How I Became a Social Conservative by Default
Ever heard someone say, “I didn’t leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left me?” I get that on a very personal level, except in reverse, because I didn’t become a social conservative, social conservatism came toward me. Granted, many social conservatives who would be reluctant to count me amongst their ranks, and as someone who has been saying for years that I’m more socially conservative than the average person, but not an actual social conservative, I wouldn’t blame them.
Yes, I’m a Southern Baptist, I regularly pray to God, and I genuinely enjoy books like Peace of Soul and The Purpose Driven Life, but my church attendance is spotty at best.
After feeling guilty about stealing, I deleted my downloaded MP3 collection and bought it all from scratch legally, but it still contains everything from gangster rap to raunchy pop.
I don’t drink, smoke, do drugs, or gamble and I rarely curse, but it has nothing to do with moral concerns.
I try to be a good guy, but politics is a knife fight in a phone booth where nice guys finish last, so if need be, I can be as vicious as just about anyone you’ll run across on the Right.
I even at times draw the ire of diehard social conservatives who don’t like the 20 Hottest Conservative Women In The New Media contests that I run every year or the fact that I’ve been a little too friendly to the gay community. I have gay friends, I support GOProud, and I was even the very first sponsor of Homocon, which was the event that put GOProud on the map.
On the other hand, I didn’t support gays in the military, I think the Boy Scouts are making the right call about gay members and Scoutmasters, I was one of the millions of people who participated in Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day, and I couldn’t more adamantly oppose gay marriage.
Some people might find those stands contradictory, but as Billy Graham has said, “God will not judge a Christian guilty for his or her involuntary feelings.” So as a sinner in a world full of sinners, I may not always condone people’s behavior or agree that they should get what they want just because they want it, but that doesn’t mean I have to look down on them, hate them, or treat them badly. It’s true that God’s definition of marriage does not include gay marriage, but our God is a loving God who doesn’t tell us to hate people because they disagree with us.
Along the same lines, God is not okay with murdering innocent children. Saying you’re a Christian who’s pro-choice is like saying you’re a Christian who worships Satan. What you’re saying makes no sense because it contradicts what you claim to believe on the most fundamental of levels.
This gets into the reason that someone like me, flawed though I am, could now fairly be called a social conservative.
Although I believe that we Christians may have good-faith disagreements about what our obligations are as we try to stand up for our beliefs, that doesn’t mean we can take any position we like and call it “Christianity.” For example, it’s quite understandable that there might be Christians who disagree about whether we should go to war or if we have an obligation to give personal charity or demand that the government give it on our behalf. However, just because there might be a few places where Christians disagree with each other, that doesn’t mean there are infinite numbers of interpretations of our beliefs. If there were, calling yourself a Christian would be as meaningless as calling yourself “fair” or “nice.”
Because we’re flawed human beings, we Christians may engage in adultery, but that doesn’t mean it ceases to be a sin. A Christian may lie to try to get someone he doesn’t like in trouble, but that doesn’t mean that he hasn’t gone astray. The problem we’ve begun to see with Christianity is that when our beliefs conflict with the values of the world, instead of admitting our sins, we’ve simply started to call the wrong things right because it’s easier. Instead of having the courage to stand up for Christianity, most Christians have decided they’d rather be in conflict with God than with their pushy neighbor, some jerk on the Internet, or what they’re seeing on their TV screen.
This starts with the cowardice of Christian pastors all around our country. Many of them bend over so far backward not to offend anyone that they’re no longer standing shoulder-to-shoulder with God. If even pastors aren’t willing to stand up for Christianity, then it’s no surprise that their flocks aren’t showing much courage either. It’s also not shocking that so many younger Americans are looking at Christians today and deciding that our faith isn’t for them. As it says in Revelation 3:16, “So, because you are lukewarm–neither hot nor cold–I am about to spit you out of my mouth.” If we Christians are lukewarm and don’t have the courage of our convictions, then we can’t expect lost people looking for something to believe in to join us.
This is not radicalism, it’s what used to be the default position for Christians. If you say you believe in Jesus Christ, but your beliefs crumple on impact each time they conflict with the world, then you’re not a Christian in anything other than name. I may be a sinner, a hypocrite, and far from perfect, but I am at least willing to take a stand for Christianity and what we Christians believe. Sadly, our country and our faith have degenerated so much over the past few decades that even that now qualifies as social conservatism.
****
More on God and religion at PJ Lifestyle:
Mainstream GOP types and an assortment of RINOs, not to mention Neal Boortz, are all urging social conservatives to quit messing things up for the geniuses in the RNC who settled on a candidate and a strategy based on non-specific economic platitudes and never rocking the boat on the social issues.
So, how’s that working out?
Meanwhile, undeterred by their party’s lack of success under their helmsmanship, the beloved leadership is telling us social conservatives to leave our core values at home. Boortz went so far as to blame every loss on social conservatives, so obsessed by our own petty little issues that we refused to put Boortz’s own petty little issues at the top of our petty little priority list.
I’m just not sure how someone goes to the ballot box and leaves his core moral beliefs at home. That might even be hard for an RNC-style Republican to do, provided we could identify a core moral belief of any sort.
If the GOP doesn’t want my votes or my money, there is no time like now to let me know. If my vote is a drag on their electoral lift, they should inform me before the next election. That way, I won’t ruin it for them. Been (mostly) a GOP voter since 1972, but hey, no hard feelings. Good luck, GOP, hope you can turn your liberal-lite policies and aw shucks platitudes into electoral victories.
Oh… wait… seems they’re not telling me to leave my *vote* home. They still want my vote. They just want me to leave my expectations home.
Well! Glad that’s settled!
The issue is not one of leaving core moral beliefs at home. It’s one of not forcing what you think are core moral beliefs on everyone else.
Consider: core moral beliefs of Christians 200 years ago are not the same as core moral beliefs of Christians now. Go back further and the core beliefs shift further. This is verifiable history.
When the loudmouths start calling all biological science “tools of Satan” (yes, that was a social conservative and high ranking Republican) and aren’t immediately censured by the party for their idiocy, people with a little scientific background start looking for alternatives.
For the record, “believing in” evolution is as senseless as “believing in” the table my monitor sits on. The process is that well established. Encouraging people who pander to ignorance only drives everyone else away – and I for one do NOT want someone who thinks evolutionary biology is a tool of Satan writing laws that affect me. That kind of fool would end up banning vaccinations and then claim that resulting epidemics were God’s punishment for immorality.
So no, I don’t want you to leave your core moral values at home. But I don’t want you dictating mine for me, even if mine match yours almost 100%
> The issue is not one of leaving core moral beliefs at home. It’s one of not forcing what you think are core moral beliefs on everyone else.
Kate, this is where, philosophically, you lose: forcing core moral beliefs on everyone is what government is all about. We have laws that force all kinds of core moral beliefs on murderers, robbers, arsonists, rapists, drunk drivers, people who run stop lights, and people who don’t pay their taxes. We also have laws that take money away from the people who earned it and hand it over to others who stay home and have kids in one form or another. All of these laws are predicated on a moral vision. All of these laws are forced on everyone, including many people who do not share the same moral vision.
So you presume to tell me we can’t have any of this forcing morality on people who don’t buy into it, when in fact that is precisely what every law does. You don’t have a choice: someone’s moral code will be forced on someone who does not buy into it. The only question is, whose moral code will that be?
> Consider: core moral beliefs of Christians 200 years ago are not the same as core moral beliefs of Christians now. Go back further and the core beliefs shift further. This is verifiable history.
If true, so what? And I think you overstate your case. Beliefs change. But the Holy Trinity has been around for about 1800 years.
> When the loudmouths start calling all biological science “tools of Satan” (yes, that was a social conservative and high ranking Republican) and aren’t immediately censured by the party for their idiocy, people with a little scientific background start looking for alternatives.
1. Who are the “loudmouths”? I notice you’re not shy about expressing your opinions; why should anyone else be?
2. Are you saying that science somehow discredits religion? Given the philosophical pretexts of science, it would be hard to see how that’s possible. If science is about what is observable and testable in nature, please tell me when someone has a scientific instrument that measures what is not observable and testable in the supernatural.
> For the record, “believing in” evolution is as senseless as “believing in” the table my monitor sits on. The process is that well established.
That depends on what you mean by the word “evolution”. Species change in time? Even Creationists (large “C”) believe that. All of life is descended from a single cell via random mutation through the feedback mechanism of natural selection? That’s an assumption. Maybe the conflict here isn’t really science vs. the Book of Genesis, but once between a brand of science that purports to know that life was not designed vs. another brand that says we know nothing of the sort? You can *assume* that the Darwinists are right, but let’s not pretend that it was a conclusion driven by the evidence.
In other words, a Darwinist and a Design person might both believe in evolution, might both accept the common descent argument as the best explanation, and might agree on the probable timeline… but still the Darwinist presumes that unguided natural selection was the mechanism when they have no window into the supernatural to settle that issue.
In any event, you start off telling me how you don’t want *my* core moral beliefs forced on anyone who doesn’t agree, and then bring up a case — the teaching of evolution — where in fact it is other people’s beliefs being forced upon Christians who don’t buy into the Darwinist paradigm. Well, I guess some core moral beliefs are more equal than others.
> Encouraging people who pander to ignorance only drives everyone else away – and I for one do NOT want someone who thinks evolutionary biology is a tool of Satan writing laws that affect me. That kind of fool would end up banning vaccinations and then claim that resulting epidemics were God’s punishment for immorality.
Well, then, by all means, tell these ignorant people that they don’t have a right to teach their children what they believe to be true. Also, please, tell them that you, as a Republican voter, do not want their votes. Honesty is the best policy, right? Or is that another unwanted core moral belief? Anyhow, if you have contempt for social conservatives, be honest enough to admit it out loud and tell them to go away. No money or votes from you, you ignorant hillbillies.
See how that works. I’m curious to find out myself.
Ah, but that’s the problem isn’t it? You *do* want their votes, and their money. Just not their agenda. And why not? Everyone else on the planet wants it both ways, why not Republicans too?
>Kate, this is where, philosophically, you lose: forcing core moral beliefs on everyone is what government is all about.
Oh really, I thought it was about protecting the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I guess that’s an outmoded idea.
>We have laws that force all kinds of core moral beliefs on murderers, robbers, arsonists, rapists, drunk drivers, people who run stop lights, and people who don’t pay their taxes. We also have laws that take money away from the people who earned it and hand it over to others who stay home and have kids in one form or another. All of these laws are predicated on a moral vision. All of these laws are forced on everyone, including many people who do not share the same moral vision.
Yes, and some of these laws are legitimate (laws banning murder, robbery, arson, rape) and some aren’t. Just because the government does something doesn’t mean it should be doing so. Governments do unjust things all the time.
> Oh really, I thought it was about protecting the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I guess that’s an outmoded idea.
You don’t get it, Bill. The reason government ought to protect our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is because it is the moral thing to do. It’s America’s rather unique moral vision.
> Yes, and some of these laws are legitimate (laws banning murder, robbery, arson, rape) and some aren’t.
But what is or is not “legitimate” is based on a moral vision of what government is chartered to do. All of it.
> Just because the government does something doesn’t mean it should be doing so. Governments do unjust things all the time.
Of course they do. But what gives government its legitimacy, to borrow your word, is that people *expect* the government to work toward this vision. When enough people believe that the government is working against the welfare of the people, there is risk of revolt — effectively, a termination of the social contract.
And it’s a moral vision. “The government ought to do this; the government ought to do that.” When the word “ought” is involved, it’s a question of values, i.e., morals.
Reformed Trombonist,
Okay, but now you’re talking about something a bit different than you were previously – a specific, defined and LIMITED moral vision. Hell, I’ll even note that rights themselves are moral concepts. But, your earlier comment left wide swath to conclude that whatever moral judgements we make, we’re free to legislate. And I think that distinction needs and deserves to be drawn. There’s a difference between social/religious conservatives and social/religious statists.
> Okay, but now you’re talking about something a bit different than you were previously – a specific, defined and LIMITED moral vision.
I’m singing the same tune as before. Maybe you’re hearing it a little better after I explained it.
> Hell, I’ll even note that rights themselves are moral concepts.
Thank you.
> But, your earlier comment left wide swath to conclude that whatever moral judgements we make, we’re free to legislate. And I think that distinction needs and deserves to be drawn. There’s a difference between social/religious conservatives and social/religious statists.
Bill, the most oft-heard comment I hear directed at social conservatives is the silly remark, “You can’t legislate morality,” or its drooling twin, “You shouldn’t impose your morals on anyone.
Public policy, the whole of it, is about enforcing a moral vision of some sort. The laws, the police, government at every level all exist to implement a moral vision, pursuing something that we as a society perceive to be “the way things ought to be.”
There is no choice about whether or not a moral vision will be forced on us. It will be. Somebody’s. The only question is, whose?
The debate over public policy is essentially a conflict between moral visions, and always will be, with each side claiming the moral high ground. At times, the results appear incoherent because all sorts of conflicting moral visions go into making any one policy. That’s the part that H.L. Mencken obliquely referred to as sausage-making. We live in a constitutional Republic, and, as I see it, the Constitution is to the government as the Bible is to my personal life. But there’s room for interpretation in both documents. Some interpret the Constitution one way, some interpret it differently — but both sides bring their moral compass with them to the debate.
However my moral compass has been formed, I expect the people for whom I vote and to whom I donate to take it seriously. And that’s true whether it was derived from ancient manuscripts or just made it up from scratch yesterday.
As a Christian conservative, my concerns are: abortion, gay marriage, the liberal indoctrination of students, the public funding of anti-religious groups and abortion mills, and a tendentious reading of the First Amendment that grows ever more restrictive of the rights of Christians. Yes, I’m also very concerned about the debt and the economy — they’re very important. But abortion has to be number one. We cannot let this issue die. Human life has to come first. It is the single most important moral issue of our age, and even though I am dead set against gay marriage, I’d rather throw flower petals at a thousand gay weddings than see one baby aborted and thrown in the incinerator.
Republicans: do *NOT* tell us we must line up behind your Wonder-Bread wonder boys as they incoherently explain their incoherent policy preferences, accepting our votes and our money, but then shush us when we want to speak out. Or else find yourself another bloc of voters to disrespect and throw under the bus. I for one have had it up to here.
“We have laws that force all kinds of core moral beliefs on murderers, robbers, arsonists, rapists”
The only “core moral belief” that we force on citizens is that they must respect the individual rights of other citizens. That is basic to a democracy.
We insist that you can’t murder me. You can’t rob me. You can’t burn down my home or my place of business.
There are plenty of other laws the Government has enacted from time to time that are nothing like that: Sodomy laws that attempt to restrict what couples can do in the privacy of their own home, for example.
Says who? We have Christians+ allies on one side, who think the government should be about enforcing a moral code so that one’s property isn’t “redistributed”, vulnerable life is protected, bodily integrity is not violated, etc. On the other side are the atheists, who want Power. They want your stuff, they’re willing to kill inconvenient people who “take up resources”, they don’t care much who’s having sex with your twelve-year-old daughter then getting her an abortion to hide the “evidence”. You can join up with us, the other side, or stand on your own and join the Libertarians. But we’re done listening to you complain that Christians are fully Christian and not hedonistic.
“Reformed Trombonist,” (Nice nickname, but sounds like you want to remain annonymous for some reason.)
With obvious exceptions (the civil “laws” our govt has been forcing on us lately), most of the laws you claim are “forced morality from govt” are actually God’s Law He gave us in the Bible; so if you’re against those laws, you’re against God, not govt. And that, sir, is what we call “moral relativism” (you deciding that you can do whatever you want, without consequences).
The only reason this country succeeded in getting out from under British rule was our Founders’ reliance on providence from Almighty God. The many miracles that happened during the Revolutionary War were a direct result of incidences of fasting and prayer by our Founders and the people; pleading with God for Divine Intervention. Then, when it was over, these same Founders used not only ideas from great writers, but a full ONE THIRD of ideas came DIRECTLY from the Bible as they designed our govt and wrote our U.S. Constitution. This is why our originating laws ARE God’s 10 Commandments. And it is our Founder’s Christian beliefs–and their reliance on God–that caused God to bless this nation and make it a powerful force for good for so long.
Yes, our nation is no longer the great nation it used to be, but that is because the people have lost their beliefs and left God’s Morality behind in favor of complacency and greed. They have been electing poor examples of leaders and leaving the running of the country to evil people; all so they can lull themselves to sleep with every disgusting form of entertainment they can find (satan’s providence!).
Sorry, but everything everyone does has consequences. Everything we do has an effect on our sphere of influence. The only difference is whether what we do has good consequences or bad. God blesses us for the good, and punishes for the bad. No one on earth has a choice in the matter, for God is above, and rules over, ALL.
In God’s grand scheme, none of us has any real control, save for our own behavior. It behooves all of us to read God’s Word and find out how to live in a way that pleases Him. God calls for us to ‘live in peace with one another’ and ‘Love one another,’ because: “Love does not harm its neighbor. Therefore, Love is the fulfillment of the Law (Commandments).”–Romans 13:10.
Think about it, Reformed Trombonist.
“You don’t have a choice: someone’s moral code will be forced on someone who does not buy into it. The only question is, whose moral code will that be?”
The constitution and founding common laws anwers your question. The key is “limited” government intrusion into protected individual freedoms. Constitutionally protected are the freedoms of individual rights to religion without intrusion by the federal government.
Zeke, you already told us you aren’t our ally, remember? so we don’t care much what your take on the Constitution, sorry.
> @randomengineer: “Evolution is the naturalistic approach, one that requires no supernatural influence. It’s not about belief whatsoever; at the outside, science is a REJECTION of belief in favour of the observable, and specifically rejects that which requires belief.”
Being an atheist and a Darwinist requires believing that unguided, natural selection is a sufficient explanation for the diversity of life. That’s at least as big a leap of faith than what I believe. After all, since the supernatural cannot be measured, we have no idea what the odds of its existence are and no idea what the physics, so to speak, of the supernatural would dictate. For all we know, there was indeed a Creator and his taking part in Creation may not be all that unusual for supernatural beings.
But from what we know of nature, we know that chaos does not generally beget order, and highly specified order at that. So to assume that what I believe involves a greater leap of faith than what you believe is to beg the question.
> i.e. life cam about A) naturally, via mechanisms we don’t know fully, or B) via a supernatural occurence. (A) will be taught in schools because (A) requires no belief whatsoever. Since (B) requires belief (specifically in the christian creation mythology) then (B) is religion, pure and simple, and schools aren’t in the business of propagating your religion.
I’m fine with the schools simply teaching biology we can all agree on. Don’t teach Creationism. Don’t teach Intelligent Design. And don’t teach Darwinism. Teach what we know rather than what we speculate, and leave the inferences about the supernatural to college philosophy.
> You don’t seem to grasp the notion that absence of belief is not belief.
You don’t seem to grasp the notion that everything is based on belief. You believe logic is authoritative, right? You believe the universe conforms to a predictable order, right? You believe in the power and validity of reason, right? But logic is an abstract concept and cannot be scientifically proven; it must be presumed. Furthermore, it cannot be a simple product of nature, like us, or else it would hold no transcendent authority over our argument.
Logic, reason, inference, the power of evidence, all make sense if there was a Creator who stands above us, of whom these things are products or traits of Him.
But if logic is simply a product of human thought, and human thought is simply the product of random happenstance, then… well, ho hum. You’re welcome to it, but I don’t see why something lower than I am should have any authority over anyone’s life.
Well that’s too bad, because our top priority is making sure that the unborn, the elderly and the sick aren’t being slaughtered. If you can’t handle that, then you don’t want our votes either, so don’t complain when you lose. Quo vadis, Kate?
Really? I guess you’re missing that the current policies espoused on both sides of the political fence will see a whole lot more of that, whether passive or active slaughter.
Let’s see… focus on abortion, get made to look like slavering idiots, lose election. Cue four more years (at least) of ever-worsening economics. Ultimately there won’t be any abortions because hardly anyone can afford them – instead there’ll be babies and children and others starving in the streets.
Apparently this doesn’t matter to you. You’d rather win your near-term goal and lose the long-term war.
Kate, I don’t know whether you’re a Christian or not, or a non-believer. But if you’re a Christian, you have to accept the notion that not only is there such a thing as cause and effect, but some of those causes may be supernatural, e.g., the hand of God.
If you consider for a just moment that Christianity may actually be true, then it could be quite possible that abortion is precisely what’s bringing our country down. In the Old Testament, the Lord judged the Canaanite peoples that the Israelites displaced for, among other practices, slaughtering babies as sacrifices to their gods. At least the principle is there. I don’t see a substantive difference between abortion and child sacrifice except for the technology. A woman doesn’t want her child for whatever reason and gives it up. In the ancient world, that meant handing the child over to a priest of Baal; in the modern world, it means catching it before it comes out of the birth canal, to keep it legal, and then throwing it in the sink. Either way, that’s a life that is not ours to take.
Frankly, if you and other Republicans can’t see that it’s just as wrong to take an unborn child’s life as to take yours, or mine, then I don’t want to be on your side. Good luck, God bless, and don’t call me eighty times during the next election soliciting my money and my vote. I don’t want a choice between two parties without a moral compass, even if one side does understand economics slightly better than the other.
In any event, the GOP doesn’t need social conservatives to make them look stupid; they do a superb job of that all by themselves.
Reformed Trombonist,
Social conservatives like Todd Akin and his “legitimate rape” comments aren’t what makes the GOP look stupid? Really?
Here’s where I come from: banning abortion is a losing issue. You could not make abortion what, from your comments, you truly believe it to be: first degree murder on the part of the mother and the doctor – it would be all but impossible to get a jury to convict.
Now, if you do manage to get to the point where abortion is treated as first degree murder, then what? Some fools are already jailing women who miscarry if it’s deemed that their actions might have caused the miscarriage. Do you plan to dictate that all women save their period bleeding for inspection in case it’s actually an abortion caused by some bad behavior on their part? (You do realize that a ridiculous number of pregnancies spontaneously miscarry so early that the mother had no idea she was pregnant, right?). If a miscarriage is detected, will it be analyzed and the woman charged with murder if there’s no genetic disfunction present in the embryo?
That is unconscionable interference in the lives of 50% of the adult population.
I would far rather see the widespread availability of contraceptives, proper education about how to use them, teens being taught that the best possible way to do things is to abstain, and choose a partner to marry for life, but if they aren’t able to do this, then they can protect themselves by using these methods.
Oh, and regardless of how carefully it’s managed there will always be cases where abortion is actually necessary to save the life of the mother. Ectopic pregnancy is one (and is the most common cause of pregnancy-related death in Western countries). Miscarriages that take a long time to occur naturally – like the recent case in Ireland – are another. In both cases there is no way the pregnancy can end with a living child: under these circumstances is it not the case that the best choice to be made is the one that is best for the mother?
Telling me how to live my life when you’re not in it is the fastest way to lose me. The communist-in-all-but-name Democrats lost me a long time ago. The loudest and most strident social conservatives trying to legislate their religious beliefs instead are doing the same. Next some fool will be trying to legislate that sex can only happen in bed, at night, with the lights out, between married partners.
> Social conservatives like Todd Akin and his “legitimate rape” comments aren’t what makes the GOP look stupid? Really?
Oh come on. I know what he was trying to say, even if you and the liberal media pretend not to hear. He meant “a true case of rape.” Joe Biden makes twenty gaffes before breakfast. Maybe the problem is the GOP is too defensive about such gaffes and refuses to go on the offensive. Lord knows, they’re not very good at playing defense.
Here’s what “stupid” looks like: leading Republican candidates trashing each other for months on end, giving Democrats endless embarrassing videotape on the nominee. “Stupid” is reacting to the public hatred of Obamacare by nominating someone who designed something that could have been its prototype, and who was proud of it. “Stupid” is getting caught on camera sounding like a plutocrat and talking about the “47%”. “Stupid” is the ongoing funding of liberal Republicans by the RNC and its stubborn refusal to join with the Tea Party and form a real agenda. “Stupid” is having an opportunity to press Obama hard on Benghazi during a national debate but letting the dog eat your brief. And “stupid” is always, yesterday, today, and forevermore letting liberals frame the debate.
Stupidity, thy name is GOP.
> Here’s where I come from: banning abortion is a losing issue.
There is no such thing as a losing issue, there are only bad champions. If Democrats can turn gay marriage and subsidizing upper-middle-class law students’ sex lives into winning issues, I don’t see what’s so hard about being an advocate for not killing babies.
> You could not make abortion what, from your comments, you truly believe it to be: first degree murder on the part of the mother and the doctor – it would be all but impossible to get a jury to convict.
Now you’re putting words in my mouth. I’m not going to waste time dealing with straw men that you’re making up. You can have that debate with your imaginary debate adversary.
Dang,, overheated rhetoric much. Being pro-life makes you a slavering idiot? I thought Dems comparing Christians to the Taliban were over the top. But you want us in your party. Increasingly I think not.
Let’s see Dems compare us to the Taliban and our secular party members call us slavering idiots for being pro life. Christians seem to be no longer wanted in the political system. What was that party called that used to half way oppose the Democrats? You know the one that doesn’t exist anymore.
“Here’s where I come from: banning abortion is a losing issue.”
And yet here we are…forty plus years later where the issue still counts as a game-changer for enough people that even in states where Obama won pro-life people got voted in to various positions.
“I would far rather see the widespread availability of contraceptives”
They are already.
“Oh, and regardless of how carefully it’s managed there will always be cases where abortion is actually necessary to save the life of the mother.”
This is a crap argument. Most of the time it can be agreed on that tangible life endangerment presents a situation where both choices are rough however it is used as justification for all abortions to be legal.
I can live with that compromise. Tangible life risk is exempt. They can have one.
If you consider for a just moment that Christianity may actually be true, then it could be quite possible that abortion is precisely what’s bringing our country down.
You are illustrating the problem with the so-con position: the notion that the GOP is the playground of christian statists like you who presume to speak for god and define the moment sentience (the thinking soul) begins. The GOP is a political party, one that requires > 50% of the vote to win, and yours is a minority position. You cannot enjoy enforcement of the minority viewpoint via free election. Few people agree with your notion of the onset of life.
The rest of what you have to say is simply meaningless babble. What counts is counting, as in votes.
e.g. “bringing the country down” is your opinion of the state of things, one that I don’t share. The country is not what it was in 1950. It’s different, and different isn’t defined as “down.” The notion of “down” is yours. Some like you point to the divorce rate as evidence that things are bad. I see the divorce rate as reflective of legal realities, that there is no more or less unhappiness than there was in say the 1920′s. In other words the 1920′s was chock full of people who would be much happier if divorced but societal pressure forced them to live unhappy lives. What those like you espouse is a lower divorce rate as if this is an indicator of marital health. You are the type of mind that is unable to distinguish between symptom and cause and you treat the symptom.
If you look at the right indicators the US is going UP, not down: people are living longer, suffering from debilitating disease is down, etc.
Lastly, you bible beating types share another peculiarity that can sometimes be amusing. If you don’t get to dictate terms to everyone else, you’ll claim your views are being suppressed, i.e. I’m a christian and I’m being persecuted, waahhh, poor me. Heh. Society is rejecting your statist tendencies, and rightly so. Things are IMPROVING.
> You are illustrating the problem with the so-con position: the notion that the GOP is the playground of christian statists like you who presume to speak for god and define the moment sentience (the thinking soul) begins.
The scent of question-begging epithets must be like a fine wine because some people just can’t wait to uncork them. A “christian statist.” Hmmm. I’m probably the most libertarian statist you’ll ever meet. But if “statist” means someone who believes we ought to have a state and it ought to enforce laws and that some of those laws pertain to the wrongful taking of life, then I’ll wear the epithet proudly.
I’ll go so far as to say I can’t speak for God and that I can’t tell when the “thinking soul” becomes a reality, or whether it even matters, with regards to an unborn child. But having opened that thread, let’s stretch it out: I can’t even prove that you or I have a soul. By materialist measures, you and I are just walking pots of chemical reactions and electrical impulses. I can’t see that there are, short of my religious assumptions, any particular reason morality even exists, let alone whether such morality might have something to say about whether your or my particular pot of chemicals continues to exist in its present form.
In other words, my religious beliefs inform my moral assumptions. I have no idea why you believe the moral assumptions you made up yesterday are better, but you seem to believe very strongly that they are.
> The GOP is a political party, one that requires > 50% of the vote to win, and yours is a minority position. You cannot enjoy enforcement of the minority viewpoint via free election. Few people agree with your notion of the onset of life.
Are you speaking for the GOP? If the GOP doesn’t want my vote, then they should tell me now, or at least some time before I waste another vote on them. Moral principles are eternal. The GOP is not.
> The rest of what you have to say is simply meaningless babble. What counts is counting, as in votes.
You are addicted to question-begging epithets. If my thoughts are meaningless babble, why do you devote the so much of your energies trying to discredit it?
> e.g. “bringing the country down” is your opinion of the state of things, one that I don’t share. The country is not what it was in 1950. It’s different, and different isn’t defined as “down.”
It is clear that liberals do not understand what I mean when I say, “bringing the country down.” You’ll know what I mean when it happens. As I’m sure those in 500 A.D. who could still remember the Roman Empire knew. If liberals understood, we wouldn’t be racking up debt at such an alarming pace.
> The notion of “down” is yours.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
> You are the type of mind that is unable to distinguish between symptom and cause and you treat the symptom.
And you are the type who sees things in terms of a world of discrete, unrelated phenomena concepts that do not interact and cannot conceive how a general loss of character can result in an unfunctional economy and a dyfunctional government.
I write and debug computer code for a living and am made aware, every day, of how some tiny little change way over here can ruin something big and complex way over there.
> If you look at the right indicators the US is going UP, not down: people are living longer, suffering from debilitating disease is down, etc.
The fruits of the healthy and vibrant economy and culture we used to have.
> Lastly, you bible beating types share another peculiarity that can sometimes be amusing. If you don’t get to dictate terms to everyone else, you’ll claim your views are being suppressed, i.e. I’m a christian and I’m being persecuted, waahhh, poor me. Heh. Society is rejecting your statist tendencies, and rightly so. Things are IMPROVING.
On paper, the Roman Empire looked to be at its strongest right before it quit paying its bills and therefore ceased to exist. It doesn’t sound like you would mind even if Christians were in fact being persecuted. We can’t prove they have souls, after all.
(December 4, 2012. Random Engineer thinks the country is headed in a good direction.)
What’s the problem, then? The Democrats won the election and will continue what they’ve been doing for the past 50 years.
Kate,
After every election, we hear the same thing from the hedonist wing of the GOP. Have you noticed that you bleat the same thing each time? I think it’s time to consider the remote possibility that you are all fucking idiots since you still don’t seem to know what it means to be a Christian; you seem to want voting habits from us that we don’t have, you want priorities that we don’t share with you, you think “winning elections” is a huge deal to us vs gaining Heaven for our immortal souls. You aren’t our allies. Occasionally, we vote for the same people, and that’s about it. I teach my children the dangers of being someone like you, I carefully limit their exposure to people like you. I don’t like you. And now, I’m less likely than before to vote the same way; no more holding my nose.
lol. Define “long term”? I’m not aware of anything longer term than “Eternity”!
Kate,
“Social conservatives like Todd Akin and his “legitimate rape” comments aren’t what makes the GOP look stupid? Really?”
First, I understand your outrage over what Todd Akin said. He sure made himself sound ignorant when he said “a woman’s body prevents pregnancy in a legitimate rape.” Unfortunately, this man calls himself a ‘Republican’ and like any label, “Republican” no longer means anyone adhere’s to the Party Platform (as if there is a Platform anymore.)
However, promoting abortion (or doing so by caving to peer pressure) is not the way to save our country. In fact, abortion denies the “unalienable Right to Life” granted by God that is recognized in our Declaration of Independence and (supposedly) enforced by our U.S. Constitution.
And, if you claim to be Christian, you are also contradicting yourself by promoting evil behavior. The Bible says, in 1 Corinthians 1:10, “I appeal to you, brothers, in the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought.” This means that all Christians must believe the one thing we have in common: God’s Word. We must all live by faith in Him and abide by His Instructions.
And, Jesus said, in Matthew 25:40, “The King will reply, ‘I tell you the Truth, whatever you did for the one of the least of these brothers of Mine, you did for Me.’” Whom among us is the “least”? Whom are the least able to defend themselves from being murdered? Whom are the most innocent among us? UNBORN BABIES!
So, supporting abortion is supporting the first-degree murder of the most innocent and defenseless of all human beings. How could anyone DO that?
Trombonist — statists like you demand that the state is involved in the business of defining the moment when life begins. This is the foundation of the anti-abortion argument. The roe v wade decision clearly lays out the notion that as per the constitution the state is not to be involved. What you are hammering on is the antithesis of liberty. You are a statist, and this is not an epithet; it’s merely fact. Try to learn english well enough to distinguish between fact and name calling. What you are offering to this conversation is naught BUT name calling, and I tend to think you’ve reached your capacity.
Jeannette — …but liberals insist on killing themselves off.
You are obviously innumerate. What you disparigingly call “liberals” is a growing number and social conservatives are a shrinking number. And this besides your silly claim that liberals are killing themselves off. Church attendance in the US is trending downward, not upward. You’re entitled to your own opinions, of course, but this social niceity doesn’t extend to you having your own facts.
Catherine B — In fact, abortion denies the “unalienable Right to Life” granted by God that is recognized in our Declaration of Independence and (supposedly) enforced by our U.S. Constitution.
Two points.
1. Any right to life refers to human life and you don’t get to decide when that occurs. You ain’t god. You don’t get to speak for him, either.
2. God as referenced in US documents is the natural god and not specifically the christian god. That means specifically that your bible stuff doesn’t apply. Find me a federal founding document that references jesus and we’ll talk.
Not my problem. If we won’t defend the unborn, the country can burn to the ground for all I care. We deserve poverty and tyranny if we won’t defend the unborn. Yes, I do pray, “Lord, if it is possible, let this cup pass from us, but not my will but Thine be done.” So here’s my ultimatum to you: get in line and vote to defend the unborn, or perish with your money.
Well done, Trombonist.
randomengineer: The more I read you, the more I like you.
I don’t know Kate. I here those things all the time.
1. When does a baby become a baby? Is it after it exits its mother? Is it at some point before that? Does it only become a baby if its mother wants to think of it as a baby? When? Why do we have laws that will charge murderers with extra murder charges if they kill a pregnant woman? Why can women sue for wrongful death if something causes them to abort? And, yet, women equally far along in their pregnancies can waltz down the street to an abortion provider and have their babies killed free of consequence. Where is the legal consistency in that? When do we accord children that fundamental Constituional protection of Right to Life?
2. Maybe, in order to prevent there being children starving on streets (as you so apocalyptically put it), we should change sex from some fun and guiltless activity you do when you’re bored and drunk on Friday or Saturday evening into something that leads to procreation because the hard reality is that no matter how effective your birth control is, even when used 100% correctly, you can STILL GET PREGNANT. Sex is and always has been and always will be about having babies no matter how much you leftists want to try to change that. Oh sure, it’s a lot of fun and feels good, but that’s so you get pregnant. Maybe we ought to teach that alongside everything else in sex ed. If you can’t afford your birth control, you shouldn’t be having sex because you damn sure can’t afford a baby.
Kate’s Anti Christian screed mirrors exactly a Marxist Leftwinger.
For the record, “believing in” evolution is as senseless as “believing in” the table my monitor sits on. — Kate
Scientism is the new religion, and heretics will be excommunicated!
Your my way or the highway imposition of your beliefs on everybody combined with your Anti Christian bigotry, insults, and demonizaiton, isnt a selling point, it drives people away.
I think that Christian Classcially Liberal Conservatives should move to the Constitution Party, and the Godless Libertarians and Hedonists can ditch the GOP for the Libertarian Party and then we can see if their dreams of electoral dominance pan out. The Neo-Cons and RINOs can have the GOP.
What are the core moral beliefs of Christians 200 years ago that are different today? Don’t bring up slavery as stating that is a core moral belief of Christians is preposterous. Core moral beliefs of Christians are the death and resurrection of Christ, atonement in the blood of Jesus, a belief in a literal heaven and hell, the second coming of Christ to end “the time of the Gentiles” and other bedrock articles of faith. These have always been core moral beliefs of the church.
Trombonist — In any event, you start off telling me how you don’t want *my* core moral beliefs forced on anyone who doesn’t agree, and then bring up a case — the teaching of evolution — where in fact it is other people’s beliefs being forced upon Christians who don’t buy into the Darwinist paradigm. Well, I guess some core moral beliefs are more equal than others.
What nonsense. Evolution is the naturalistic approach, one that requires no supernatural influence. It’s not about belief whatsoever; at the outside, science is a REJECTION of belief in favour of the observable, and specifically rejects that which requires belief.
i.e. life cam about A) naturally, via mechanisms we don’t know fully, or B) via a supernatural occurence. (A) will be taught in schools because (A) requires no belief whatsoever. Since (B) requires belief (specifically in the christian creation mythology) then (B) is religion, pure and simple, and schools aren’t in the business of propagating your religion.
You don’t seem to grasp the notion that absence of belief is not belief.
randomengineer,
> Evolution…. It’s not about belief whatsoever
Actually, it is totally about belief. Darwin constructed a brilliant theory, but he titled it “The _Origin_ of Species”, when it really should be “How Species Change Over Time.” Evolution has nothing to say about the origin of life, only how nature changes life once it arrived.
There is no scientific explanation for how life began, or as you charitably put it “life came about naturally, via mechanisms we don’t fully know”. The _fact_ is, evolution does not explain how life began, and CANNOT mathematically/statitiscally account for widely observed “irreducible complexity”.
There is no scientific explanation for how life began [snip]
Incorrect. The current thinking is that since organic compounds are common in the solar system that a combination of factors involving these (radiation, oxidants, etc) made life happen. The more we explore space the more we know about what the solar system is composed of. Your argument overall is part of what Gould called “god of the gaps” where god resides in the gaps of scientific knowledge. As the gaps disappear…
My point was that science is focused on natural phenomenae and what is NOT science requires the supernatural. That was a simple enough point that I figured any reader could grasp it. Perhaps I was wrong.
Meanwhile, natural selection explains how evolution works. That evolution occurs isn’t contestable; it’s an observed fact. What is contestable are the precise mechanisms. As to irreducible complexity, this is an utter nonsense hypothesis proposed by some moron named Dembski that went unchallenged until specialists decided to answer it and then proceeded to destroy it. If and when “irreducible complexity” is considered a viable hypothesis in the peer reviewed literature (e.g. nature et al) and cited as an influence for a lot of real understanding then you may use it as a valid argument. Until then this is purely fringe junk and you don’t do anything for what little credibility you may have by invoking it.
Random,
When I said “explanation”, I meant scientifically provable, valid, true, etc… Something that adheres to the rules of science. Your reply of “the current thinking” only proves my point. Science can conjecture or hypothesize about the origin of life, but cannot prove or demonstrate it. If life can be created out of easily available chemicals and organic compounds, science has not yet done so, nor does it even know how to do so.
Yes, nature only includes nature. By definition it does not include the supernatural. By insisting on only examining nature, some people find themselves completely closed off to other explanations and instead pursue scientific explanations that in any other branch of science (those that are not involved in the origin of life/universe) would not be accepted with such flimsy weight of evidence.
See, Kate, you are part of the problem. You are the type of person who would like to believe that science and human reasoning gives you an “out” when it comes to issues of right and wrong with which you don’t agree or with which you would prefer not to agree.
Basic morality comes down to one very simple thing – human beings are animals with a knowledge of right and wrong which is what makes us something more than mere beast. However, more and more I am seeing people who would like to put that genie back in the bottle because it’s just easier and more fun to revel in our basic beast nature and act on our basic beast instincts than it is to govern ourselves and act with decency doing the right thing by ourselves and our fellow human beings.
God is the one who made us with the capacity to discern right from wrong. He is the one who would prefer that we choose to control our base natures and act with dignity and humanity. Liberals are the ones who tell you that it is not possible to know right from wrong, good from evil, and that acting on your basic animal impulses is good, right and proper and can’t be controlled in any case (unless we’re talking about obesity, and then you’re a disgusting slob for not controlling your gluttony).
If you admit that you are a sinner, then you are no hypocrite. I can’t agree more with you … when actually followed, Christianity is the most difficult faith out there, so we keep trying and trying and trying …
Absolutely right. G. K. Chesterton said it best: “Christianity has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and not tried.”
Sue D.,
Right! I think the greatest thing about God is His Loving willingness to help us be better people, if we ASK for His Help in prayer.
God KNOWS following Him is hard! We’re ALL sinners, each of us. But God has always Loved us–not because we sin, but because He CREATED us; and did so because He Loved us FIRST.
God created satan, but only to provide true Free Will; for He did not want to FORCE us to Love Him back. He lets us CHOOSE to Love Him or not. THAT’S the very definition of Love. I praise Him for that daily.
Would any deity who “loves us” in any meaningful manner deny us IN PERPETUITY the possibility of fulfilling his/her/its/their expectations of us?
“We are all sinners,” forever and ever, Amen…giving your sadistic conceptual “god” the ultimate excuse to be the ultimate bully: “You can never please me, you sniveling slime, no matter HOW hard you try, because I created you unperfectable ON PURPOSE! Neener-neener-neener, the joke’s on you!” How is this any different from you or I breeding kittens WITH THE EXPRESS PURPOSE of bashing them to death with rocks the minute they’re born?!
I’ll stick with compassionate atheism, thanks. WE care far more for each other than your imaginary celestial sadist has ever shown any inclination to.
Dunno about you, but I am NOT cosmic pond scum in the hands of an omnipotent sadist.
So, you’d rather believe that you’re perfect?
That’s what it means. No one is perfect; everyone makes mistakes, does things they shouldn’t – everyone sins. But God understands and foregives so long as you genuinely understand where you went wrong and feel repentant.
And so long as you can remain humble, admit your mistakes and seek to correct your errors, God does give you the ultimate reward in the end. But, it’s not easy because no one likes to admit that they’re not perfect.
So, you’d rather believe that you’re perfect?
Where did you pull that from? The notion that the malevolent prick god isn’t reality isn’t fungible with inflated self worth. Atheists (and science itself for that matter) reckon that morals and ethics and so on are emergent properties of sentience (or near enough) itself. The species doesn’t propagate much less dominate if/when there is no concept of morals. Anthropological studies show that marriage amongst siblings is largely taboo and has been for millenia not due to belief in the strictures of gods but because the affected species “know” that this isn’t sound for propagation. This taboo is also true in species other than humans. It’s the same type of thing where pregnant women desire and eat odd food combinations (pickles and ice cream) not due to conscious selection but because their body “tells” them it needs certain compounds. Pickles and ice cream isn’t supernatural, and nor is the notion that marrying your brother or sister isn’t a good idea. Humans “know” a lot of things that aren’t necessarily at a conscious level.
The idea that an outside agent (e.g. god) is required for moral behaviour is simply absurd, and this is the basis of your argument. We all agree that moral behaviour is required, and the perfection that you speak of is not considered as a relevant concept. The only way your argumnent holds water is if you stipulate that A) human evolution doesn’t create/induce moral behaviour, and B) the only possible source of same is supernatural. Thus removal of the supernatural (god) results in your argument folding up.
You appear to be arguing that atheist governments are more just and moral than Christian ones. Of course, if you’re atheist, there isn’t really any authority to point to, to define moral. Tradition? Tradition also is against homosexual behavior, but you’re decided that isn’t immoral. You get to pick and choose what’s moral? That makes you a god, and you really suck at it. we believe there is a Being infinitely more wise, infinitely more loving, infinitely more powerful than you are (you can’t even get a few Christian Republicans to vote your way-talk about impotent…)
BTW, somewhere above you implied that America is becoming less pro-life. Numbers actually give a different story; the younger people are, the more pro-life they are. (you might have cherry-picked data from a push poll that indicates most Americans don’t want all abortions to be banned nationwide, but that’s not what I’m referring to)
jeannette — You appear to be arguing that atheist governments are more just and moral than Christian ones.
The US government is deliberately secular by definition. It is not christian, never has been, and never will be. God as used in the founding documents refers to the god of nature. Ambiguous, and not christian.
Of course, if you’re atheist, there isn’t really any authority to point to, to define moral.
I really think you’re vapid enough to be serious here.
Tradition? Tradition also is against homosexual behavior, but you’re decided that isn’t immoral.
Science is on the cusp of showing definitively that homosexuality is almost certain to be a biochemical cause e.g. a virus. 2000 years of godly tradition that is completely and utterly misguided, but hey, it’s your tradition. You are completely in the wrong, but tradition says youhgave to continue being wrong. You’d think that the great and powerful christian god could figure this out. The only immoral behaviour on display here is your disapproval of homosexuals as if they chose to be such. You claim to know your god’s mind. Shame on you. You can’t even grasp simple things and you have the gall to think you can preach. In truth you’re the lowest of the low, the hellbound.
I’m not sure why you think your rant against Islam is pertinent (I’m sure you knew that’s what you just described and not Christianity, seeing as you’re effing brilliant and all that); do you have a point? Were you warning against Islam filling the spiritual void left by post-Christian America?
Many atheists recognize that even thought they personally don’t believe in the Judeo-Christian God, it makes society run better. Atheists rights to their property, life, pursuit of happiness (not to be confused with pleasure of course) are more secure when a society believes that everyone’s rights are endowed by a Creator, not stingily measured out by the state. Many atheists rightly fear the Left’s thuggishness and willingness to steal and kill those with less power. Is that what you’re getting at, that you’re one of those atheists?
Who said anything about perpetuity? In case you were unaware, Christians believe in the Resurrection of the Dead, at which time the faithful will live forever completely free from every snare of sin.
If the GOP wants to jettison we social conservatives, fine. I’ve never felt entirely comfortable in the party, anyway, and Republicans frequently make us look stupid. I’ve never really agreed with the GOP economic program, anyway, and saw them as simply a brake on the progressive tendency to control every last aspect of our lives, including what to think, what to eat and drink, and how to live.
I think the GOP needs to do some serious thinking, but so far they’re going down the road of, “We need to communicate better.” That’s what the Dems said in 2004. They didn’t communicate better in 2006 — events swung their way.
There may be fundamental issues with the GOP. For example, the predecessor party, the Whigs, were eventually shattered by the issue of slavery. That may be coming again. On the other hand, the GOP has lasted for decades as a minority party at the federal level.
Just like the Democrats for so long, I no longer know what the GOP stands for. I know what I want it to stand for, but that doesn’t matter very much. I know the GOP needs to articulate a positive vision that takes into account the very real economic suffering caused by globalization and the lack of accountability after the financial crisis. These were two big issues the Democrats handed the GOP on a silver platter, and the GOP ignored it.
I know the GOP needs to articulate a positive vision that takes into account the very real economic suffering caused by globalization and the lack of accountability after the financial crisis.
Are you sure about this? Globalisation is more about the result of marrying instant communications and efficient transport than a leftist plot. The march toward globalisation started after WWII and was partly about rebuilding the economies of japan and europe. By the beginning of the Reagan administration there were hardly any consumer electronics built in the US. The rust belt was the rust belt in the 1970′s. This is a long term trend. About the only effect the left has had is where it concerns corporate tax rates and bizarro environmental laws; the left tends to accelerate and/or exacerbate the offshoring trend. The left and policies espoused are not the proximate cause. What do you think the GOP should be offering here?
Global trade is one thing. I have no problem with the idea of global trade.
Global governance is quite another thing. I don’t say that based purely on my convictions of faith; indeed, faith tells me that global governance is inevitable and will be a sign of the greatest evil ever to befall mankind.
However, from a practical standpoint, large centralized government systems are so inherently inefficient and tone deaf to the true needs of the people of various regions under their governance that the very last thing I want to see is a move toward global governance. Just look at how the current administration’s ruling from the perspective of urbanites is tone deaf to the needs of rural citizens for one example or how the mandates in Obamacare are destructive to the budgets of states with small populations like Alaska.
Another concern is that the larger and more centralized your system of governance is, the less agile and able to respond to nreakdowns in the system is it. Look at how “well” NY and New Jersey were able to respond to hurricane Sandy. Imagine if that collapse had occurred on a large scale, say half or all of the Eastern Seabord. A lack of localization would ensure that needed supplies and goods would not be available to meet the needs of the populace who were cut off. Again, we saw that with Sandy on the small scale. Now, imagine those breakdowns on a global scale.
Survival experts agree that localization is the key to survival in those situations and centralization is the kiss of death.
Whaddaya think: join an existing party, or start a new one?
Check out the Constitution Party.
AMEN, EscapeVelocity!
Everyone here should read the Constitution Party’s Platform: http://www.constitutionparty.net/party_platform.php
See if you agree with it, and if so, then JOIN! It’s time We The People chose to stand up for what we believe in. As the saying goes, “Put your money where your mouth is!”
Im joining. And am telling all Christians to at least consider joining.
Give you financial and volunteer support to The Constitution Party. Stand for principles and values, not to mention self interest.
Start a new one! At least you will find out if the majority of americans are your ally. Should be an interesting party given that few Christians agree on much of anything among themselves thus, all the different and conflicting churches and church doctrines. Why I’m betting your new party can even stop and reverse your 3,000 + years of social and religious evolution, eh?
Let me know when your new party starts to develop a name. I have a few good suggestions. lol
Contrary to what Hawkins states, the morals of our country have not deteriorated. The simple fact is that most sensible people, which totally excludes social conservatives, do not consider morality solely or even primarily in the context of sexual behavior and especially the sexual behavior of strangers. Moreover the US even tho Hawkins and other prudes can’t stand it has gone thru a sexual revolution (thankfully) and whether he or the rest of the social conservative fascists (yes, fascists!) like it or not, we’re not going back. Every year a greater sector of the populace rejects the social fascism of people like Hawkins. He and the rest of you who are like him are the losing side of history-the recent election just shows the newest evidence of that. Since I personally am very very far removed from being a wimpy ACLU type, I have no hesitation in saying I do not favor the defeat of social conservatives, I favor their total extermination. And yes, by extermination I mean just what that word is defined us. To me, the only good social conservative is a dead one..starting with the likes of Rick Santorum, Jim DeMint, Todd Akin, Richard Mourdock, Tony Perkins, James Dobson, Tim and Donald Wildmon, ad nauseum. This is of course not a threat of any sort-just my constitutionally-protected expression of opinion as to what normatively should happen in America. I have no interest in tolerance for fascists or communists.
You just embraced the Marxist assault on bourgeois social norms. The term that the Communists came up for your type is “useful idiot.”
You call for the extermination of social con Christians without a hint of irony as you blast Fascists and Communists.
Hedonism hasnt worked anywhere, anytime, but you are determined just like the Communists, that it’s going to work this time, it just hasnt been done right! We are the ones we’ve been waiting for!
It would be hilarious, if it werent so sad.
Seig heil Jackie, have a nice day molesting children or whatever you do.
“I favor their total extermination. And yes, by extermination I mean just what that word is defined us. To me, the only good social conservative is a dead one.”
We love you too man.
“He and the rest of you who are like him are the losing side of history-the recent election just shows the newest evidence of that.”
Not really. Social issues have always enjoyed more success on the state level than federal. Important to note is that even in states where Obama won both times social conservatives got elected into various positions.
“I have no interest in tolerance for fascists or communists.”
But you sure love their final solutions to the problems, nes pa.
You become what you hate the most jackie.
“Since I personally am very very far removed from being a wimpy ACLU type, I have no hesitation in saying I do not favor the defeat of social conservatives, I favor their total extermination. And yes, by extermination I mean just what that word is defined us.”
This is interesting, because in fact the one thing all America agrees on is that there are just too damn many liberals. Conservatives would much rather liberals change their minds, but liberals insist on killing themselves off. Contraceptives of all kinds in order to limit the number that actually come into being in the first place, ESCR aka embryonic vivisection, euthanasia/IPAB, abortion on demand, gay marriage and of course the only thing better than a liberal baby that never happened in the first place, is one with scissors jammed in the back of her head so her brains can be sucked out. Jack, you can protest all you want, but if Dick Cheney, Sarah Palin, George Bush, Karl Rove, Richard Mellon Scaife and the Koch Brothers all got together at the Eeeeevil Rethuglican Hotel for a conference on “How to Exterminate Liberals”, they couldn’t improve on the Democratic Party platform.
You have no tolerance for fascists? But then, why are you going to be there helping line us up to march us off to the showers, man?
I sense some confusion here…
> And yes, by extermination I mean just what that word is defined us. To me, the only good social conservative is a dead one..starting with the likes of Rick Santorum, Jim DeMint, Todd Akin, Richard Mourdock, Tony Perkins, James Dobson, Tim and Donald Wildmon, ad nauseum.
Let me summarize: it is your moral belief that it is wrong for people like Santorum, et. al. to impose their moral beliefs on others. And you would show your aversion to forcing moral beliefs on others by killing them, thereby forcing your moral belief on them — and any living ones who happen to be watching and taking the lesson in, not wanting to be exterminated themselves.
Either you’re confused or I am. If it is wrong to someone to force one’s moral beliefs onto others, why is it right for you?
Are some moral beliefs are more equal than others?
Bingo. I think that’s the point Santorum et. al. are trying to make. Glad to see you’re on the same page metaphysically, except that they may not feel as zealous as you do. That is, I’ve never actually heard them say they wanted people like you exterminated.
Working to protect freedom of religion? Yeah. That’s a good thing.
Using government to turn your religious morality, doctrines and teachings into the law of the land? Naw. That’s a bad thing. Plus, if you can do it, so can Muslims, Orthodox Jews, Mormons, Greek Orthodox, Catholics, Pentacostals, among many others.
There is no “pro-choice” argument that does not equally allow for infanticide.
There is no argument for tolerating homosexuality that does not equally allow for incest.
And I am not a Christian.
I don’t think very many people here actually think that live, eligible voters turned out in sufficient numbers to elect Barack Obama. And I don’t think the situation is going to be much different in 2016. During the next administration, it would probably be best to focus on our families and friends, preparing ourselves for when TSHTF. Raise your kids to be the way you want them, as much as possible, and go ahead and join or begin that new political party. It will be a little while before things change; we’ll likely either become Greece, or Russia, or Nigeria (Islamist takeover) but sooner or later, they”ll run out of other people’s money. And then Our Lady’s Immaculate Heart will triumph, as she promised 95 years ago.
Bingo, Jeanette.
Im encouraging Christians to join the Constitution Party, and we can help bring that party to national prominence.
I’m a social conservative because I’m a liberal, in the traditional sense of the term. As a Jew, my self-interest would indicate that I should be for abortion-on-demand (the original term). After all, Jews have the fewest abortions (Catholics the most) and when and why abortion is prohibited in Jewish law is not at all clear. And we do have a strong interest in keeping abortion legal when the mother’s life is in danger, broadly defined.
But I think – would I be for abortion-on-demand in Israel? No, I would not. So how can I support it in the US? Don’t my fellow Americans deserve the right to live? So I am 100% pro-life (where the mother’s life is not endangered).
P.S. Unfortunately, here in Israel, not only is abortion-on-demand legal, but the issue isn’t even on the table.
Social Conservatism! As the term continues to play out and define itself in the circles of some political activists and in the halls of the federal government, one thing become quite evident. Social conservatism is an arrogant display of anti Declaration of Independence and anti U.S. Constitution.
Why do I make such a declaration? Social conservatism is a religious, mostly Evangelical Christian activist movement. It is a movement that in large part strives to achieve and exert their religious values on society as a whole by government legislations. That kind of religious arrogance is contrary to both the founding of the Republic and the U.S. Constitution.
Perceived religious morals issues in America are matters left to the churches of the people and to the individuals themselves according to the U.S. Constitution. Our nation’s government(s) is to be directed and controlled by the most basic common laws of society giving to the people constitutionally protected freedoms in all other areas of life. The constitution and government grants Individual freedom to participate and believe in any religion or no religion, as they may see fit – probably the single most important aspect of American uniqueness. Our American uniqueness, like it or not, is founded within the thin line separating anarchy and theocracy. What could be more in line with the word of God whom most believe gave to each of us, the gift of free choice or as some refer to, free agency?
Got a problem with social morality, take it up with your churches – not the federal government.
What are you talking about? Our founders had no problem with all sorts of restrictive laws, obscenity, sexual rules, etc., way beyond anything today. They would all think you nuts.
I respectfully suggest you are confussed. The federal government has never had any such laws. Is it possible that you may be referring to some state laws and municipal codes of the past?
Yes, and the COTUS gave them every right to have those laws. See the 9th and 10th Amendments as written by the Founders. Ergo, the Founders had no issue with the concept of those kinds of laws and likely expected them in many places.
See! There you people go again! It is YOU who have enshrined deviancy into our laws – it is not us who have shoved our values down your throat. It you! It’s always you and then you project back onto us your own collusion to further drag society down into the depths of depravity!
You people are sick and you want a sick perverted society. You want everybody to be degenerates. It’s disgusting what I’ve seen you people do in my lifetime.
There are theocracies around the world you can move to. Oh, I forgot they don’t enforce upon all citizens, your particular brand of religion. Heres a fact for you to digest. At no time in recorded history has anything created more wars, killing and maiming more people than has religious philosophies — The Muslim conquests, the Crusades, the Reconquista, and the French Wars of Religion, on down the line to all the world conflicts of more recent times and today over internal religious differences.
Then let me point out another fact for you. The democrat party is home to slightly more than 50% of the citizens including legal aliens and illegal alliens. Those people claim the same proportional percentages of religious beliefs, primarily Christian, as does those of the GOP — yet you profess them to be the enemy. The enemy of whom? You or God?
Furthermore, it is the churches of religion, primarily protestant Christian churches who have, aside from abortion and contraceptive issues, supported the government sponsored socialism advances in America of more recent decades that has now come home to roost, bankrupting our government. What say you to that fact?
In all your hypocrisy you judge others shortcomings as being greater than your own — if you even recognize yourself as being inperfect. I think God has reserved for himself the final judgement of all — including you!
You’re full of crap regarding all the religious wars Why don’t you try Marxism and National Socialism and all the other Godless atheistic totalitarians (which incidentally includes political Islam) if your looking for the chief blood letters in history.
“You’re full of crap regarding all the religious wars.”
I’m certainly willing to entertain any of your legitimate evidence to the contrary. On the other hand, I can provide support for a conservative estimate just short of 1B deaths in religious conflict and war while at the same time yeilding to many, many subjective variables.
@Zeke
“I can provide support for a conservative estimate just short of 1B deaths in religious conflict and war while at the same time yeilding to many, many subjective variables.”
So provide your evidence Zeke along with sources.
Unfortunately, part of what you say is true; in the 1930s and 1940s, Communists began to recruit men to infiltrate Christian churches around the world. The intent was to destroy churches from within, by gaining positions of power and pushing for the weakening of moral codes. It was called “Operation Outstretched Hand”; one American, Bella Dodd, later claimed that she alone had recruited 1100 men into the Catholic priesthood. (and stated in a speech after her reconversion to Catholicism that most of them were homosexual since straight men didn’t want to be Catholic priests for obvious reasons btw, which explains a bit about the huge problems the Catholic Church had starting in the 1950s)
Look at what happened to many Christian denominations since the 1950s (when the recruited men would have begun reaching positions of power), and you see support for these reports. Starting with Lambeth, continuing through today, western Christian churches have lost their way. The Vatican has finally begun to rid itself of the men misformed by the Communists and their friends, but many “Christians” don’t look anything like Christians (See “Church, Episcopalian” for one example)
Now I enjoyed reading this response!
I was born nearly in the center of the U.S. in ’34 of Native American and Eueropean heritage. One of many demoninational religions was the centerpiece to everyones and every rural communities family life. I still maintain a lifelong involvment in the church of my choice today. That said however, I long ago discoved something that hasn’t changed even in todays times. Churches have forever, had great internal conflict over translation, definition and their ‘own churches’ doctrines. No churches throughout time have escaped these conflicts. Christianity itself evolved through conflict with redemption as its doctrinal centerpiece.
Since nearly the beginnings of ‘real’ recorded history, churches have struggled among themselves and within, even gone to war attempting to have their brand of religious doctrine deemed the only right and dominate religion. Governments have even proclaimed one religious doctrine over all others. Thus, the world still struggles today over which religious doctrines should be proclaimed dominate. So which churches religious doctrine is the only right one according to God?
For some its professed as an easy decision gained through prayer and signs. But then isn’t that true for all brands of religious doctrines?
As for me I made a ‘personal’ contract to follow the ‘wisdom’ of the Word of God and let everybody else follow according to their own dictates — without any judgements from me. My shortcomings are between me and God; not my wife, my children or anybody else.
In the meantime, religion and all its infinite number of churches and doctrines will continue to evolve through internal and external conflicts.
Nice article, Mr. Hawkins,
But…(Oh, come on, you knew this was coming, didn’t you?) I think you missed the point a bit. See, I am a Social Conservative because I am a Christian and GOD CHANGED ME into one!
Throughout your article, you say things that seem to put too much clout in the Media’s interpretation of the term “Social Conservative.” Things like “…so if need be, I can be as vicious as just about anyone you’ll run across on the Right.” The far-left Media lives in ‘Upside Down World,’ and tells everyone that Christians are evil and ‘moral relativism’ is good. You’re playing right into their hands!
And, even though you claim to be “Christian,” you don’t list the Bible as a book you like to read (Maybe your religion doesn’t promote reading His Word or establishing a close, personal relationship with God).
But, if you read the Bible, you’d find out that God wants a close personal relationship with each of us–because He Loves all of us. The Bible is ALL about Love. God tells us to ‘Love Him above all,’ and to ‘Love others as we do ourselves,’ because it’s NOT the SINNER God hates, it’s the SIN (behavior). This is the true basis for why we must love everyone, even when they don’t believe as we do and don’t behave in ways we would support.
When I stand up for Conservatism, I am standing up for God’s Will for my life and for a world full of His children, whom He Loves. I am promoting a positive way to live; a way that pleases God and harms no one.
The real problem with this nation–and the world at large–is that people have been led away from God by religions that do not promote Him and by cultures and entertainment industries that distract people from His Purpose for their lives.
But, God says, in 2 Chronicles 7:14, “…if My people, who are called by My Name, will humble themselves and pray and seek My Face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from Heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land.”
To accomplish this, all each of us must choose to do is follow what Jesus said in Matthew 22:37-40: “Jesus replied, ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest Commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and Prophets hang on these two Commandments.”
See, Romans 13:10 says, “Love does not harm its neighbor. Therefore, Love is the fulfillment of the Law (Commandments).”
Dear Mr. Hawkins,
I am not a social conservative, but I know the troubles you must be going through.
I consider myself a fiscal conservative, but I might be the only one left. I favor balancing the budget and paying off the national debt. Our brilliant political representatives don’t care about balancing the budget. Whenever they talk about it they just use it as a smokescreen to eliminate things they don’t like (the left wants to balance the books by eliminating the military while the right wants to eliminate Social Security and Medicare).
But among my fellow fiscal conservatives I am considered a RINO because I would rather balance the budget than cut taxes. I don’t believe that cutting taxes will balance the budget because it’s never worked before. I would favor tax hikes except for the fact that whenever taxes are raised to balance the budget it doesn’t work either.
So stick to your guns socon. Don’t let people declare that you aren’t conservative enough. This is not China and we are not going through the Cultural Revolution. In America you are free to hold a position without having to fall in line with party orthodoxy.
But you might rethink some things. I accept that you are a social conservative and can still compile a list of the 20 hottest conservative women in the new media. Other socons though might object because #11 on your list is a transgendered male.
I certainly respect your view on taxes and no way would I seek to drive you out of any clubs but the argument about cutting or not cutting the tax rate is one made with the goal of increasing revenue. We agree that more revenue would be desirable in balancing the budget. Revenue increased when Reagan and Kennedy cut the tax rate. The Laffer Curve is pretty hard to dispute. One can argue about what slope we happen to be on, of course, though. I happen to think the rate remains on the east one so I support cutting it.
> I consider myself a fiscal conservative, but I might be the only one left.
I am a fiscal conservative too. Debt is going to destroy our country.
But I am first and foremost a social conservative, for so long as abortion is legal. It’s not a question of not caring about fiscal sanity. I do. I do very much. But we have to stop killing unborn children. Even gay marriage pales in importance. As I’ve stated on another thread, I’m dead set against gay marriage, but I’d rather throw flower petals at a thousand gay weddings than see one aborted child thrown into the sink.
I’m supposed to care about balancing the books, but not about innocent human life?
Sorry.
Not that Republicans care about fiscal responsibility. They could make it a hard choice for me. But they’re not even bothering. They shove their noses in the trough pretty much the same way Democrats do.
But among my fellow fiscal conservatives I am considered a RINO because I would rather balance the budget than cut taxes.
Budget balancing is overrated. The tea party influenced thinking is backwards thinking. If I were in charge I’d mandate now that the US government invest a couple of trillion $ building 5 new 2GW nuclear energy plants per state, and do so immediately (or yesterday.) I’d also mandate that the electrical grid system be modified accordingly. Transmission losses are up to 40% with the present infrastructure. This $3T investment would pay off. Energy is wealth. An additional half terawatt of reliable continuous 24/7/365 electrical power allows for the creation of hydrogen drive cars, electrical cars, promotes the use of cheap electrical for house heating, etc. Cheap electricity means that rail gun style launch of hardware that can withstand 10g acceleration to space is feasible. Space access is now cheap. And if space access is cheap, solar satellites are cheap (more power.) So is shipping (shoot product containers into suborbital trajectories and your package arrives from Tokyo in 1 hour.)
The investment of $3T would result in a payback of 3xN within 10 years. Think of the jobs that could be created, the frontiers expanded.
The GOP used to be known as the party of fiscal sanity. Reagan’s investment in the military paid pack N-fold times with commercial enterprise undreamed of in the 1970′s (e.g. GPS.) Eisenhower’s investment into the interstates was even more powerful. Historically speakinbg it was the republicans who invested into America (e.g. it wasn’t the democrats who invested government cash in early plane development for the US mail service that resulted in widespread passenger travel; it wasn’t democrats who invested government money into usable roads at the advent of the passenger car era.) I submit that it is the DEMOCRATS who are the luddites who speak in terms of budget balancing and lack the courage and the vision to invest in the future of America itself. The tea party influence is backwards. Fiscal sanity isn’t mere accounting work, but bold investment into America and Americans.
How about this? Instead of making the government do it and pay for the brunt of it. Incentivize power companies to do it; after all, private utilities built the original systems. If they did it once, they can do it again so long as you offer them the right carrots, and private jobs are still jobs. Streamline the regulatory process that blocks red tape and go to the mat with the greens who block any new power plants.
How about this? Instead of making the government do it and pay for the brunt of it. Incentivize power companies to do it; after all, private utilities built the original systems.
Not fast enough to get 5 plants per state done in a short time. Investment of public money for the public good is what republicans have ALWAYS done. It always comes back via increased tax revenue. The tea party’s contentions are incorrect enough to qualify as insane. There has never been “smaller government” in the lifetime of anyone living.
That’s a lot of “mandates”. I think you’ve effectively outed yourself as a Democrat troll since you are neither for small government nor Christian-like government.
Jeannette is right, randomengineer, you’re definitely no conservative of any stripe.
Government spending is not investment. Or rather, if it is, then it’s very poor investment. Let’s not forget the role the government played in the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac debacle. Let’s also not forget to add up the billions in boondoggles on ventures such as Solyndra. And don’t forget the billions “invested” in GM that are turning into millions before our eyes.
It always surprises liberals when government spending doesn’t create a good economy. It never occurs to them that when the economy is run by politicians, decisions get made for political reasons, not economic ones.
I wouldn’t hold up the Republican Party as a model of fiscal sanity. There’s no doubt they are happy to squander billions of dollars. But in the insane asylum that is government, Republicans seem pretty sedate next to the Democrats, who squander trillions as they drool onto their strait jackets.
I think you have to go back further than Reagan to conservative Democrats like Harry F. Byrd to find anyone in either party really concerned about our fiscal situation.
But at least Reagan knew what he was buying with his deficits: a world free of the Soviet Union.
The problem with government “investment” is the problem of risking other people’s money: the decision-makers make out no matter what. Why, no risk is too great for me to make with *your* money. But funny how, when government-subsidized companies make money, nobody sends me a dividend check, but when they lose money, they send me the bill.
Jeannette is right, randomengineer, you’re definitely no conservative of any stripe.
I’m a republican. I used to self-ID as a fiscal conservative but the meaning has been so distorted by the far right (e.g. this place) in recent years as to be non-descriptive. Fiscal conservatism used to mean that you spent money, it wasn’t a risk, and it paid pack. What part of “this is how it’s been done since before you were born” confuses you? The government has backed winners and losers since before you were alive.
I didn’t say you weren’t a Republican; I said you weren’t a conservative. There have been liberal Republicans since, well, forever. Charles Matthias. Nelson Rockefeller. George Romney. Heck, Mitt Romney for that matter. John Anderson. Kay Hutchinson. Margaret Chase Smith. Henry Cabot Lodge. Richard Nixon (he didn’t run as one; he just governed as one). The party darn near split in two over the Reagan/Ford contest in ’76.
> What part of “this is how it’s been done since before you were born” confuses you?
I’m not confused at all. What part of, if we don’t quit adding to our debt it will ruin us, confuses you?
I’m not confused at all. What part of, if we don’t quit adding to our debt it will ruin us, confuses you?
One of us is very confused indeed. I do not support bank bailouts and the GM bailout and otherwise tossing trillions into the drink. Adding to the debt in THIS manner begs for failure. However, my original point was that debt in and of itself is no big deal *if* the republicans are doing it and investing into America (hence my bit about nuclear power.) If adding to the debt short term adds long term jobs and infrastructure, the money was used wisely. You can I do this in everyday life; we sometimes take on debt so that we can use a new technology or a bigger work truck or something else that isn’t actually risky whatsoever. Debt and managed risk. The building of the interstate system resulted in business opportunity beyond calculation and brought wealth and modernity. Lives were saved; lives were improved in ways that weren’t otherwise possible. It was also a lot of debt, but debt that was repaid many times over the years.
Fiscal conservatism is more than balancing books (accounting work); it’s more about managing risk to build America. The knee jerk tea party bumper sticker level idea of fiscal “conservatism” is neither. Not all debt is bad. Debt however in the hands of the liberals? Disaster.
Are you sure we’re disagreeing?
Sorry, engineer, but the debt is too a big deal. At present writing, it is greater than about 25% of our national net worth — every parcel of land, every house, every factory, every office building, every highway, every national park.
Immediately after World War II, the national debt reached similar levels, but what was missing then were the enormous unfunded entitlement programs, not to mention the demographics where many old people have to be supported by relatively few youngsters who, by the way, are having trouble finding work.
I agree that debt itself is not a problem per se. You have to consider what you’re buying with it, and you have to consider it relative to net worth and also to the economy. Bush’s $500 billion deficits were less important when the entire national debt was below $10 trillion, the national net worth was over $60 trillion, and the economy was holding its own. But now, the national net worth is about $10 trillion less, the national debt is about $8 trillion more, the economy stinks, and all the ratios have changed for the worse.
The national debt is an existential threat. Anything short of acknowledgding that is pure denial.
> Are you sure we’re disagreeing?
You tell me. You started this.
No, you aren’t alone. I don’t think that cutting taxes is the way to go, but I do think overall tax reform needs to be done. We need to change the system. There is no way that corporations like GE should be able to weasel out of paying any domestic income tax with a 35% corporate rate, and yet, a 35% corporate rate is uncompetitive with the rest of the world. I think simplifying (no more deductions and loopholes for any corporation) with balancing the overall rate would be the best approach. We should do this across the board – a Flat Tax rate for everyone, top to bottom. That looks to a lot like cutting taxes, but it really isn’t.
I also think the Feds take in quite enough money to be getting on with. I think we should institute a policy of cutting 3 to 5% off of every agency and every dept. off the top, annually, until we are balancing our budget. Leave it up to dept. heads HOW they find a way to make the cuts, but make it clear they will cut. Suggest heavily that perhaps they should make changes in manpower and perks before they cut services.
Streamline the bureaucracy. We have too many agencies with too much overlap, especially in regulatory. We could probably close out entire alphabets by consolidating them with other depts. Work on that while we start cutting dept. budgets. Wherever possible, return maximum control to the states.
Great article, John.
On the other hand, I didn’t support gays in the military, I think the Boy Scouts are making the right call about gay members and Scoutmasters, I was one of the millions of people who participated in Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day, and I couldn’t more adamantly oppose gay marriage.
Those are all policy issues I also hold and all of them involve behavior, and generally in your fact behavior at that. I don’t hate gays.
The vast majority of Christians dont hate people that participate in homosexual behavior.
But that wont stop the Leftist, Mainstream Media, and Hedonist libertarians and RINOs from holding up that strawman in order to marginalize Christians.
“I don’t hate gays.
Prove it.
Hey Buckwheat he doesn’t have to prove anything, but if he did how would he prove he doesn’t hate gays?
Hey gangbang,
Placing the burden proof on him to prove a negative isn’t possible. It’s also dishonest on my behalf as was my point.
“I don’t hate gays.
Prove it.
“I don’t hate gays.
Prove it.
Christianity means something; it means that John is called to love his neighbor, love his enemy. When he does not, he is called to repent because God loves him infinitely more than we can imagine, and wants him to spend Eternity in Heaven with Him. It takes humility to accept that we are not God, which is why the anti-Christians here don’t get it. There is a God, and He is not John, He is not Zeke, He is not me, and He sure as heck isn’t random engineer lol. He is perfect and we are not, but we try to imitate Him like a child imitates His earthly father. We acknowledge when we fail, and then get up again.
So when John says he is a Christian, he means that he tries to love his neighbors, even those who disagree with him about the nature of Christianity, or even disagree with him about Christianity itself. So the “proof” is a basic mathematical “if-then” statement.
“He is perfect and we are not, but we try to imitate Him like a child imitates His earthly father. We acknowledge when we fail, and then get up again.”
Therein lies the problem with all to many self professed Christians of today. Paralleling the family problem we see today; children have become the parents and parents have become the children. My Bible tells me we are the eternal “children” of God, admonished to follow His word — not assume and exercise His ‘personally reserved’ parental authority!
Your individual charge is to learn, accept, share His word and challenge yourself to living as much as possible as an example of His word — not judging nor condemning your brothers and sisters shortcomings which are in reality no different than your own in the eyes of God. God doesn’t see you any differently as a republican than he does your brothers and sisters within the democrat party. All will be judged by God on their individual merits because He granted to each of us the gift of free agency. Sadly, hypocrisy and trying to assume the reserved authority of God is the centerpiece of all to many professed Christians.
The great historian Tacitus thought Jews were weird”because they consider it a crime to kill a child”. Morality is not scientific, and neither is the definition of life. These things can only come from religion.
However, if you are an atheist, then should you not err on the side of caution and oppose abortion?
Randomengineer,
If you were to remove the rug of ignorance from your eyes, you’d be able to see the Truth. Then you would know–as I do–that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, Himself (the Creator and the One whom all Christians worship and follow–and who is also calld “Christ” because He made Himself a humble human in the person of Jesus; whom is also called “Immanuel,” which means “God with us.” This is all IN the Bible, if you chose to READ it.).
And, as a Christian, I am merely promoting what God, Himself, says in His Word (the Bible).
There is no point in trying to split hairs in your effort to discredit God; for you will answer to Him for your lack of faith, not me. May I suggest you search your soul and call on God (Jesus), asking Him to help you see His Truth?
To do my part, I will pray for you.
“I can be as vicious as just about anyone you’ll run across on the Right.”
I pretty much stopped reading right here. I’d like an example of vicious right-wingers. Pretty much all the nasties are on the left.
If life begins at conception, you anti-abortion folks have some very unpopular positions to sell. If you had your way, the IUD would be banned as it scrapes a “baby” from the uterine wall. And isn’t the pill an abortifacient sometimes?
If you’re going to be consistent, you must oppose ALL abortion, even in cases of rape and incest. Hey, if it’s a baby, it’s a baby, right?
Good luck with your sales pitch. I predict another loss in the mid-terms until you join the 21st century.
Yes, indeed we must, and I know not what course others may take, but as for me, I oppose abortion in every case, without exception. I also oppose contraception in every case, but concerning criminal law, I find it sufficient to ban those contraceptives that can act as abortifacients.
If abortion is banned it must all be banned because otherwise a woman would have to PROVE that rape or incest lead to the pregnancy. Or alternatively they would just have to claim it was and lie. That’s not extreme, it’s just logical. The challenge is Liberals can’t think logically so you are correct.
And the problems with false rape claims are what Todd Akin tried to discuss (albeit poorly).
> @randomengineer: “What you are offering to this conversation is naught BUT name calling…”
“Name calling”? Mois? What names have I called? Where? When?
You, on the other hand, keep calling me a “statist”.
I think the psychologists call this phenomenon “projection”.
You don’t need to be religious to realize that abortion is wrong and homosexual marriage doesn’t exist. I’m an atheist social conservative myself. In fact I think what social conservatives should do is drop the religious portion of their campaigning. I think you could reach more people by approaching these issues as moral issues in a non-religious way. People deep down understand that murdering unborn children is wrong. Even people who claim they are “pro-choice” know this since they can’t bear to say they are pro-abortion.
Non-religious arguments are made all the time, in defense of socially conservative policy prescriptions and positions.
Here’s the thing – You can easily make a non-religious case supporting both anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage. But, for most liberals/statist, it doesn’t matter. Even if you are very careful to keep any hint of religion out of your argument and stay solely logical, even scientific, they will still brand you either a religious nut or an idiot or a hater, depending on how much they paid attention to what you wrote beyond realizing your are anti-abortion or anti-gay marriage.
Here’s the thing – You can easily make a non-religious case supporting both anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage.
No, you can’t. The only arguments against gay marriage are psuedoscientific drivel that run counter to established understandings.
“You don’t need to be religious to realize that abortion is wrong and homosexual marriage doesn’t exist. I’m an atheist social conservative myself. In fact I think what social conservatives should do is drop the religious portion of their campaigning.” I do this (I’m a nobody so of course I’m not expecting that you’ve seen it), but there are a few “problems”. First, many atheists completely dismiss anything a Christian source has to say, but quite a few of the heavy thinkers are Christian. The other is that Christians have a pretty consistent notion of right vs wrong, based on Scripture, whereas atheists have only consensus. Also, an adult Christian faith comes to realizing that all those rules God came up with, aren’t just arbitrary whims, that there’s certain kinds of fun that God just decided He wouldn’t let people have; God’s laws are an Owners’ manual written by a Being that loves us beyond our capacity to understand. He made us, loves us, and told us how to live for maximum happiness (not the same as pleasure). So when you hear a Christian say “because God says so” or something similar, it usually means “God knows what He’s talking about, and He’s infinitely Wiser than I am, so even if I don’t understand exactly why this is a good idea, I’ve seen His wisdom in so many other ways that I trust His judgement.
For gay “marriage”, there is of course first of all that the primary biological mandate (what’s the word supposed to be?) for every species is to reproduce, so homosexual behavior in any species is just plain not Plan A. It’s an evolutionary cul-de-sac. Also, if God/Nature had been hunky-dory with gay sex, it would not cause serious damage to anuses when a man expresses his affection for another man. Isn’t that a pretty strong hint that “this part shouldn’t be used for that”? Studies show that the most successful family unit for raising children (future taxpayers) is a one-man, one-woman marriage. All the others have much higher rates of all the different negative outcomes (incarceration, drug abuse, teen parenthood, high school dropouts). This is the part where non-mathematicians often provide me with anecdotes, but of course, the plural of anecdote is not data. (Yes, you can have have a fourfold “negative outcome” rate in nontraditional households but still have a majority of children avoid that outcome. And some parents perform heroically in difficult circumstances.) The statistic I was thought was interesting was that two gay men tended to produce much better outcomes for their children than two lesbian households but that probably has to do with the hoops men have to jump through in order to get a child, where women just need some sperm, to be blunt. This is pretty much all the government need concern itself with, since you want children to turn into successful taxpayers, not takers. One might also look at places where gay marriage has been tried for a while. in the Netherlands, results are not good.
I can’t think of any more, off the top of my head, but I hope I’ve gotten you started.
The article fits me very well. The author is not alone.
The Leftward drift of the Zeitgeist….which now has Radical Leftwingers from the 60s as the Center Left and Classically Liberal Christians as the Extremist Far Right.