Moronic. Keeping social issues out of the hands of the federal government government is NOT "the road to the guillotine. We've done pretty well for over 200 years without having psychotic "progressives" or equally oppressive social conservatives telling us how to view certain aspects of our lives. Keep government small, leave the social conversations for family and church and civic events and cultural influences, and let SOCIETY determine our culture, NOT power-craving corrupt idiots who give not one whit of concern to our future as a civilization. Budget debates have no need for social inputs. Allowing them just leads to unneeded grandstanding.
We’ve done pretty well for over 200 years without having psychotic “progressives” or equally oppressive social conservatives telling us how to view certain aspects of our lives.”
You got the second half of that dead wrong. Our Culture DID hew to the Judeo/Christian view of morality for most of the history of this nation. Calling someone moronic will not change that.
what about when the budget being discussed includes funding for murdering babies?
Unfortunately, as time goes by, I find that “Fiscal Conservatives” tend to be neither.
So we don’t need to concern ourselves with moral issues?
Abortion is a moral issue and is governed by man-made laws. How do you feel about Planned Parenthood? I see you support the American Cancer Society, which supports PP.
http://www.lifenews.com/2007/03/13/nat-2982/
Do you support abortion?
John Adams wrote, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
George Washington declared in his Farewell Address, “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.” Later in his Farewell Address Washington went on to say, “Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principles.”
That's a strawman. That's not what I said. In fact, I said just the opposite. If the people refuse to enforce a strong moral code in society independent of government, then we compel the government to enforce its own version of morality. That's the environment that produces long lines of Christians, Jews, Muslims, the rich, radio talk show hosts, libertarians, etc. waiting for their turn with the headsman. The tyranny of the mob.
This is why we must remain engaged on enforcing a strong, common Judeo Cristian moral code in society - not government. That is the necessary, not optional, corollary of small government.
Let me try to guess the next straw man. I am not saying everyone needs to be a Christian. That's not what I just said. Religious tolerance, however, is a Christian concept and part of that moral code I'm talking about. Those who think atheism is a tolerant religion have never attempted to be a Christian or a Jew in a atheistic state. Even agnosticism often tends to be thinly veiled atheism and thus becomes hostile to other forms of religion. A tolerant secular government is not possible without this moral code I'm talking about.
The bottom line is that if we all can't converge on some basic civilized moral principles, regardless of our religion, then we're doomed to become subjects, not citizens. These include, but are not limited to:
1) Childbirth out of wedlock is bad and should be shunned (notice I didn't say outlawed),
2) Able bodied adults living off the fruits of other peoples labor is bad a should be shunned
3) Charity for those in need, however, is good and should be encouraged,
4) Marriage exists to serve the needs of children by assuring as many as possible have both a Mom and a Dad raising them. It does not exist to serve the selfish or sexual needs of the people getting married. Thus, the definition of marriage that best serves society is one man, one woman in a lifelong contract.
5) Honesty is good and liars should be shunned (notice I didn't say outlawed outside of perjury of course),
6) Adultery is bad and should be shunned (notice I didn't say outlawed)
7) selfishness and brazenly flaunting your wealth is bad and should be shunned (notice I didn't say outlawed)
We can and do haggle over that list all day long, but that's not my point. The point is if we don't make morality part of small government conservatism, then we're failing to learn from history.
WRONG -the damage already done MUST be reversed. Unless there is another revolution the reversal must be done at the level of government it was wrought. Sticking our heads in the sand and hoping things will change will not get the job done -our enemy has chosen the battlefield -retreat is NOT an option.
“Moronic. Keeping social issues out of the hands of the federal government government is NOT “the road to the guillotine. We’ve done pretty well for over 200 years without having psychotic “progressives” or equally oppressive social conservatives telling us how to view certain aspects of our lives.”
Actually, for most of our history, it was ILLEGAL to commit homosexual acts.
No one is suggesting we have a federal Dept of Bedroom Affairs to monitor all our bedrooms. However, the queers are not interested in privacy. They want to flaunt their perversion everywhere, and demand we approve. Renting out a basement apartment in your house? You can’t refuse a couple of faggots. Own a business taking wedding pictures? You cannot deny service to faggots.
I used to be a military officer. Suppose someone in today’s US military asks you what you think of gay marriage. If you support it, fine! If you oppose it, you could find yourself punished for your lack of tolerance. A military officer who wore a uniform to a Tea Part event would face court-martial. Wear one to a gay pride parade, and the Pentagon will applaud.
What about plural marriages? Those were found to be unconstitutional in the 1800s...yet there is far greater support for polygamy in both the Bible and under natural law than there is for homosexuality.
Fiscal conservatism is based on self restraint - saving, doing without something you want so you can pay for something you need, agreeing to pay your own bills instead of expecting someone else to do it. Fiscal conservatism cannot exist in a populace that knows no self-restraint.
“Anything goes” leads to anarchy, fiscal ruin and God’s judgment. An immoral people will never act fiscally responsible.
Why must the first word in your reply be Moronic?
Your arguments here might carry more weight and better engage other FReepers in discussion if you didn't begin your reply by calling someone a moron for his/her viewpoint.