Right now, they assume you'll put up with and fall for anything they do. Scare them. Scare them good. Make them work for your support for a change, instead of just pouring the Koolaid.
I'm sure you'll be much happier with the way John Edwards and John Kerry "work" for your support.
Scare them?
Hell, you scare me!
Much as I thought Reagan was the best president in my life, I don't think he completed selling the philosophy. 1980 was unique in a number of ways. Carter was completely ineffective with the Soviet Union and Iran. Domestically, the economy was almost in shambles, especially interest rates and inflation. John Anderson was a significant third party nominee who probably drew more of his support from the left side of the political spectrum at the same time the Reagan Democrats happened.
In 1984, the economy had already rebounded with Mondale promising more taxes, and in foreign affairs, the situation was much improved.
I guess we have different standards for what constitutes a desirable candidate.
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.