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]

States that decriminalized marijauna are Alaska, California, Colorado, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, Maine, Minnesota, Ohio, and Oregon. These state legislatures ( except Alaska's ) decriminalized marijuana possession in the 1970s. Oregon was the first, in 1973, following the recommendations of the Nixon administration's National Commission on Marijuana Use ( also known as the Shafer Commission ). Nebraska was the last, in 1979. Another state, Mississippi, decriminalized marijuana possession in the '70s but later recriminalized it as a misdemeanor offense.

California decriminalized marijuana in 1976, and, within the first six months, arrests for driving under the influence of drugs rose 46 percent for adults and 71.4 percent for juveniles. Peggy Mann, Reasons to Oppose Legalizing Illegal Drugs (Danvers: Committee of Correspondence, Inc., September, 1988)

Decriminalizing marijuana in Alaska and Oregon in the 1970s resulted in the doubling of use. Wayne J. Roques, "Decriminalizing Drugs Would Be A Disaster," The Miami Herald 20 January 1995

[Ol' Sparky]

And having no limits on behavior that harms society and endangers other people is liberalism even if it's called libertarianism.

[NeoCaveman]

Klinton's gone, now what?

Hating Hitlery? ;-D

Here. Here. I'm all about this cause.

[Cultural Jihad]

*shrug* Pro-freedom is pro-freedom, regardless of the messenger.

That speaks volumes that you would support the Communist Party's subversive agenda for destroying this nation under the subterfuge of "pro-freedom". Every murderer, rapist, molester, smuggler, scoundrel, and robber all cry for their "freedom" too, but we don't call them "conservatives" on that account.

"Al Capone: Freedom fighter!"
"Ghengis Khan: Property rights advocate!"
"Theodore Kaczynski: 2nd Amendment champion!"
"Ernst Roehm: Gay rights crusader!"
< /belch >

[gcruse]

empty-headed libertarianism (restrain the spending and restrictions on individual liberty)

Well, at least you admit to wanting more spending
and restrictions on individual liberty.  I just can't
imagine how you found yourself at FR.

[Texasforever]

If you don't like it, CLICK IT OFF, and DON'T BUY THE ADVERTISED PRODUCTS. There are two perfectly legit censors that I do not have a problem with. The market, and the remote. If I want to watch a racy show though, it is none of your business, since my home is MY CASTLE, not yours.

This is a truly remarkable thread. I assume it is an offshoot of the actions taken by several Christian groups to put pressure on FOX to tone down some of it's programming. As could be expected cries of censorship and the old saw "if you don't like it turn it off" are being thrown around. That is fine, both charges do have certain merit. However; the charge made that the entity loosely called the "religious right" or "social conservatives" is somehow a threat to the ability for "freedom loving" Americans to live their lives in peace is absurd. I would like one person that feels that way to explain why, in every facet of American life, the issues most important to the religious right are the very issues that are the most mocked or ignored by every private and governmental body in this country.

Why is the nation's media from news to entertainment, far from being influenced by these "dangerous busybodies", rushing to outdo each other in sexual content? Why is it that our schools are now free from any mention of God but inundated with "alternative lifestyle" awareness classes? Why is it that you never see a commercial anymore that has a mother, kids and a FATHER? If the evil religious right is so damned dangerous why do we not have 250 channels of 24 hour fundamentalist programming instead of 250 channels of MTV and it's derivatives? Please tell me where this evil group is so I can be assured that I am not at home on Sunday when they raid my house to drag my sorry butt of to be baptized. For those of you afraid of the social conservatives pushing their morals down your throat, it would appear that you have not been paying attention. You guys won.

[£inuxgruven]

You said "legalized". You were incorrect. Bigtime. How many other leaps like this have you made? Who cares...

[jwalsh07]

re 581 How do you do that? :-}

[cajungirl]

Well, I gotta admit that it is hard for me to have a critical thought about Pres Bush. He is just such a relief, regardless of whether he is far enough to the right or the left, from the last inhabitant of the White House that I would take him no matter what. I don't demand perfect adherence to my views,,just a man there who isn't having personal services performed on himself bky young women while giving secrets to the Chinese and preening around. You have to admit Bush's character is worth a whole lot. And not all conservatives are that conservative. As a matter of fact some of us are pretty liberal socially but still want a strong military, low taxes, good schools and honesty in government.

[Dan from Michigan]

However; the charge made that the entity loosely called the "religious right" or "social conservatives" is somehow a threat to the ability for "freedom loving" Americans to live their lives in peace is absurd.

I consider all those, on the left or the right that want to dictate what I can do inside my house(As long as it directly does not harm another) as a threat.

Why is the nation's media from news to entertainment, far from being influenced by these "dangerous busybodies", rushing to outdo each other in sexual content?

Many people want to watch it. It's entertainment to some people.

Why is it that our schools are now free from any mention of God but inundated with "alternative lifestyle" awareness classes?

Because liberals took over the school boards.

Why is it that you never see a commercial anymore that has a mother, kids and a FATHER?

I don't know.

If the evil religious right is so damned dangerous why do we not have 250 channels of 24 hour fundamentalist programming instead of 250 channels of MTV and it's derivatives?

The reason SOME of the religious right is dangerous(BTW - I am a Christian) is because they want to use GOVERNMENT(THE FEDS ESPECIALLY) to FORCE their views of morality on others. The two key words there are GOVT and FORCE. I think the LEFT is MORE DANGEROUS enforcing their religion of the ALMIGHTY STATE on us, but I don't trust it from either side. I support persuasion through the markets. I even support some of it in a local area. If the state of Texas enacted more laws on moral issues, I have no problem with that. It's a state level issue. My beef is the feds. They are not trustworthy enough with the power they have to have more power to enact things. 8 years of Klinton and 14 years of that jerk FDR took care of all the trust I had in the feds.

Please tell me where this evil group is so I can be assured that I am not at home on Sunday when they raid my house to drag my sorry butt of to be baptized. For those of you afraid of the social conservatives pushing their morals down your throat, it would appear that you have not been paying attention. You guys won.

As long as we are losing freedoms to the government, we are not winning.

[Roscoe]

True but beside the point.

Not at all. Libertarians falsely profess to be supporters of capitalism, but in actuality they seek the abolition of our American form of capitalism and want it be replaced with some infantile absurdity from the pages of Ayn Rand's pulp fiction.

[Roscoe]

Contracts are voided all the time if signed under duress.

And you have offered no evidence of duress. Case dismissed and a fine for wasting the court's time with frivolous arguments.

[Ken H]

I am pleased to see a recognition of Tenth Amendment issues appear on these threads. This is the most ignored Amendment in the Constitution, IMO.

The Tenth Amendment needs to be defended right along with the First and Second Amendments.

[mafree]

I've heard that Bonior is pro-life but never Dasshole.

[Roscoe]

Blatant dishonesty does little to bolster your argument.

Blatant dishonesty if the very foundation of Libertarianism. Libertarians falsely profess to be supporters of capitalism, but in actuality they seek the abolition of our American form of corporate capitalism and want it be replaced with some infantile absurdity from the pages of Ayn Rand's pulp fiction.

[Dan from Michigan]

Bonior says he's pro-life, but he's unreliable. He's neither pro-life, nor pro-abortion if you can say that. He goes which way the wind blows on that issue.

[eno_]

What the hell are you talking about Roscoe? I'm a Republican who knows what the "limited" in "limited liability corporation" refers to, which you apperently don't. I did that to demonstrate that you're a legal ignoramus. You go around quoting the lame commerce clause excuse for the CSA, lecturing far more intelligent Freepers as if you were some kind of authority. If you do or ever did hold any kind of offical position of authority you are/were a clear and present danger due to your incompetence.

[dcwusmc]

How very strange. The social conservatives want to use the power of nanny government to do the job THEY should be doing, which is to monitor and turn off objectionable television.

SINKSPUR is this YOU????? Wow. I am impressed, we have something to AGREE on! Could this be the start of a trend?

[eno_]

I find it disturbing. Don't know what to think of it yet.