[Landru]

"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."

That was tried, my dear Watsonfellow.
Make Note: the exodus was a miserable failure.
99% of the crybabies who fled for greener pastures?
Yea...they're back.

So have at it; reinvent the wheel.
The place is still there where they'all went, at that.
And the reason for their leaving, interestingly enough?
You've resurrected just now; with an elegant articulation of your dissatisfaction?

...here, try this, www.Lucianne.com; knock yourself out ~c'ya.

[tacticalogic]

I am for libertarianism at the federal level, because they tend to be culturally and societally neutral. People should be able to have laws based on the culture and society they live in. When the federal government passes laws that are based on cultural and societal values, they're going to reflect the culture and society inside the beltway. Bad idea, IMHO.

[lewislynn]

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.

Since when do "social conservatives" get to define what is "racey" and what isn't?...

Social conservative?...Or social Nazi?

[LS]

Actually, the social conservatives are too busy beating each other up on the religion threads. Just try posting something favorable about a charismatic and watch 'em come out. Or, on the other end of the spectrum, something about the Pope.

Oh, and what is the "social conservative" position on immigration? That seems to bring out all the flamers.

[monkeyshine]

Is Free Republic becoming increasingly hostile towards Social Conservatives?

No. Now get lost. :-)

[Anotherpundit]

I don't think any one faction is getting more targeted. What I'm seeing is a general rise in hostility towards *everybody* -- in my opinion, because the liberals are getting to be a less and less significant immediate danger, so we're dividing up and attacking each other instead.

[patent]

>>>In the past few months I have noticed that the posters on Free Republic have become more and more hostile towards social conservatism. . . . . 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 need to take yourself a little less seriously if you want to ever reach anyone on an internet discussion forum.

Social conservatism will always have its fans and opponents, nothing happening now is special, here or otherwise. Some people will always be hostile to you on an internet forum, if you want to post here or really, anywhere, get used to it.

patent

[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.

[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"

[toupsie]

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.

Excuse me, Mother Theresa! I guess not following your lifestyle makes me an evil hedonists.

Gripping about what's on TV and then wanting to pack up your toys and leave when people tell you "Change the channel" is childish. No one is forcing you to watch Fox -- except maybe the devil.

Here are some suggested domains for your new website:
www.CantControlMyUrgesBecauseOfFox.tv
www.MorallySuperiorToEveryoneElse.com
www.CensoredRepublic.com
www.TheTVWontStopControllingMyLife.com
www.HolierThanThou.com
www.DontAgreeWithMeGoToHell.com
www.GodLovesOnlyUs.com
www.eTinFoilHatsDirect.com

[kidd]

Libertarians will be the first to admit that they do not like the Libertarian Party. They have admitted to me that they are a political philosophy that does not have an adequate method of placing their philosophy into action. They like to think of themselves as a sort of free-reigning think tank.

Which is precisely why they come here to complain. They have nowhere else to go.

Yes, they're utopian, insulting and completely humorless. But sometimes they ask the right questions. If you can ignore their solutions, you will find them thought provoking. For example: Is the WOD unconstitutional? (Good question) Lets surrender - make drug legal! (Stupid solution).

[Antoninus]

Hey, there are a lot of contentious issues discussed and debated here on Free Republic. The social conservative vs. liberal/libertarian/libertine debates are some of the most entertaining and educational on here. There's no increase in "hostility" - there's just vigorous, spirited disagreement on some very fundamental issues.

Form our own website? Why?

[rwfromkansas]

You are correct. It is due to Libertarians and liberal disrupters. Most of the Freeper population still supports our causes though...by far as far as I can tell since it is the same people who attack our views, while new people who support us pop in all the time.

[Dog Gone]

I don't even know what a Social Conservative is.

A lot of people describe themselves as that, but it doesn't mean anything to me.

A lot of people who are one-issue voters describe themselves as Social Conservatives. That certainly includes some very zealous Pro-lifers, but it also includes some people for whom immigration, legal or otherwise, is the obsession. Others include the Religious Right, where morals and biblical teachings are the only lens through which politics is viewed.

I could go on, but my point is that these camps may not share common views on ANY subject, but they are all Social Conservatives.

[counterrevolutionary]

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 mean like Jesus didn't hang around with prostitutes and publicans, and like that?

If you want a site where you agree with everything people say and your views are never the subject of disagreement, then you should probably join (or found) another site, yes.

On the other hand, if your point is that many people simply spout bumper-sticker libertarian or Limbaughite or even left-radical slogans, and display no understanding of what conservatism actually means, then I'd suggest you learn to live with it. It's likely to be the same everywhere you go, including among social conservatives. Only the particular slogans will be different.

And if you're concerned about the rudeness and name-calling which is all too frequent, just ignore it.

[Liberal Classic]

Then by all means, appeal to the owner to remove libertarians. It's not like we have any right to be here. FR is Jim's property and he can run it how he sees fit, whether that be to allow libertarians or to remove them. Pretty simple, really.

[NittanyLion]

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

Can you elaborate upon the issues that make one a social conservative as opposed to a "regular" conservative? If a person is opposed to an action, but believes said action should be legal nonetheless, can they be a conservative?

[Argh]

I won't flame you, but I'd like to point out one item we'd definitely agree on: the Mass should indeed be in Latin.

[p. henry]

In the immortal words of Lyndon Baines Johnson: "Come, let us reason together." For what it's worth, here are my thoughts:

1. I have not sensed hostility to social conservatives on FreeRepublic. I have sensed a reduced presence of social conservatives here.

2. I am pro-life, but I am not a single issue voter on this or any other matter.

3. Attempting to use government action to establish or enforce social mores is a bit like Canute trying to use a broom to change the tide.

4. There are areas of convergence for social and economic conservatives. For example, I believe that both groups support the propositions that the federal courts have given too broad an interpretation to the establishment clause and too narrow an interpretation to the freedom of association. Ronald Reagan was the greatest Republican President since Lincoln (sorry all you TR fans) in part because he represented a synthesis of economic and social conservatism.

5. While the Republican Party has been a disappointment to economic conservatives, given the attitude and attention span of the majority of American voters, the Libertarian Party is not a viable alternative; and our best hope for movement toward a more limited government lies in changing, not abandoning, the Republican Party.

6. The Democratic Party is anathema to both economic and social conservatives; and, to some extent, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

7. In a large constitutional republic, in the absence of extraordinary conditions virtually all change is incremental, and patience is therefore not just a virtue, it is essential to the success of any political program.

[Johnny Shear]

I wonder if this is becoming only a haven for hedonists

And calling someone who likes The Simpsons and The Family Guy a "Hedonist" is not hostile???

There aren't too many things I HATE but hypocrites are one of those things.