Posted on 02/07/2002 8:02:41 AM PST by 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.
You're a good one, you are!
That's why California recriminalized marijuana in 1985.
The whole place is a little nervous...more Police than I have ever seen in one place...armed National Guard all over the place.....F-16's out of Hill AFB flying patrol overhead....Blackhawk helicopters flying about.
Lot's of people kinda worried about terrorism...
..and then I read your reply.
Thanks...I needed the laugh!!!!!!
redrock--Constitutional Terrorist
BTW, while homosexuality is abhorrent to me, as long as it's kept private and out of my sight, it's not my business. Its proponents may NOT thrust it in my face or they stand to lose something real personal. No one should have ANY special protective legislation for any reason. The (local, NOT federal) laws against crime in general should suffice for ALL citizens and legal residents.
Ronald Reagan -- a conservative icon -- was right on the topic.
The most ludicrous aspect of their moral-liberal ideology is how they'll claim that people have a right to commit evil, to be enslaved by vice, and to pursue unneeded suffering, and then claim that people have no right to determine what kind of a society they are to live in. Chairman Mao couldn't have come up with a more unAmerican creed.
Should I use smaller words?
And Alaska's voters in 1990.
You really do not have a clue about this topic do you Sparkster
The problem is you think your informed about the topic. It is funny though. Thanks for the :D
I've been lurking here for years, and the tone and tenor of the exchanges here have become vile in that timespan.
I ignore it. The only thing that causes me dismay is the inability to find any real news here, anymore, amongst the noise. This place used to be really exciting for news.
You get caught with 10 pounds of marijuana in the trunk of your car in Holland, and you're in trouble. You're a goner if it's any other drug.
The Dutch don't have the same view towards heroin (for instance) as they do towards marijuana.
I am a fiscal conservative and a social liberal.By "social liberal" I mean that your religious points of view belongs to you,your family between the four walls of your home and the church were you belong,period.Religion is to diverse and complex to be discussed and argued about it.As to, for other social issues, everything should be adressed on its own merrits with facts on hand when deliberated.
Very often I have noticed that religion was injected in many aspects of social issues discussion.Keep in mind that the conservatives "social issues" is the other side of the sword next to liberal "social issues".
You, by just invoking the word "hedonists", it shows me that you see everything thru the prism of religion rather then using plain rationale.In today's socio-political environment, is imperative to use clear and sound judgment instead emotions, to ensure the right outcome.
Actually, the cemetaries hold everybody, without prejudice.
We could argue those two points forever, and neither of us would likely budge. I'm more interested in addressing today's practical matters, which is why I can't understand why you still refuse to respond to this comment:
"Every group consists of subsets of groups whose beliefs are varied, but mostly similar. You would do better to cooperate on those issues where you agree (gun control, income tax, etc) than to try and evict these potential allies from "your" movement."
Do you have such a passionate hatred of libertarians because they would leave people to the privacy of their bedroom (or make adultery a civil matter as opposed to criminal) that you cannot reconcile with them on the issues where you agree and work toward common goals?
DFM, this is a well-reasoned approach, but one I do disagree with to a certain extent. I think you and I agree that control of content should be done on more of a local level rather than a federal level. If there were a way to do that, I would be all for it. Anything that dismantles the Federal behemoth in favor of local government is a good thing. However, where I part ways with libertarians is this: not all "government" control is bad. Our form of government, a representative republic, ideally allows majority mores to control while protecting minority interests. You ask how decency is defined? It is defined by the prevailing community standards, a tautology I know, but a useful one. And communities must have a fundamental right to set standards for behavior within themselves, otherwise they are not communities, by definition.
The issue becomes whether it is possible for individual localities to set these standards, or whether it is more expedient and useful to have a national regulatory agency do it. I wont pretend to understand the scientific or technological nuances of regulating something like broadcasting frequencies. I suspect that a national agency is the only thing that could work, but I may be wrong. Certainly there have been no incentives offered to develop any alternative, unfortunately.
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.