Jump To » Mobile / Confirm Them / Right Shelf / Sports / State Blogs / About / Contact / Help / Posting Rules / Conservative Book Club / Human Events
They were all social conservatives
By gamecock Posted in Archived — Comments (177) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
[I plan on voting for John McCain for President despite his intention to address and legitimize the hate group, La Raza]
Cross-posted at The HinzSight Report
I was inspired to write this blog by Doc Holliday's comment in EPU's excellent What Fredheads want - offering the Olive Branch (I would say that one olive I wish were on the branch were the olive of McCain not pandering to Latino hate groups, but I digress), where Doc says:
I do not think conservatism at its nature starts with "social conservatism", I think it starts with economic conservatism. If you boiled this group down to the one issue they can all agree on, it is "get the gov out of economics".
I agree that the kind of conservatism most conservatives mean when they refer to same is a variation of this basic concept, also frequently reduced to small government guaranteeing private property rights.
But in pondering Doc's comment and E Pluibus Unum's more extensive definitions incorporating the three-legged stool that William F. Buckley and Ronald Reagan made famous, I conclude that one must begin any talk of economic conservatism with an environment in which it can function and flourish.
The many became one as social conservatives!
That environment would be what we call civilization itself.
I realize now since I came to Redstate over three years ago, when pressed to self identify most strongly with either the fiscal-cons, security-cons or social-cons, I always land with the social-cons.
Before I go further, let me stress that I have always been a war hawk. I was a Democrat from birth to 2000, and I was a JFK democrat. I loathed the limp-wristed weakness the new castrati democrats exuded and still exude to our enemies abroad. But I was a social liberal for most of those years for the same reason everyone is, but won't admit: I wanted to eat my cake and yet, still get to keep it, i.e. responsibility free, consequenceless sex.
I lived through the late 70's failed liberal policies as a teen, majored in economics in college, and saw Reagan's Milton Friedman-Arthur Laffer conservative economic policies work in spades. We are still in the Reagan recovery.
But I think the reason, when forced, despite my strong war hawkishness and economic background, that I self identify as a social conservative is that without it, none of the others are possible for very long.
I am happy to see that John McCain understands this better than many of his apologists here at Redstate that think the answer to GOP woes is to reach out to moderates.
A moderate has one basic meaning: social liberalism, i.e. pro choice on abortion, pro-special rights based on one's declared preferred sexual activities and banning any meaningful mention of God from the public square, especially including from the public schools, unless it is a secular, supposed values-free God that teaches of Susie having two mommies.
The GOP doesn't win trying to be Democrats.
And America loses.
Can we name a civilization that thrives and prospers by killing off its young or reducing marriage to sex instead of the basic unit that makes civilization of the young possible? No.
Civilization appeared precisely when one woman seduced one man to be hers exclusively.
The capitols of abortion in Russia and China face dire straits, as do the mini-capitols in Western Europe. Yes, even China. China has a great shortage of females due to selective abortion of females. Throughout history, nations with such shortages turned to war. If they turn to war with us, we will destroy them. But more acutely, China is about to face a grave obstacle to continued economic growth. They have an aging population, especially in the educated, inductrial areas.
And Europe and Russia? They are dying off.
The United States still produces enough babies to replace itself, but barely.
Let's get back to Doc's economic argument. Freedom is the secret to our success. The founders defined freedom as keeping the fruits of one's labor, i.e. private property.
But they also saw that our freedom would only work for a moral and religious people, i.e. this people and their reverence for judeo-christian values as seen by the Frenchman Alexis de Toucheville.
Benjamin Franklin and many of the Founders loved to quote William Penn: "[men] must be governed by God, or they will be ruled by tyrants."
Appeals to moderates are appeals to future rule by tyrants. The process has begun of course (see Big Government).
Yet, the dominant voice here at Redstate, despite McCain's appeal on the most basic of areas to social conservatives, i.e. originalist judges that would restore the free religious speech rights and local self government that caused social conservatives to get into politics on defense to begin with, seems to be that the GOP can only win by appealing to moderates.
Let's look back and see what we find among prior Presidents as the United States became the most powerful and blessed nation on earth.
Among them we find differing views on economics, oddly enough, but who among George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, William McKinley, Theodore Roosevelt, Calvin Coolidge, FDR, HST, Ike, or JFK were social liberals?
None. They were all social conservatives.
We lost our way in the 60's and 70's and who was it that led the comeback of America and the GOP?
Social conservatives named Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrich.
Civilization itself begins and ends with moral values. Only via the self restraint of same can freedom produce the bounty that defines America. A bounty that makes us rich enough to be stronger than those that would take what we have.
John McCain is appealing to social conservatives, not moderates. Good.
Now, will Redstate's powers that be join him, or will they work at cross-purposes with watered down moderate appeals, which reminds me of my God, who said in Revelation 3:16
So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.
I will not be spued out of God's mouth.
[I plan on voting for John McCain for President despite his intention to address and legitimize the hate group, La Raza. Have not determined if this action by McCain is hot or cold or if it is bound to be spued as lukewarm, so I am keeping a safe distance.]
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
The HinzSight Report
The Minority Report
Race 4 2008
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
Excellent blog highly RECOMMEND
by pilgrim
The part I especially like is that you remind us how social conservatives got into National Politics because activist Federal judges legislated law from the bench that impacted their lives. The social conservatives that I am acquainted with are much more interested in their family and church than they are in what CongressCritters™ are doing in Washington, DC. These folks do not wait for leadership in the nation's Capitol to act. They can 'get 'er done' without a politician or government bureaucrat telling them how to. The aid and relief they provided to the needy in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina and the levee collapsing was superior to all of the other efforts.
I wish more people understood that they do not desire a big government nanny state. That is one of the most ridiculous charges made against them.
The purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better.
Dr. Theodore Dalrymple
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
Here Here!!!! 5 Lobsters! Highly recommend!
by From ME to you
McCain '08 - Failure is not an option!
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
One thing is for sure in this election
by kowalski
One thing is for sure in this election: Republicans and Conservatives need to find the widest possible base of common ground together in order to support our nominee vigorously all the way through election day. We all have to hang together this election cycle or we'll each hang separately -- and that's not a speculation. And the most important to help us all do that is blogs like this one.
Each of us -- whether were FiCons, SoCons, or DefCons -- can look at John McCain and realize that there's something we're not getting and not going to get. Maybe if you did a careful reckoning you'd find that FiCons won't get 25% of what they want, SoCons won't get 35% and DefCons won't get 30%. These numbers are just examples, but my point is that nobody likes to lose anything.
But look at the alternative. Look at the alternative to walking away from a candidate who isn't precisely what anyone wants and allowing a candidate that *nobody wants, period* to win.
To me it's an easy choice. Thanks for this blog, Game.
BTW I reject the term moderate
by kowalski
When I started here at RedState I was well and truly a Moderate. I have a different way of approching certain kinds of conflict over Conservative issues than some, but in the three years I've been here I've consistently moved more Conservative on virtually every social issue I had wavering on:
-- Immigration
-- Abortion
-- School choice
-- Faith and prayer
I've never been a slacker about the 2nd Amendement, strong national defense, low taxes, less government intervention, free markets, tort reform, federalism, judicial originalism, the importance of actively engaging and combating when necessary the liberal juggernaut in academia and the media, and several other issues.
If you were to look at the responses I gave recently to McCain's issue survey without knowing I filled it out, you would say: "That could be William F. Buckley."
And thank RedState for that. However, I do despise the infighting and I think that when we fight the Democrats we need to pick our battles carefully. That's not being a squish, it's strategic thinking.
Morals are a personal responsibility
by moderich
Jesus was a teacher, not an enforcer -- he did not stop those who turned their back on his wisdom. Salvation can only be achieved by a genuinely loving, personal conviction. It can not be coerced. That's why Jefferson and Madison have a different outlook on morality than today's social conservatives.
Draft for a Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom
Thomas Jefferson, 1779
Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments
James Madison, 1785
The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom
Virginia General Assembly, 1786
"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921
5 lawyers that imposed their religion on the whole nation, thus usurping the right of self government by We the People.
We are with the Founders all.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
5 (nt)
by Neil Stevens
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
Engel v. Vitale
by SteveLA
game were you referring to:
Engel v. Vitale was 6 to 1.
Decided in 1962, the case specifics were:
"The case was brought by the parents of public school students in New Hyde Park, New York who complained the prayer to "Almighty God" contradicted their religious beliefs. They were supported by groups opposed to the school prayer including rabbinical organizations, Ethical Culture, and Judaic organizations. The prayer in question was:
Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our country. Amen."
or Everson v. Board of Education
Which was about using public funds to transport children to parochial schools, decided in 1947 by a 5 to 4?
If you don't like the decisions of the Supreme court, which is established in the Constitution, what would you propose in it's stead?
Legislative, Executive...something else?
______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !
non sequitur/incoherent
by gamecock
you said:
"If you don't like the decisions of the Supreme court, which is established in the Constitution, what would you propose in it's stead?"
I propose the Constitution, as amended. A dead one that 5 lawyers take an oath to carry out rather than re-write.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
So the heck with Article three Section 1?
by SteveLA
Section 1. The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts...
I must have missed some amendment that would replace the Supreme Court with something else, but I do tend to miss things at times...Senior moment on my part perhaps?
I'm still trying to figure out the 5 lawyers part, can you give me a hint?
______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !
easy, 5 justices means a majority of the Supreme Court
by Doc Holliday
he want's the power to enact his will. I am glad the court is conservative, i hope we end up with nine conservatives. Maybe they will do the impossible and reduce the power of the Federal government, including themselves.
___________________________________________________________
Molon Labe!
Fine
by SteveLA
I thought there was a specific set of five jurists, you are using a generalized comment/complaint.
I'd point out that Roberts is not a conservative in the sense of say a Bork, he's much more center right from my read and listening to his confirmation hearing. I haven't read Scallia, or Bork for that matter, but did get one heck of an education by watching the Bork hearings. The man is just brilliant. Met Bork once and thanked him for the personally painful but very educational hearings.
______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !
or more of the lawyers on the court re-write it. Bork describes the The Tempting to which they succumb and how our system always depended on judges exercising judicial restraint and to not succumb to the temptation to re-write the constitution, a compact with a meaning that we the people are supposed to be able to rely upon via having it be a "living" document. The constitution provides for amendment by we the people via congress and state super majorities, not via the judicial power.
The judicial power is defined, as is the legislative and executive power, with checks and balances. You want the judicial power to reign supreme because you like the laws they create and impose just now.
That power can re-write your mortgage in the name of "due process" or "euql protection."
Your mortgage is a contract. So is the Constitution.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
Actually no
by SteveLA
game
You ascribe motive to me where you're wrong. I like Justice Roberts approach. More the "umpire" in the game, again a moderate position.
I find activist judges about the worst thing going. That means both Right and Left leaning.. Matter of fact, I wish McCain would campaign on breaking up the 9th Circuit/Circus, the most overturned and therefore dysfunctional court in the land.
I suspect that in the name of righting what you perceive as past injustices you'd be all in favor of activist judges, just leaning the way you want. Not to put words in your mouth that you have not said.
______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !
just because that have the judicial power. But just as it was the Brown court's duty to reverse Plessy, so it is any Justice's duty to reverse unconstitutional precedents if the question is presented in a case.
Yes, there can be nuanced differences in approaches to precedent and in how narrowly one crafts an opinion, esp given the necessity of getting 5 votes, but I see no evidence that, given a case on point, that Bork or Roberts would not reach the same conclusion and reverse Roe/Casey.
Roberts and 4 have already reversed a number of religious free speech cases that O'Connor imposed.
You are wrong to accuse me of wanting 5 lawyers to impose my preferred laws. I want local communities and states to make laws for their people.
For example, SteveLA, AND PLEASE LISTEN THIS TIME, if a local school board votes to teach that homosexual families are as legitimate and good for society as traditional families, then I am for their right to do so. Just as another local school could teach traditional values.
None should have federal courts tell them what can and cannot be said in school, incl science class where a fed judge imposed a state secular religion and extinguished free speech, incl even student questions!
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
Here here! *raises sugary alcoholic beverage to you* n/t
by tadams1138
"Hey, I call 'em like I see 'em. I'm a whale biologist."
The problem is and always has been...
by aceintx
the doctrine of coequal branches...or as is popular today the "System of checks and balances.
One of the tings I find so infuriating over the last couple decades is the constant preaching on the separation of powers as it effects the system of checks and balances...i.e. that no one branch of the central government can overturn the work of the other two but in the same breath say that the SCOTUS can overturn anything the legislative and executives have done as representatives of the people!
In 50 years or so, we've gone from a Representative Republic to a judicial tyranny where 5 justices can thwart the meaning of the Constitution, (whichthey are sworn to uphold and defend), laws passed and signed by the other two branches, and the will of the people where the powers of self government is supposed to reside!
CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”
And the judges do it because
by Menlo
And the judges do it because they can. Executives and legislatures nationwide literally put their entire elected terms on hold waiting for the next judicial ruling before taking any action. Meanwhile, law enforcement officers do nothing until those orders come down. They bow down and defer to judges for EVERYTHING.
And the people have fallen for it too. To hear most people speak, anything any judge says is true. The vast majority of Americans have lost the ability to think for themselves, agreeing with whatever conclusion a judge comes to and adopting their wordy opinions and catch phrases as their own political philosophy.
supreme court.
you are totally off base
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
ahh, this reminds me of the other old saw
by Doc Holliday
"a government with the power to give you all you want has the power to take away all you want". ok, maybe I coined that quote, but many have said quite the same before I did. :)
___________________________________________________________
Molon Labe!
You're right Doc H...
by GordonTaylor
Jefferson did say, "A government big enough to give you what you need is big enough to take what you have."
Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity
good one Doc, as edited by GT - nt
by gamecock
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
I agree moderich
by Doc Holliday
I have been very clear about my philosophy at this site over more than 2 years. I consider myself to be a social conservative. As with all my self proclaimed titles of libertarian, conservative, and federalist, those categories in which I place myself, are defined by myself.
I call myself a social conservative because I believe in social conservatism. I believe in no abortions, marriage between a man and wife, and a strong pro family society that favors acheivment over noteriety.
Where I differ with some "social conservatives" is that I do not believe the federal government is good at enforcing morals. In fact, I believe morality can only occur when coercion is absent. Anyone can feign morality at the point of a gun, but that is not morality, morality is choosing to do the right thing when other options are available.
Benjamin Franklin once said, "those who would give up their freedom for safety, deserve neither". I say those that would force their personal morality on others at the point of a gun, are not moral at all.
I am not a radical in any way. I do not ask for great changes in American society. I think the values of the 1950s were pretty darn good. But our government has infringed on our rights a hell of a lot since that time, it is done with small steps, so small that they are usually not noticed by the majority.
I do not agree that Washington and Jefferson were social conservatives when judged by their own times. Ala GC, I will just say, "more later" on this. :)
BTW GC, I am totally againt the racist La Raza, McCain is wrong to go before that hate group.
___________________________________________________________
Molon Labe!
that defined morals and imposed them on the whole nation, thus usurping the Founder's intent as expressed in the Constitution and Declaration for maximum happiness pursuit via local and state power so that the like minded could gather in communities and have their values reflected in their local laws and schools.
Social cons have been on defense against 5 lawyers since Engle v Vitale in the early 60's thru Roe in the 70s and Casey later on...
So how is it that you agree with moderich unless you are as ignorant of the maning of Jefferson and Madison's musings and the Constitution itself?
read more closely and comprehensivelt because I know you aren't that ignorant
You can't agree with everyone. Moderate?
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
dont' be a richard GC
by Doc Holliday
I have been friendly and conversational. If we both puff up I could start talking about history degrees etc, that is something I do not want to do. I agreed with a specific moderich post, in that post, there was no commentary about the supreme court.
I already told you my feelings on a government that gets too much power. Many false conservatives, following only what they thought was God's will, added to that power over decades. Now, we want to stop that power because we do not like what it dictates. Ok, I am with you on that, but I would be remiss if I never mention that some that call themselves on our side, added to this mess.
___________________________________________________________
Molon Labe!
since Lochner.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
Where I differ with some "social conservatives" is that I do not believe the federal government is good at enforcing morals. In fact, I believe morality can only occur when coercion is absent. Anyone can feign morality at the point of a gun, but that is not morality, morality is choosing to do the right thing when other options are available.
I'm a libertarian by nature but a social conservative above all because I don't believe you can have true liberty if the populace as a whole doesn't have the golden rule, (Do unto others what you would have them do unto you) or Love your neighbor as yourself as a guide to restrain themselves, thus eliminating the need for invasive laws to govern the populace through threats and intimidation by government fiat.
I agree SoCons such as GWB have gone too far thinking we can safely use Government to achieve Conservative ends. In my mind this is schizophrenic thinking to say the least. I will say however that much of what SoCons are trying to do on a Federal level might be wrong from a Federalist point of view...However, it wouldn't be happening if the Federal Government weren't asserting itself into so many places where it doesn't belong on moral issues and not only usurping responsibilities best handles by Churches and institurions on a local leveal, but actively working to stifle Churches and theose other institutions from doing what they do best!
CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”
The difference between acting and being virtuous
by adunadan
While it's true that no one can force anyone to be virtuous, it's not true that you can coerce virtuous actions. Not all virtuous actions should be coerced btw.
Some acts of virtue should be coerced for the common good of the nation. We should ban abortions because it is a deliberate taking of an innocent life. We should ban gay marriage because it tears apart the sanctity of marriage, causing confusion on what exactly is marriage and why it is important to civilization. We should encourage families to save money, to work hard.
All public policies, whether it be tax law, employment law, constitutional law, or trade agreements, are inherently moral. Laws tell us what is permissible and what is impermissible. They teach us right from wrong.
Not true Moderich
by aceintx
Read the founders on natural law, Washington's Inaugural the Declaration of independence, the Federalist Papers and the correspondence between Adams and Jefferson.
One thing is clear...the founders believed that our rights come from God not government because anything the Government gives it can take away.
They said over and over and over again that Religion is THE necessary support of liberty because without a moral foundation to order society, Governments always come in to fill the void.
If the founders really believed the lie being told today that there should be a separation of church and state, why did every school in the country start by teaching the Bible? The founders stated in many writings that their main goal in creating a literate was so people could read the Bible and benefit themselves and society by the wisdom contained in it's pages.
CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”
Should be "literate society"
by aceintx
The founders stated in many writings that their main goal in creating a literate was so people could read the Bible
Should be "literate society"
CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”
Depends on the morals...
by asleep06
It's the collective moral responsibility of parents to raise their children, for example.
And Jesus is God, but let's not have that discussion here, eh?
He also wasn't part of the Roman or Jewish government or else he would have enforced moral laws, same as any other citizen in public office.
Who is trying to coerce salvation? Social conservatives are simply arguing for the health of society, and widespread behaviors based on wrong ideas of the true, the good and the beautiful will undermine the society we all live in together.
And those are very nice documents you linked to! But how would they conflict with what "today's social conservatives" believe?
Social conservatives are
by moderich
Social conservatives are simply arguing for the health of society, and widespread behaviors based on wrong ideas of the true, the good and the beautiful will undermine the society we all live in together.
If you work towards this end in private life, through churches and personal evangelism, then there is no problem. I wish you every success. But if you think the government should be doing this -- thereby declaring Christianity a legally enforced standard -- then you are very wrong.
"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921
Straw Man!
by aceintx
The problem is the central government trying to force secularism on local governments, churches and other local institutions. As long as secularism is pushed on SoCons you will be faced with SoCons pushing back!
I don't agree with many of my SoCon brethren that Federal Laws are the answer but what are we supposed to do when we are being tyrannized by judicial decree?
CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”
The government should not be in the ideology business. A properly secular government is agnostic, allowing theist and atheist forces to argue in public - as private citizens - to sway opinion. For example, a secular government would not force the members of the military to be religious, and certainly not endorse a specific religion with the implication of government support. But from time to time, things like this do happen. It would be the equivalent of a NASA scientist using their office to make a case for atheism - also a violation of the same principle.
"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921
Where in the quote did I say "Christianity"?
by asleep06
I said, "the true, the good and the beautiful" which are categories that everyone understands and may use in the public square.
You use them yourself, and no one accuses you of trying to "declare secular humanism a legally enforced standard."
It's called common ground. But, if you insist that I am trying to legally impose Christianity, I will insist that you are trying to legally impose your own secular humanism.
Yawn.
Jesus is God
by moderich
You said that Jesus is God. Only Christians believe this.
"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921
Here's the comment thread:
You said:
"Morals are a personal responsibility. Jesus was a teacher, not an enforcer -- he did not stop those who turned their back on his wisdom. Salvation can only be achieved by a genuinely loving, personal conviction. It can not be coerced. That's why Jefferson and Madison have a different outlook on morality than today's social conservatives."
Ironically, you brought up Jesus first to argue a political point, namely that politics ought not to impose Christian morals (and somehow, in your strange view, bring salvation to people).
So I respond:
"Depends on the morals... It's the collective moral responsibility of parents to raise their children, for example.
And Jesus is God, but let's not have that discussion here, eh?
He also wasn't part of the Roman or Jewish government or else he would have enforced moral laws, same as any other citizen in public office" vis-a-vis your statement that Jesus was a teacher, not an enforcer and further explain that he was not in political office, which is why he wasn't enforcing any laws--NOT because he was a teacher, or because certain morals shouldn't be enforced.
Nowhere do I state or even imply that "Jesus is God" should be legislated. Do you disagree?
Secular - Sectarian
by moderich
Gamecock's blog talks about the religious beliefs of the founding fathers and how that compares to today's social conservatives. I used Jesus, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison to show that morals are a personal responsibility and the government should not intervene. This is an idea that runs counter to the agenda of many social conservatives. For example, School prayer is a legal right of every student, but school led prayer is not a legal right of the state. To claim otherwise is to disregard the Constitution. The relevance should be obvious.
You imply Christian morals should be legislated when you confuse a secularism with atheism. As I said before, a properly secular government is agnostic and does not favor nor disfavor any group or belief (including atheism) because the government is not, and should not, be in the ideology business. You should be proud that we're a secular nation -- otherwise we would be sectarian, to which I presume you would be opposed.
"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921
... your point. Additionally, you cited "Jesus" to prove your point, but you failed in that regard as I demonstrated.
School-led prayer is a debatable issue because schools ought not to be extensions of the government. Unfortunately, today they are. More unfortunately, they embody the kind of secularism is which itself an ideology.
You have yet to prove that secularism itself is not an ideology. It is obviously an ideology to everyone who isn't a secularist. The public square is not naked, and the government is in the ideology business. The only relative question is how the ideology is good and how it is not. Which is why public discussions happen in the first place.
Why would I be proud we're a secular nation? Europe has many nation more ideologically secular than ours, and it doesn't make me proud of them AT ALL. The American values embodying truth, goodness and beauty are the ones that make me proud of America.
Your blindspot
by moderich
Secularism is areligious (unconcerned with or indifferent to religious matters), not anti-religious. The reason our government must be indifferent because it must treat all manner of belief (and non-belief) as equally valid, otherwise it would be in violation of the 1st Amendment. As Thomas Jefferson stated:
our rulers can have authority over such natural rights only as we have submitted to them. The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God. The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921
religious beliefs. I spoke of their advocacy of judeo-christian principles and values and their belief that our republican mode of government and its protection of Liberty (see right to self government) and liberties (see individual freedoms) was only suited for a moral and religious people and the self restraint for responsible exercise of that freedom.
The 14th amendment did not incorporate the establishment clause, but even if it did, religion is not established merely from hearing a prayer. No one can be compelled to say a prayer, but Liberty with a capital L is the right of local control of schools.
Roberts-Alito have already overturned some of O'Connor's 10-point tests in this regard.
What gets legislated is what a majority decides, no matter the source of the reasons for why majorities vote.
You would reduce the US to saudi arabian law, with your right to pray quietly. Of course slaves could be free in their minds.
You don't get federalism. The point is that powers left to the states maximizes happiness for the like minded in communities, not to hold majorities hostage to minorities, save for denial of equal protection and due process, which have nothing to do with the est clause.
You do understand that Jefferson's letter told the baptists that the fed govt, due to wall of separation between the State (fed govt) and the church (state congregationalist church in Conn), could not intervene. The first amendment only applied tot he fedgovt.
But even under an incorporation, HEARING a prayer is not violative of free exercise or establishement.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
Respect for all of the Constitution?
by moderich
Thomas Jefferson and the Catholic Church believe that one of the most fundamental Christian values is the right of self-determination because without it, there can be no salvation. That means letting people have different morals - the rights of conscience.
The 14th amendment is clear in the limits it imposes on the States in order to protect civil liberties. The rights of the individual are more important then the rights of the state, and thus the State can not favor one faith (or no faith) over another.
Philosophically, our fundamental belief is that the individual has eminence over the community and the State (see eminent domain). To believe the opposite is to be a Communist.
The Federalist Papers explain why a judiciary system (the Supreme Court) is necessary to guard against the will of the majority when it opposes the Constitution. A Christian (Protestant) majority is Constitutionally prohibited from asserting its religious morality as law. There is no legal doubt about that.
I understand Federalism. I also understand the impact of the Civil War and the resulting amendments to the Constitution. The Federal government has been empowered to protect the civil rights of all from the discriminatory practices of the states. Confederate government lost on this issue twice (see The Articles of Confederation) You can not wish away the 14th Amendment because you do not like it - yet that is exactly what you want to do.
How can you compare the rights of student to quietly pray on their own (be they Hindu, Christian, or Scientologist) with Saudi Arabia? I just don't get it.
"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921
prefer, and where is the 14th "clear" that the establishment clause applies to the states, and further that even if it did, allowing localities to have voluntary corporate prayer is the equivalent to the church of england?
no where
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
Governmental prayer
by moderich
Private citizens may pray, but not the government - and it doesn't matter if it's a Christian prayer or a Muslim prayer, it's equally wrong. Why do you want the government to pray?
"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921
lie, whole - at odds with public prayer by Presidents and by congressmen and chaplains in Congress and oy yee oh yea in the SCOTUS, and even having church services in the House that jefferson attended for years - and all of American history, during which it was never a theocracy, until Engel v Vitale.
moving on
the truth has been proclaimed
you prefer something America never was
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
All prayers are equal
by moderich
Discrimination by the State was made illegal by the 14th Amendment. Even so, it took another century for the Supreme Court to catch up to the implications and rule that segregation was, in fact, unconstitutional. On the issue of religious morality, there has been a similar lethargic foot-dragging to accept that "No State shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"
I accept that elected officials have, and continue, to pray in public - and there is a very fine line between praying as an individual or praying as a government. But be careful where you draw that line because you can't use it to discriminate.
If you want a local government to offer a Christian prayer for its citizens, then you must also allow a local government to offer Mormon prayers, Muslim prayers, and Atheist declarations. Furthermore, if a member of a religious minority within the community requests the local government to offer a prayer from their belief system, that request must be honored.
If you are willing to respect and protect a non-discriminatory affirmation of all faiths, including atheism, then I'm willing to work with you. So, would you allow an Atheist citizen or Muslim government official to open your local government's proceedings or high school graduation ceremony with a thought/prayer?
"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921
A majority of the voters in those districts, as reflected by the elected board, should be allowed to do this. Those that don't like it can move.
That was the Jeffersonian vision to maximaze happiness pursuits.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
No favorites allowed
by moderich
That was not Jefferson's vision, because you would legalize governmental favoritism and discrimination by majority rule. That's a complete violation of the First Amendment.
You don't want freedom of religion, you want local governments to discriminate based on religion - like Muslims or Mormons or Atheists. Only your preferred religion will be sanctioned by the local government, which is obviously unfair. The government can not play favorites, because that goes to the establishment of religion. Either governments will be open to all religions equally and fairly or denied to all equally and fairly. Pick your poison.
"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921
we disagree - nt
by gamecock
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
Read my post up thread...I address where I thing SOME not ALL SoCons are wrong.
There has been a natural reaction to the Federal Government's interference into the Local Church via the IRS telling Pastors what they can say from the Pulpit, or forcing social policy on local communities, or getting in the way of SoCons following the dictates of their consciences that has caused the SoCon community to push back for their own laws to protect themselves.
I would prefer to have all these issues devolved back to the states but as long as the Federal Government is engaged in tyrannizing the dictates of mens consciousness...you will be stuck with SoCons trying to force their interpretations from the top down.
CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”
One of the biggest issues that I see here
by simpson316
is that the general population has had the term "social conservative" defined for them by the far left.
The other major issue is the lack of historical understanding by the same general population. They think that social conservatives took the fight to the national level, when the SoCon movement was responding to activist judges and authoritarian left-wingers in Congress.
Now also found at The Minority Report
Historically these folks are the type Alexis de Toqueville wrote about. They were never interested in national politics until it was forced upon them by the activist judges.
The purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better.
Dr. Theodore Dalrymple
5*5*5*5*5nt
by aceintx
CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”
level at least. But it seems that today's invasion of libertarians at redstate are quite comfortable with having the federal government incl its courts, impose their morals, or lack thereof, on the whole nation.
I rarely say the following word because i think the sin of same is usually quite puny and the allegation of same is usually used to obscure a much greater sin, but here goes:
HYPOCRITES!
You libertarian moderates claim the high ground as you look down your nose projecting your sin on innocent so-cons who only want to stop the fed courts from becoming the KING we through off in 1776.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
Some truth
by JakePrime
There is some truth to what you say. Socons and libertarians should be equally opposed to Roe v Wade and other rulings that increase imposition of the federal will on states and then duke it out locally. There are still areas of prime disagreement though. Most socons would likely support the war on drugs while there's no way any self-respecting libertarian could do so.
Not speaking for all but
by SteveLA
Jake
As a Libertarian leaning R, I'd be perfectly happy with a ruling that returned the decision on Abortion to the states, strictly a Federalist position. I'm not quite sure about that would be a universal moderate position by the way.
I somehow doubt that many of the conservative base folks here on RS who favor HLA's and other forms of a Constitutional amendment would be happy with a Federalist approach, but could be wrong.
______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !
would like it struck down and given back to the states ie: We The People!
Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion
Nope
by SteveLA
I mean folks that support a Human Life Amendment. I don't ascribe anything to why they want to do that, but they want a ban of abortions in the Constitution, hence a constitutional amendment. That's not a Federalist point of view by the way, that's establishing a point of view on the matter in the Constitution.
I'm a bit unsure in this whole moderate/conservative dialog where returning decisions on the question of abortion back to the state falls. As I stated previously, I'd be fine with a return to the state overturn of Roe.
Same goes for the gay marriage issue, except for the sticky bit about "full faith and credit" provisions. Making a state that thinks gay marriage is wrong recognize the actions of another state in this area is wrong.
______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !
Let me try to shed some light on this Steve and then we can agree to disagree...
I would be ecstatic if we could overturn Roe and give it back to the states where it was before the Judiciary enforced it's view on the country. It doesn't sound like we have a disagreement here. and if that's all we could get, I'd be OK with that.
Where we obviously differ is the HLA. I tentatively favor the HLA because I think it can be proven to be constitutional based on the Declaration of Independence which spoke clearly about a right to LIFE liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”
I don't mind the HLA myself,
by aesthete
I don't mind the HLA myself, but it's a little bit silly to argue that Declaration of Independence argues against abortion with any degree of credibility. After all, the point of the Declaration of Independence was simply to declare the States independent from British rule, and unless Great Britain was aborting more babies than my history book was letting on, I don't think that the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence maintains a position on abortion. On all the other stuff that you've posted so far, awesome and keep up the good work!
(On a side note, the preamble to the Constitution does mention "secur[ing] the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity", and although I don't think that that offers justification for reading a pro-life narrative into the Constitution, it would make for a decent rationale for the HLA.)
Your typical Spartan warrior clinging to spears and gods:
I think the reference in the Declaration....
by aceintx
I think the reference in the Declaration should carry as much weight as a letter written to a baptist church by Jefferson giving us a so called separation of Church and State requiring the censorship of all Christian speech from the public square...
Love the graphic BTW
CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”
Phrased it poorly
by JakePrime
Sorry, I phrased my post poorly. I meant to say what you said, that libertarians would unite with socons to oppose Roe V. Wade. Many, though not all, following its overturning, would be on opposite sides at the state level.
There are still those socons who support a HLA, which libertarians would oppose.
Nailed it
by SteveLA
Jake
I think you nailed it. However I don't really see moderates uniting with social conservatives on this issue based on end objectives after overturn of Roe.
______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !
I don't anything wrong here...let's get what we can get now and let the future arguments take care of themselves!
CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”
After 30 years, we'll take anything!
by tadams1138
"somehow doubt that many ... who favor HLA's ... would be happy with a Federalist approach"
After 30 years, we'll take anything!
"Hey, I call 'em like I see 'em. I'm a whale biologist."
but you called me a moderate
by Doc Holliday
not to mention ignorant. That is out of line. Anyone who follows my posts knows I am not in the Moral Majority, and they also know I am not in any way a moderate. This is not about me, and not about you, it is about different ideas of true conservatism. I want conservative judges if they are strict constructionists, I do not want a Savonarola
___________________________________________________________
Molon Labe!
the issue at hand revealed either ignorance or a lack of reading comprehension. I said that if you agreed with him, then it would exhibit the same. It is not out of line to expose ignorance if ignorance exists.
One of the reason I come here is to lessen my ignorance.
I didn't call you moderate did I? Didn't I just out a question mark. These are rhetorical questions. Don't answer them. I'm sorry. Don't want to play this game. We both said what we said.
It appears we both favor Judges that would reverse Engle, Roe, etc.
good
And if moderich favors the same, I don't care if he is ignorant re jefferson.
at least not for now!
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
"Best guarded against by an entire abstinence"
by moderich
If you think the Federal government should make prayer mandatory for all (regardless of their beliefs, then it is you who are ignorant, and I must plead with you to learn of Jefferson's and Madison's position on the matter.
The Pious Infidel, Steven Waldman
The People's Bible Goes to Washington, Holly Lebowitz Rossi
Letter from Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, Thomas Jefferson
Letter from James Madison to Reverend Jasper Adams
James Madison, January 1, 1832I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the Civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions & doubts on unessential points. The tendency to a usurpation on one side or the other, or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them, will be best guarded agst by an entire abstinence of: the Govt from interference in any way whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order, & protecting each sect agst trespasses on its legal rights by others.
Federalism usurped States rights on many civil rights issues via the 14th Amendment's requirement of equal protection. If you're going to be a strict Constitutionalist, then you must recognize this fundamental change, for good or ill:
Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921
Firs off I don't recall...
by aceintx
Firs off I don't recall anyone calling for federally mandated prayer in school and I would call anyone who wanted that a fool. Most SoCons simply want the Judicially mandated censorship of worship, prayer, or religious discussion/practice/display to end!
CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”
School prayer
by moderich
School prayer is already legal -- any student may pray (quietly) on their own at school. So why are some people so upset with the Supreme Court in regards to school prayer?
ENGEL v. VITALE, 370 U.S. 421 (1962)
Because of the prohibition of the First Amendment against the enactment of any law "respecting an establishment of religion," which is made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, state officials may not compose an official state prayer and require that it be recited in the public schools of the State at the beginning of each school day - even if the prayer is denominationally neutral and pupils who wish to do so may remain silent or be excused from the room while the prayer is being recited. Pp. 422-436.
"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921
Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity