Is Free Republic becoming increasingly hostile towards Social Conservatives?

self ^ | self

[watsonfellow]

In the past few months I have noticed that the posters on Free Republic have become more and more hostile towards social conservatism.

And I do not mean indifference (less pro life threads etc) but an outright hostility at pro life and other social conservative causes.

Am I alone in thinking this?

In particular, notice the responses to the thread concerning the recent request by social conservative groups to the FCC to reign in Fox's racey primetime programs.

I wonder if this is becoming only a haven for hedonists and libertarians, and if so, perhaps it would be better for social conservatives to find their own site.

[Ol' Sparky]

The original Founders of conservatism and all 50 states did have laws against adultery. Adultery is a crime against one's spouse. Legalizing that behavior has broken down the family in this nation. So, it is completely a liberal concept and a product of the left-wing philosophy of moral relativism to support adultery being legal.

[TheBigB]

I think you're on the mark there. As anyone who knows me can tell you, I oppose drug legalization and thus I enjoy conversing with folks like CJ and Ol'Sparky. But I also like people like Bella and OWK who disagree but can defend their positions intelligently.

I dunno. It seems like we are fighting amongst ourselves more lately. Even when we disagree, it just gets nasty and it shouldn't be that way. Get a bunch of folks together and keep them there for along time, and eventually you'll get on each other's nerves sometimes. :) Works that way in virtual reality too, I guess.

[riley1992]

If you don't like it, why don't find a forum more to your liking?

Because then he would have no one to whine to.

[OWK]

No, the Netherlands is libertarian country on social issues.

The Netherlands is foundationally socialist.... period.

If it were a libertarian country, it would have absolutely no social programs, no national medical care, no food and housing for others at the expense of the taxpayer... no free money from government...

And so the costs of irresponsible behavior (drug abuse and promiscuous sexuality, etc...) would be born by those choosing to engage in it. They would not be able to enlist the help of government to rob their neighbors... to pay for their irresponsibility.

What you have in the Netherlands (and unfortunately in the United States in large measure) is government subsidy of irresponsibility. And when you subsidize something (by calling the practioner a victim and giving him financial gains) you get more of it.

And not only do these socialist do-gooders subsidize irresponsibility, but they actually penalize responsible people (by forcing them to cough up money) to pay for the subsidy.

And then you wonder why they (and we) have a problem.

Socialism sucks.... Try liberty.

[RussianBear716]

Maybe its that some of us conservatives don't like being treated like children. I get just as upset at somebody telling me whether I should watch a TV show or not irregardless if that person is some flaming liberal or a social conservative. Both assume that I don't have enough common sense and decency to decide for MYSELF and my children whether the show is offensive or not! They also assume that if I don't like a TV show, that I am such an idiot that I'm incapable of figuring out how to change the channel. By changing the channel, I express my opinion on the show because I never see those ads from the companies sponsoring the show.

All my conservative family and friends can figure this out for themselves. And its alot more effective than demanding that a network alter their programming. Ads don't get seen, sponsors don't sell any of their product, show gets cancelled.

[skeeter]

It's pretty neat to be able to dictate others' behavior at the point of a gun (so long as I'm the one holding the gun).

Of course - a favorite slogan of "economic conservatives" supposed to rally the people against the "bible thumpers", yet I can't for the life of me think of a single example or serious proposal during in the modern conservative era which proves that we have this to fear from social conservatives. Can you?

Any reference to the "Taliban" will result in a failing grade.

[Bella_Bru]

Maybe need an official FR grudge match in person. Complete with mud wrestling. ;-)

[Zathras]

If you've ever spent alot of time in Israel, you might understand why "Radical" Social Conservatives is a less desirable ideal.

I spent 4 months in Israel and really got tired of hearing "... no you can't do that today because its Shabat..." or having to eat poor tasting food because it HAD to be Kosher.

Now don't get me wrong, I loved the trip and really like the Israeli people but living in a country dominated by religious rules is NOT what your average AMERICAN wants.

Thats why its called "Freedom of Religion"

[steve-b]

It's got nothing to do with conservatism whatsoever.

Nonsense. Conservatism is about accepting the facts (e.g. evolution), as opposed to liberalism, which is about believing whatever boosts your self-esteem (e.g. humans are completely separate from the rest of the animals).

[Reagan Man]

I respect JimRob's opinion, but on the facts he's wrong. Section 8 of th US Constituion is very clear about what are defined as Congressional powers. BTW, JimRob doesn't support the legalization of drugs either. Many conservatives also believe the WoD`s can be made to operate more efficiently and effcetively. But to end the WoD would be akin to ending the "Wars" on murder, stealing, rape, child violence etc etc etc.............

Now for a few facts.

The Controlled Substances Act

The Controlled Substances Act (CSA), Title II of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, is the legal foundation of the government's fight against the abuse of drugs and other substances. This law is a consolidation of numerous laws regulating the manufacture and distribution of narcotics, stimulants, depressants, hallucinogens, anabolic steroids, and chemicals used in the illicit production of controlled substances.

The Controlled Substances Act =====================================

TOUBY v. UNITED STATES, 500 U.S. 160 (1991)

The Controlled Substances Act authorizes the Attorney General, upon compliance with specified procedures, to add new drugs to five "schedules" of controlled substances, the manufacture, possession, and distribution of which the Act regulates or prohibits. Because compliance with the Act's procedures resulted in lengthy delays, drug traffickers were able to develop and market "designer drugs" - which have pharmacological effects similar to, but chemical compositions slightly different from, scheduled substances - long before the Government was able to schedule them and initiate prosecutions. To combat this problem, Congress added 201(h) to the Act, creating an expedited procedure by which the Attorney General can schedule a substance on a temporary basis when doing so is "necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety," and providing that a temporary scheduling order is not subject to judicial review. The Attorney General promulgated regulations delegating, inter alia, his temporary scheduling power to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), which subsequently temporarily designated the designer drug "Euphoria" as a schedule I controlled substance. While that temporary order was in effect, petitioners were indicted for manufacturing and conspiring to manufacture Euphoria. The District Court denied their motion to dismiss, rejecting their contentions that 201(h) unconstitutionally delegates legislative power to the Attorney General, and that the Attorney General improperly delegated his temporary scheduling authority to the DEA. The Court of Appeals affirmed petitioners' subsequent convictions.

TOUBY v. UNITED STATES, 500 U.S. 160 (1991)

[OWK]

Conservatism is not about stuffing your pocket with more money.

Well, then, what good is it?

I love it.

[steve-b]

Your constant linking of liberal and libertarian is either laziness or ignorance.

I credit Ol' Sparky with the ability to walk and chew gum at the same time.

[Ol' Sparky]

Those churches most be ones like the Foundary United Methodist Church that Clinton attended. Evolution is left-wing and had a profound influence on Hitler, Marx and Stalin. More importantly, it is an utterly absurd concept with no evidence. The fossil record is so barren that evolutionist Stephen J. Gould admits evolutionists can't even fill out evolutionary trees in theory. It contradicts human history on mutations. There are species too complex to have evolved. Evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It's a lie for Godless left-wingers to promote secular humanism.

[TheBigB]

Hee. :) Are you volunteering? ;)

[Bella_Bru]

I hope the original poster never sets foot on the Word For the Day threads, or the Smoker's Lounge....he'd pass out.

[freeeee]

Adultery is a crime against one's spouse.

It's a breach of (marriage) contract which is a civil, not criminal, offense.

[Ol' Sparky]

Legalizing drugs would be a disaster for our nation. It's been tried in several states in the 1970s with marijuana and the public demanded tougher drug laws. The idea of drug legalization will tar the conservative movement and pave the way for Democrats to regain power.

[steve-b]

Section 8 of th US Constituion is very clear about what are defined as Congressional powers.

Indeed it is, and it clearly does not give the federal government the power of prohibition. The only time the federal government legally wielded such a power was during the time period between the ratification of the Eighteenth and Twenty-First Amendments, and only with respect to one drug (alcohol).

[OWK]

Those churches most be ones like the Foundary United Methodist Church that Clinton attended. Evolution is left-wing and had a profound influence on Hitler, Marx and Stalin. More importantly, it is an utterly absurd concept with no evidence. The fossil record is so barren that evolutionist Stephen J. Gould admits evolutionists can't even fill out evolutionary trees in theory. It contradicts human history on mutations. There are species too complex to have evolved. Evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It's a lie for Godless left-wingers to promote secular humanism.

Ludd..... Is that you?