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.
I love your spelling of “giverment,” but your name calling leaves a lot to be desired. I suggest you do some research before you go about deciding who is and isn’t a “true” conservative, comrade. I will keep saying same thing even though many on this forum have no ears to hear: communities must have the right to set their own standards of decency if we wish to have communities. You do like the idea of people having a stable homestead in which to live, work and raise children, don’t you? You don’t seem to think that communities should have standards of decency at all, which is fine if you have no desire to see people living in calm and cohesive groups. Or perhaps you count on being rich enough that you will simply be able to gate yourself off from everyone else. I am glad that you are that well-to-do, but the rest of us have to live in this world.
Disagreements make for progress. It's not like we do not come back or call for a jihad against each other.
Your self-defense is to create or support the creation of the content YOU want to watch instead getting the socialist, nanny state to limit my options to watch what YOU approve.
As I mentioned previously, in the post that you originally disliked so much, retreat is no longer an option. I have not watched television in years. I don’t listen to the radio, I rarely go to the movies. And guess what? This approach doesn’t work. I still get slapped in the face with a degrading popular culture at every step. To say “if you don’t like it don’t look” is like saying “if you don’t like the polluted air don’t breathe.” And I have come to the conclusion that libertarians don’t believe this lie either. I think you like things just fine the way they are, and are more than happy seeing social conservatives neutered by passivity. You use this argument only because things are going your way. You know very well that simply turning the channel accomplishes nothing, and would be the first to scream if our popular culture was saturated with beliefs and actions with which you did not agree.
And another smart bomb slips in under the radar for a pinpoint surgical strike against disingenuous libtertarian posturing.
I've been lurking here for years, and the tone and tenor of the exchanges here have become vile in that timespan."
I have noticed that also. It may be because the same people have been arguing with each other about the same topics for the past several years. They have not convinced each other with arguments, so now they resort to name-calling and other nastiness. The new entrants to the forum pick up this mood and it builds upon itself.
When Clinton was in office, Libertarians and Social Conservatives could at least agree that he and his conspirators were the enemy. Now that that's behind us (although it really won't be until the lot of them are behind bars), arguments here tend to degenerate into contests of ideological purity. As we know from the Lenin/Stalin show trials, such contests can be even uglier than those between ideological opposites.
Take a look at his Freeper profile. Roscoe is an interesting case if he is not a complete fake.
A friendly game of poker among friends is legal as long as the game is not being run for profit by the house.
No, that's not where I'm going with that. I asked about rape because you asserted that God was the only source of an "objective moral standard. I'm here to prove that according to the Bible, God is just as morally subjective as everyone else, at least where the morality of rape is concerned.
Christians seem to assume that God condemns rape and that this His condemnation can be supported from reading the Bible. In addition, they assume that God condemns rape on the same grounds that rape is condemned in contemporary society. However, the Biblical position is complicated and only supports the common view that rape is wrong because it harms the victim to a very limited extent. To be sure, one can find rape condemned in the Bible. However, one can also find passages where God seems to be tacitly approving of rape and other passages where rape is condemned but without regard for the victim's welfare.
First of all, in some passages God seems to tacitly sanction rape. In the Old Testament Moses encourages his men to use captured virgins for their own sexual pleasure, i.e. to rape them. After urging his men to kill the male captives and female captive who are not virgins he says: "But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves (Num. 31: 18)." God then explicitly rewards Moses by urging him to distribute the spoils. He does not rebuke Moses or his men (Num. 31: 25-27).
Second, when rape is condemned in the Old Testament the woman's rights and her psychological welfare are ignored.[15] For example: "If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, then the man who lay with her shall give to the father fifty skelels of silver, and she shall be his wife, and he may not put her away all of his days (Deut:22; 28-29)." Here the victim of rape is as treated the property of the father. Since the rapist has despoiled the father's property he must pay a bridal fee. The women apparently has no say in the matter and is forced to marry the person who raped her. Notice also if they are not discovered, no negative judgment is forthcoming. The implicit message seems to be that if you rape an unbetrothed virgin, be sure not to get caught.
In the case of the rape of a betrothed virgin in a city, the Bible says that both the rapist and victim should be stoned to death: the rapist because he violated his neighbor's wife and the victim because she did not cry for help (Deut. 22: 23-25). Again the assumption is that the rapist dispoiled the property of another man and so must pay with this life. Concern for the welfare of the victim does not seem to matter. Moreover, it is assumed that in all cases that a rape victim could cry for help and if she did, she would be heard and rescued. Both of these assumptions are very dubious and sensitive to the contextual aspects of rape.
On the other hand, according to the Bible, the situation is completely different if the rape occurs in "open country." Here the rapist should be killed, not the victim. The reason given is that if a woman cried for help in open country, she would not be heard. Consequently, she could not be blamed for allowing the rape to occur. No mention is made about the psychological harm to victim. No condemnation is made of a rapist in open country, let alone in a city, who does not get caught.
Obviously, God cannot be a source of objective morality if he sometimes condones rape, as the Bible proves. Therefore, your argument is incorrect. You may accuse atheist of having subjective morality, but you then also must admit that morality based upon God is also subjective.
Libertarians would insist that all state laws be in accord with the state and US Constitutions, and would surely fight legislation that they thought unwise and counterproductive, like drug laws. Most libertarians would agree that the states have the authority to legislate in this area, just as some are allowed by their constitutions to extablish dry counties and such
Regarding morality, if it comes from God, then moral principles are by definition "universal," and therefore "objective" not subjective. Since God has created every thing in existence, physical and metaphysical, and he reigns over all creation, seen and unseen, his laws are automatically true and universal. Morality flows from His character and person. We are made in his image and His laws are written on our hearts. Therefore, you need to show me how morals can be objective without God. They can't. And if they can't be objective, then those who reject God are stuck with moral relativism and their moral feet are suspended in mid-air.
Social conservative or libertarian?
Yeah, I am so uptight.
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.