Posted on 05/09/2007 6:51:49 AM PDT by Lusis
The resignation of Randall Tobias, the chief of the Bush administration's foreign aid programs, for "personal reasons" following the revelation that he had engaged the services of two escort-service workers has provided rich grist for amusement on the punditry circuit. There was indeed plenty of material for humor in the situation, from Tobias's strong stand in favor of abstinence teaching in AIDS prevention programs to his "I didn't inhale"-style assertion that he never had sex with the women. But the predictable laughs have obscured a much larger issue than hypocrisy in the ranks of social conservatives. The reason Tobias's call-girl adventures became public is that the owner of the Washington, DC-based service, Pamela Martin, is facing prosecution and has turned her records over to news organizations to help pay for her legal defense.
Even those who feel a certain schadenfreude at Tobias's downfall should be asking the question: should there have been a criminal case in the first place?
(Excerpt) Read more at reason.com ...
Ah, ad hominem. How is it false or anti-American? You will find many people who are pro-America with different views on morality, even within those adhering to Judeo-Christian ethics. For instance, how immoral is pre-marital sex? Should we deport the majority of young people because they aren't conforming to the "no sex before marriage" notions, and hence they are anti-American?
That’s a very lame comparison and you know it.
You’re equating defending women from being forced into prostitution with attempting to violate the 2nd Amendment.
Geez, talk about your slippery slopes...to nonsense.
Did you miss the part about how prostitution was made illegal (in the US in the late 19th Century) because women were being forced into the profession?
No, you're calling them childish because you don't have the answers.
I'm not going to do them justice in a post, just encourage you to do some research if you are truly interested and not just out for mindless debate.
I encourage you to do research. My questions were rhetorical; I've done the research, I have my answers. It is fairly clear that you do not, and you are now replying in this manner because you do not wish to question your beliefs.
As for the above issue you raised, rights are God-given and endowed in us, His creation. Any society that respects that fact, respects the rights of its citizens. Any society that rejects that fact (and instead assumes rights come from government or some other man-made institution) rejects the natural rights of man and I would say that those men have given away their rights.
Ah, circular logic. Any society that respects rights, has rights. Any society that doesn't respect rights, doesn't have them. Wow, how self-evident.
You can’t help yourself, can you? I discussed the methodology that allows you to rationally(?) extrapolate that our Founding Fathers were “ok” with slavery because of the views of the southern delegates... and I get your high-minded literary superiority complex in reply.
Check the mirror, Buddy. You may not like your methods being associated with leftist tactics... but that’s how you debate. Again, I’m not calling you a leftist just pointing out your tactics. You attempt to intimidate, obfuscate and extrapolate rather than simply converse. When cornered, you point out your own superiority.
I’m all for rational debate but this isn’t it. You can go back to talking to yourself now. I tried. Good day.
Oh, and when you come back with another insult... I don’t really care what you think.
That's funny. You're the one that must think they are too stupid and weak to know freewill from enslavement. How would you answer the woman who asks, "Why can't I trade my services for money?"
Draw the Venn diagram if you have too. Your position is not supported by logic.
Our Founding Fathers thought so too.
... No, you're calling them childish because you don't have the answers.
That's quite the assumption. No, what I don't have is time. Suffice it to say that fundamental freedom is freedom of conscience. It is the freedom to live unmolested--self-determination. Where your exertion of your own freedom molests others, you must be limited. All men have the same rights as endowed by our Creator and stated in our Declaration of Independence. Unfortunately, there are few countries that allow these rights to be universally exercisable. Those who wield power, tend to control their fellow citizens.
So how do we get into the business of also regulating that which is "victimless" such as drugs and sex? Because of the society that these create when unfettered by civil codes. Drugs, legalized or not, tend to disorient society, reduce its productivity and create havoc through crime or negligence. Reducing availability reduces the incidence. The sex trade (whether prostitution or pornography) tends to do the same. It devalues humanity and creates conflict through marital dissolution, child-endangerment, disease and many of the same problems you get with drugs and other addictive behaviors.
Where we would have an ordered society, there have to be agreed upon rules of society. These are then codified into statute to promote the general welfare. As our country was originally envisioned, citizens were then free to choose what society they would create within their own localities and states... and the states were very diverse. Local and state politics were the reflection of the citizen-contract to abide by the societal mores. Those unwilling to abide were free to change localities or argue their point to referendum. Unfortunately, we have become so homogenized in this country, we have forgotten this founding compact.
You certainly did present your gibberish, yes. I take it you take offense to the fact that I identified your rebuttal post for exactly what it was---a bunch of chaff; nothing more, nothing less.
I’m all for rational debate . . .
Well then let me know when one begins, because you certainly haven't presented one thus far.
Not meant ad hominem. Moral relatism is a false idea when it comes to understanding the founding and purpose of America. Thus, when it becomes the grounds for a social contract, moral relativism is anti-American.
Of course pre-marital sex that you bring up is immoral, no matter what anyone thinks about it. And yes, so is drug abuse and addictive behaviors. Behaving in ways God does condone in his providence is immoral (which doesn’t mean it’s best to make laws against just any immoral thing).
Why do you think that the founding fathers warned that instruction in religion and the will to be moral are fundamental to the survival of the American republic?
Americanism (or conservatism, when we mean we want to conserve a free American way of life) is very different than Randist, double-negative philosophy and the like.
How you posited this is generally true, but let's also not forget that the FF were speaking of a very specific religious instruction at that---a Protestant one. Not a Christian one, per se, because Christianity also includes Catholicism, of course, and I'm sure you know that John Adams and other third- or fourth-generation Massachusetts Puritans of the era didn't exactly fawn over papists. As a matter of fact, New Englanders were more than happy to commit ethnic cleansing against the "evil" French Neutrals in Nova Scotia---l'Acadie. I'm sure those good Congregationalists were sure they were being morally upstanding by destroying the entire Acadian culture and scattering their remnants to the winds, but that explanation was only window dressing. Their real interest was seizing their territory and re-settling the prosperous Acadian farms with good, loyal Protestants.
And then again, there were the spittin' mad differences between the Congregationalists and the Anglicans, from which we get the "No establishment of religion" part of the Bill of Rights, since neither group wanted to tithe, officially, to an enemy church.
Religion is a nice basis for morality, but it isn't the only basis. Even the religious have their demons, and using religion as a sword is pretty damn dangerous.
ping
Religion is unrighteous and wicked, when it departs from what God has clearly told and demonstrated to us in His Word. That generally recognized at the time of America's founding as it is, now. Obfuscation is merely obfuscation.
Follow the money.
Bubba paid the stewardess he groped in the ABC news footage in 1992 with a White House job. He paid Monica off with an overpaid job for Ron Pearleman.
The money is there for Slick Willy's tramps.
Wow you can really ignore history. I don’t think I ever once referred to the constitution or what it said about prostitution yea or nay. I believe my point was that the Founding Fathers had a different attitude about prostitution than the evangelical view that developed during the early 20th century. While there were other evangelical movements before then none of those movements made prostitution largely illegal. Your mistaken about legal prostitution in the US before the 20th century as most medium to large cities had legal brothels until the Civil War had brothels and they begin to fall in popularity after the war in the east but remain popular in the West until the religious movements I referred to earlier.
Now you have begun to try to insult me in your last post I expect better I also expect you to go do some reading on the subject before posting again. I have cited that Washington DC during the time of the Founding Fathers had legal brothels I can do the same for every major city in thew late 18th and early 19th century if you like however I would prefer you cited something or someone of merit on the subject that contradicts me. If not please refrain from coming back at me with the statement “You are wrong” please prove me wrong if you can.
Therein lies the rub, yes? Even Christians can't agree among themselves what "God has clearly told and demonstrated to us in His word." Big picture things, yes---perhaps---but plenty of people, on both sides, have died for much less.
That generally recognized at the time of America's founding as it is, now. Obfuscation is merely obfuscation.
Huh?
His arguement should have been that he wasn’t paying for the sex, he was paying them to leave.......
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.