Posted on 02/22/2010 9:06:23 PM PST by DesertRenegade
Indeed, what laws on conduct do not reflect beliefs, or are only widely-held secular beliefs, which like the universe, have no Divine origin, but created themselves, be allowed? And if laws against sodomy be disallowed as having a religion (read Christian) basis, then where do you stop? Why not marriage between man and goats? Once you throw out the default transcendent moral basis for laws in the West, you end up with the ever-morphing morality of State-sanctioned secularism, and social engineering we though we fought against in resisting Communism.
How enlightened the Supreme Court must have been to finally figure out 150 years later that the 1st Amendment meant the institution of secularism, and the expulsion of the Bible! No doubt this was needed, as when the Engel v. Vitale case was decided] an estimated 75% of the school systems in the South had religious services and Bible readings (Colliers 1961 Yearbook, p. 224).
Even the Unitarian “Father of the Common School,” Horace Mann (May 4, 1796 — August 02, 1859) rightly understood that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment did not prohibit officially favoring the general, common Christian faith and its morality, but that it forbade official sanction of one particular sect by distinctively favoring its doctrinal distinctions, stating that “it may not be easy theoretically, to draw the line between those views of religious truth and of Christian faith which is common to all, and may, therefore, with propriety be inculcated in schools, and those which, being peculiar to individual sects, are therefore by law excluded; still it is believed that no practical difficulty occurs in the conduct of our schools in this regard.” (Stephen V. Monsma, J. Christopher Soper, “The Challenge of Pluralism: Church and State in Five Democracies”, The Unites States, cp. 2, p. 21)
Considered second to Mann in his schooling endeavor was Henry Barnard, who was raised in a deeply religious family, and who saw his involvement in education “as part of the providence of God”. Like the majority of Americans, he believed that democracy and education went together in “the cause of truth—the cause of justice — the cause of liberty— the cause of patriotism — the cause of religion.” (Jeynes, p. 154)
How did he get that idea the Court must have asked, but what a great advancement in morality resulted because of their manifest wisdom, as now even schools of higher learning tend to double as brothels, over 90% of the faculty are liberal, while grade inflation helps spell relief, and student loans will be forgiven after ten years if they choose a career in public service. (proposal) Thus ensuring a balanced representation of hardworking conservatives and liberals in government.
But as long as you are for small government and fiscal conservatism, and a strong sort of foreign policy, you qualify as a genuine conservative, even if promoting the moral opposite, and can imagine a society in which 25% of the young people, esp, in college (and thus government) have an STD, and lawlessness abounds, will enable small government and a balanced budget, while a disciplined military with co-ed subs (patriarchalism is due to religion) enforces your foreign policy.
Just digressing on the dismaying.
OK, I'll play along.
Yes, there will have to be -- if there are to be ships with no seamen aboard.
"Woman the torpedo tubes!"
"She's going down!"
etc. etc.
Cheers!
Wxcellent comments.
Thank you, you are a mine of good information. I used to have both of those but that was several computer deaths ago.
(I’ve got to go to a Mac when I can afford it.)
It was but one example. Not the only vitamin in the mix.
A MAC? Now you are REALLY stirring up controversy!
Thanks for the info. When you get back, post. It will definatly add to this thread. Ok, waiting...
I think we have slipped quite a bit on the posting. A few years back there was a debate on it on one of the threads. I think I lost the effort but happy to have you join the FR style conservative movement!
I should have included a please in that. Let me try again. If you have the stats on that, it will be very beneficial to all on this thread. I’m sure I am not alone in my appreciation for any effort you might make in this regard.
Not sure that one helped the situation but if it is any better, I was not suggesting you were my secretary.
|
Thanks be to God. Been here for a while, and as i really don't know html, when i need to post a long exchange, or something more complex, i use OpenOffice to make web page (maybe using a table), open it in Firefox, go to View selection source, and copy and paste that, and it works good, as this post shows, praise the Lord. But how to do you just link a word to a page? |
You’ve done a fine job! Did you say you need to know how to link a word to another web page? Happy to help if so.
Yes, like Statistical_Correlations to this: http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Statistical_Correlations.html
Here’s the GOProud agenda. Regarding the stats of Dems and Repugs and morality, there were a couple of articles on FR maybe between two to three years ago? They were on FR, maybe it was 4 yrs ago, time goes by very fast. Lots of questions about moral issues and behaviors and it was quite telling. The Dems were much more prone to various immoral, illegal and unethical behavior than Repugs. And it wasn’t even conservatives, just Rs. If I had the article on my desktop, I’d post it. Actually there were a couple of articles about the study IIRC.
Note that these homosexual agenda pushers with a fake label on want to “hold the line” on gov spending. Hold the freaking line? WHen it’s way over in the “insane” territory? And punish other countries who are mean to sexual perverts? Sheesh! And of course they like “hate crimes” bills - not exactly small government - and employment protection (aka “you can’t fire homosexuals”). You like those examples of Big Brother Gov?
Here’s the GOProud homo-nazi, non-conservative agenda, courtesy of onyx (and courtesy ping to her):
GOProud’s Conservative Agenda
The so-called “gay agenda” is defined by the left through a narrow prism of legislative goals. While hate crimes and employment protections may be worthy goals, there are many other important priorities that receive little attention from the gay community. GOProud’s agenda emphasizes conservative and libertarian principles that will improve the daily lives of all Americans, but especially gay and lesbian Americans.
1 - TAX REFORM - Death tax repeal; domestic partner tax equity, and other changes to the tax code that will provide equity for gays and lesbians; cut in the capital gains and corporate tax rates to jump start our economy and create jobs; a fairer, flatter and substantially simpler tax code.
2 - HEALTHCARE REFORM - Free market healthcare reform. Legislation that will allow for the purchase of insurance across state lines - expanding access to domestic partner benefits; emphasizing individual ownership of healthcare insurance - such a shift would prevent discriminatory practices by an employer or the government.
3 - SOCIAL SECURITY REFORM - Bringing basic fairness to the Social Security system through the creation of inheritable personal savings accounts.
4 - DON’T ASK, DON’T TELL REPEAL - Repeal of the military’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy.
5 - HOLDING THE LINE ON SPENDING - Standing up for all tax payers against wasteful and unneccessary spending to protect future generations from the mounting federal debt.
6 - FIGHTING GLOBAL EXTREMISTS - Standing strong against radical regimes who seek to criminalize gays and lesbians.
7 - DEFENDING OUR CONSTITUTION - Opposing any anti-gay federal marriage amendment.
8 - ENCOURAGING COMMUNITY ENTREPRENEURSHIP - Package of free market reforms to encourage and support small businesses and entrepreneurship in the gay community.
9 - REVITALIZING OUR COMMUNITIES - A package of urban related reforms; expanding historic tax preservation credits; support for school choice.
10 - DEFENDING OUR COMMUNITY - Protecting 2nd amendment rights
Getting so I hate windows and microsoft and HP with every fiber of my being.
RE: “I won’t be surprised if these f*gs are closet lib Trojan horses. If they were truly conservative, they wouldn’t make an issue of their abominable lifestyle.”
Exactly -one can’t be half pregnant... Support of the homosexual agenda is of and by itself a declaration of support for liberalism... IF theses homosexuals want a big mommy GOV to sanction and support thier sexual lifestyle THEN first and foremost they want a big mommy GOV. If that aint a flaming liberal position then what is?
RE: “Both recognition and suppression of homosexuality are essentially religious views with no place in government, while heterosexual marriage has secular, practical and universal exclusive bases, which I could go into explicit detail you would rarely find elsewhere.”
Let me see if I am reading you right here -are you suggesting religious views have no place in politics?
IF so -then who exactly makes the “this is a religious view to be censored” determination?
Further -last I looked Religion was protected by the Constitution while homosexual sex to be publically embtaced as normal and rewarded by society was not... In other words we the people can make laws that restrict things that are not God given and inalienable and or specifically guaranteed by the Constitution...
A while ago I posted a thing I wrote (I can’t find it of course but should re-do it anyway) about the two religions of the world. If the “non-religious” viewpoint is the only one allowed, it is essentially a religion, in the sense of being a system of belief. There are two systems of belief; one is based on the monotheist religions of the world with remarkably similar morals and values [leaving aside Islam for another discussion...], the other is atheism; or it could be called secularism or materialism.
Why should the atheist/secularist/materialist viewpoint be the standard, the default?
Only because they want it the standard. There is no foundation for that to be the standard in the history or founding documents of the US. In fact, there is history and documentation for the other - the religion based - viewpoint to be the standard default position.
And what is the result, or will be the result? A hell that even now is unthinkable. Meaning as bad as things are now, the extent of the hell is even beyond imagining.
Let me cut to the meat of the matter. There are issues wherein no justification is necessary. Liberals are supposedly the proponents of facts and science trumping Religion, individual liberty and self determination...
e.g. When I vote I can vote for whomever I want based upon whatever reason I want... Telling me Religion is not an adequate premise is nothing more than attacking me and suggesting my thoughts and opinions inferior while the elite attackers are superior...
YET we see the liberal view turned on its head by this example -the right to privacy of a woman trumps the right to life of the unborn. Surely, science confirms that the fetus is a living huiman being BUT the liberal religion of of humanism trumps the science... How odd?
Really, what we deal with is the ends justifying the means -a cultural battle between humanists who would be God and humanity under God...
It’s a battle all right.
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.