[gogogodzilla]

Except that the modern social conservative movement, as it exists today, wants nothing more than to have a all-powerful federal government capable of forcing one standard of behavior onto all the citizens of our land.

That *IS* their goal.

---

I recently asked on these forums a very simple question, directed to social conservatives, to which no real response was returned. So I'll ask it again of our social conservatives:

I’ve long wondered how one can be a dedicated religious conservative and still support a small, Constitutionalist government and low taxes.

After all, how can you force proper ethical behavior onto a resistant populace (ex: San Francisco) without strong, centralized government powerful enough to do so?

[Ohioan]

What you suggest is silly. I do not mean to be disrespectful, but you are allowing certain people to redefine language; to appropriate the term "social," to refer only to certain issues on which they may pontificate--that is, one or two issue folk.

Social Conservatives are those who would maintain the social values of their communities. There is no way that an intrusive Federal Government can possibly serve such purpose. All you need to do to expose the fallacy is to point out the very great differences in priorities & values in different communities, across the several States in our Federal Union. History, moreover, should teach everyone that Massachusetts & Virginia would never have joined the same Federation, had it been empowered to dictate social values to the States which had just rebelled against Britain, for interference in our local affairs.

William Flax Truth Based Logic