NRO Editors: Legislating Immorality
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
Remind me again why I need to be tolerant of your precious, precious Christianity, Stan?
Because it is the foundation of all civilizations!!! Without Christianity we would all be leftist, Marxist, fascist, anti-Jeffersonian, homosexual, Muslim, non-racist libertarians!
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
Because it is the foundation of all civilizations!!! Without Christianity we would all be leftist, Marxist, fascist, anti-Jeffersonian, homosexual, Muslim, non-racist libertarians!
:laugh: Up with Jeebus!
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
Remind me again why I need to be tolerant of your precious, precious Christianity, Stan?
Because it is the foundation of all civilizations!!! Without Christianity we would all be leftist, Marxist, fascist, anti-Jeffersonian, homosexual, Muslim, non-racist libertarians!
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
Because it is the foundation of all civilizations
It is the foundation of western civilization.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Have I ever said you did? I think it would be wise if you were, but as a conservative, I believe the only thing you are required to be tolerant of is the will of the people in freely deciding upon the formulation of the rules and standards that define their civilization.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Have I ever said you did? I think it would be wise if you were, but as a conservative, I believe the only thing you are required to be tolerant of is the will of the people in freely deciding upon the formulation of the rules and standards that define their civilization.
Excellent. Now, since homosexuals (and some of their heterosexual supporters) aren't tolerant of the definition of marriage - and they reflect a portion of the will of the people - what the fuck's your problem?
modified on Wednesday, November 26, 2008 11:12 AM
-
Oakman wrote:
Because it is the foundation of all civilizations
It is the foundation of western civilization.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
It is one of the foundations of Western civilization. It is not the foundation.
-
Okay so if I understand this right your saying that racists or homophobes can't be conservatives because "Conservatism, by definition, is a political philosophy free of extremism of any kind." and that racists and homophobes are extremists. Then... Explain to me how Republicans such as Georgia Sen. Saxby Chambliss are conservative when they say things like "The other folks are voting," http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/31/chambliss-the-other-folks_n_139725.html[^]. Aren't statements like this racists and by your definition extreme and not conservative?
wolfbinary wrote:
Okay so if I understand this right your saying that racists or homophobes can't be conservatives because "Conservatism, by definition, is a political philosophy free of extremism of any kind." and that racists and homophobes are extremists.
Not quite. The point is that conservatism as a political principle does not lend any more power to one belief than it does to another. A racist does not gain anything by being a conservative. There may be plenty of racist conservatives, but being a conservative does not empower those people to implement a racist political agenda. Conservatism seeks to decentralize political power which inherently weakens any group with an agenda which they wish to promote. Those with extremist agendas are naturally going to affiliate themselves with political philosphies predicated upon the centrlization of power into the hands of some kind or ruling elite so that the agenda can be actualized by means of concentrated political power.
wolfbinary wrote:
Explain to me how Republicans such as Georgia Sen. Saxby Chambliss are conservative when they say things like "The other folks are voting," http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/31/chambliss-the-other-folks\_n\_139725.html\[^\]. Aren't statements like this racists and by your definition extreme and not conservative?
I know absolutely nothing about Chambliss. But no, I don't see how what he is doing is any more extreme or racist than is the other side purposfully trying to get the black vote. How is it any different? There is clearly far more racial pressure in our society for black people to vote for democrats then there is for white people to vote for republicans.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
In the first paragraph of The mysterious forces of civilizations[^] - a challenge ... I've tried to prove the fact that the foundation of all civilizations is religion. So far no one has come to disproof this fact. Indeed, the initial inspiration behind all civilizations in the history of the world is driven from some foundational interpretation of religion. It is undisputable fact and also most fascinating to learn that each major world religions --Hinduism, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, Christianity and Islam-- has given birth to great civilizations. These historic civilizations all have certain things in common. But would we be as poor as we are most likely to become http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/26/business/economy/26fed.html?_r=1&bl&ex=1227848400&en=5a50becfbe5bac73&ei=5087%0A[^]
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
It is undisputable fact and also most fascinating to learn that each major world religions --Hinduism, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, Christianity and Islam-- has given birth to great civilizations.
But it is as easy to say that each great civilization has given birth to a major religion. Conversion at the point of a sword has long been a revered tradition in the Judeo/Christaic/Muslim world. Certainly if the divine right of kings is one of the foundations of your family's reign, it is helpful to have something divine around to worship. It's interesting that he skips all the major world religions that expected human sacrifice. Huitzilopochtli, for instance, certainly commanded as many followers as Jehovah.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Have I ever said you did? I think it would be wise if you were, but as a conservative, I believe the only thing you are required to be tolerant of is the will of the people in freely deciding upon the formulation of the rules and standards that define their civilization.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
I hate to jump into the middle of an discussion but the "will of the people" isn't a very good argument. We elect politicians whom we entrust to make the best decisions for their constituents/ area of governance. If the will of the people was law, we would live in a 100% democracy where every law was done by popular vote. But we in fact in the US have a democratic republic. Now for social precedence, if the will of the people were law, there never would have been desegregation of the schools or the allowance of mixed racial marriages among others.
-
It is one of the foundations of Western civilization. It is not the foundation.
73Zeppelin wrote:
It is one of the foundations of Western civilization
I'm pretty sure Zeus, Hera, Apollo, Aphrodite et al think that Mount Olympus deserves the credit for being the religion of the founding fathers.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
In the first paragraph of The mysterious forces of civilizations[^] - a challenge ... I've tried to prove the fact that the foundation of all civilizations is religion. So far no one has come to disproof this fact. Indeed, the initial inspiration behind all civilizations in the history of the world is driven from some foundational interpretation of religion. It is undisputable fact and also most fascinating to learn that each major world religions --Hinduism, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, Christianity and Islam-- has given birth to great civilizations. These historic civilizations all have certain things in common. But would we be as poor as we are most likely to become http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/26/business/economy/26fed.html?_r=1&bl&ex=1227848400&en=5a50becfbe5bac73&ei=5087%0A[^]
I think the foundation of religion is civilization. The thing about religion is that it requires a body of followers. Arguably, the first religions emerged when people started banding together for mutual protection and cooperation to enhance survival. Let's face it, humans don't last long in small isolated groups. What better for the cohesive glue of a group of people than a common religion. Of course, you have to have a group first - 100 different people don't all invent a particular "God" contemporaneously. As a results, it's much more logical to claim that great civilizations invent "great" religions. And thus the foundation of all religions is civilization.
-
wolfbinary wrote:
Okay so if I understand this right your saying that racists or homophobes can't be conservatives because "Conservatism, by definition, is a political philosophy free of extremism of any kind." and that racists and homophobes are extremists.
Not quite. The point is that conservatism as a political principle does not lend any more power to one belief than it does to another. A racist does not gain anything by being a conservative. There may be plenty of racist conservatives, but being a conservative does not empower those people to implement a racist political agenda. Conservatism seeks to decentralize political power which inherently weakens any group with an agenda which they wish to promote. Those with extremist agendas are naturally going to affiliate themselves with political philosphies predicated upon the centrlization of power into the hands of some kind or ruling elite so that the agenda can be actualized by means of concentrated political power.
wolfbinary wrote:
Explain to me how Republicans such as Georgia Sen. Saxby Chambliss are conservative when they say things like "The other folks are voting," http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/31/chambliss-the-other-folks\_n\_139725.html\[^\]. Aren't statements like this racists and by your definition extreme and not conservative?
I know absolutely nothing about Chambliss. But no, I don't see how what he is doing is any more extreme or racist than is the other side purposfully trying to get the black vote. How is it any different? There is clearly far more racial pressure in our society for black people to vote for democrats then there is for white people to vote for republicans.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
I don't deny there are some people catering to segments of the population for their vote. This could be union workers, white, black, or whatever. Aren't conservitives supposed to be for less government and not more? <blockquote class="FQ"><div class="FQA">Stan Shannon wrote:</div>centrlization of power into the hands of some kind or ruling elite so that the agenda can be actualized by means of concentrated political power</blockquote> Take Homeland Security. I asked my congressman to get me some information on it and he sent me an org chart, and some other stuff. There is something like 25-30 people that are basically management positions to it. This is more government.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Have I ever said you did? I think it would be wise if you were, but as a conservative, I believe the only thing you are required to be tolerant of is the will of the people in freely deciding upon the formulation of the rules and standards that define their civilization.
Excellent. Now, since homosexuals (and some of their heterosexual supporters) aren't tolerant of the definition of marriage - and they reflect a portion of the will of the people - what the fuck's your problem?
modified on Wednesday, November 26, 2008 11:12 AM
-
I think the foundation of religion is civilization. The thing about religion is that it requires a body of followers. Arguably, the first religions emerged when people started banding together for mutual protection and cooperation to enhance survival. Let's face it, humans don't last long in small isolated groups. What better for the cohesive glue of a group of people than a common religion. Of course, you have to have a group first - 100 different people don't all invent a particular "God" contemporaneously. As a results, it's much more logical to claim that great civilizations invent "great" religions. And thus the foundation of all religions is civilization.
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
what the f***'s your problem
He's never lived anywhere but small Midwestern towns.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
He's a little frustrating because he does present opposing views. On one hand he condemns Dave for exhibiting some kind of "Marxist tolerance" for the idea that homosexuals should be allowed to be married and it's okay for him (Stan) to be intolerant of that. On his other hand, he claims that anybody should be allowed to be intolerant. He then goes on to say that society should be tolerant of things that reflect "the will of the people". Clearly homosexuals (and their supporters) are intolerant of the definition of marriage. Clearly they reflect some aspect of the "will of the people". However, that's not an acceptable form of intolerance, since it conflicts with Stan's view of an ideal (Christian) society. Doesn't quite jive with his condemnation of Dave, does it? Basically what Stan is trying to say is that intolerance is allowed as long as that intolerance is directed towards an opinion/ideal that conflicts with his ideal vision of society.
-
I hate to jump into the middle of an discussion but the "will of the people" isn't a very good argument. We elect politicians whom we entrust to make the best decisions for their constituents/ area of governance. If the will of the people was law, we would live in a 100% democracy where every law was done by popular vote. But we in fact in the US have a democratic republic. Now for social precedence, if the will of the people were law, there never would have been desegregation of the schools or the allowance of mixed racial marriages among others.
kumpm wrote:
hate to jump into the middle of an discussion but the "will of the people" isn't a very good argument. We elect politicians whom we entrust to make the best decisions for their constituents/ area of governance. If the will of the people was law, we would live in a 100% democracy where every law was done by popular vote. But we in fact in the US have a democratic republic.
Actually, that isn't true. We live in a constitutional Republic. One of the most important characterisitics of the original design, the defining characteristic in fact, was that those powers not specifically given to the federal government by the constitution belonged to the states and to the people - collectively.
kumpm wrote:
if the will of the people were law, there never would have been desegregation of the schools or the allowance of mixed racial marriages among others.
Not true at all. In fact, if the original government had worked the way the current government does, it would have been virtually impossible to change any of the original social 'precedence'.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Have I ever said you did? I think it would be wise if you were, but as a conservative, I believe the only thing you are required to be tolerant of is the will of the people in freely deciding upon the formulation of the rules and standards that define their civilization.
Excellent. Now, since homosexuals (and some of their heterosexual supporters) aren't tolerant of the definition of marriage - and they reflect a portion of the will of the people - what the fuck's your problem?
modified on Wednesday, November 26, 2008 11:12 AM
73Zeppelin wrote:
Excellent. Now, since homosexuals (and some of their heterosexual supporters) aren't tolerant of the definition of marriage - and they reflect a portion of the will of the people - what the f***'s your problem?
My problem is that the other side refuses to respect the will of the people.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
Excellent. Now, since homosexuals (and some of their heterosexual supporters) aren't tolerant of the definition of marriage - and they reflect a portion of the will of the people - what the f***'s your problem?
My problem is that the other side refuses to respect the will of the people.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
My problem is that the other side refuses to respect the will of the people
That's nothing more than an offhand dismissal. As I pointed out, that argument is invalid. They are a demographic of the people with supporters that are also the people. They therefore represent an aspect of the will of the people. What they don't happen to represent is your will. That's your problem.
-
He's a little frustrating because he does present opposing views. On one hand he condemns Dave for exhibiting some kind of "Marxist tolerance" for the idea that homosexuals should be allowed to be married and it's okay for him (Stan) to be intolerant of that. On his other hand, he claims that anybody should be allowed to be intolerant. He then goes on to say that society should be tolerant of things that reflect "the will of the people". Clearly homosexuals (and their supporters) are intolerant of the definition of marriage. Clearly they reflect some aspect of the "will of the people". However, that's not an acceptable form of intolerance, since it conflicts with Stan's view of an ideal (Christian) society. Doesn't quite jive with his condemnation of Dave, does it? Basically what Stan is trying to say is that intolerance is allowed as long as that intolerance is directed towards an opinion/ideal that conflicts with his ideal vision of society.
73Zeppelin wrote:
Basically what Stan is trying to say is that intolerance is allowed as long as that intolerance is directed towards an opinion/ideal that conflicts with his ideal vision of society.
Absolutely. Any opinion is allowed to be voiced anywhere, any time - as long as it doesn't conflict with his. He is Mr. Political Correctness.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
Basically what Stan is trying to say is that intolerance is allowed as long as that intolerance is directed towards an opinion/ideal that conflicts with his ideal vision of society.
Absolutely. Any opinion is allowed to be voiced anywhere, any time - as long as it doesn't conflict with his. He is Mr. Political Correctness.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
You can have that car painted any colour you like, as long as it's black.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
My problem is that the other side refuses to respect the will of the people
That's nothing more than an offhand dismissal. As I pointed out, that argument is invalid. They are a demographic of the people with supporters that are also the people. They therefore represent an aspect of the will of the people. What they don't happen to represent is your will. That's your problem.
73Zeppelin wrote:
They are a demographic of the people with supporters that are also the people. They therefore represent an aspect of the will of the people. What they don't happen to represent is your will. That's your problem.
Thats bullshit, in fact it is the point in the debate where you guys just start throwing out crap that has nothing to do with anything I've said. You are just characterizeing what I said in terms of your own preconcieved opinions. I happen to believe that homosexuality should largely be legal. I agree completely that what two consenting adults do in private is their own business. I am as 'liberal' on the actual issue as any of you people are. Your probelm is that you are so steeped in the dogma of the left that you refuse to accept a deeper truth. The will of the people is ascertained by means of democratic processes. Those processes in a Jeffersonian democracy are supposed to either be worked out at the local level of government or they are suppoesd to be written into the constitution itself in some unequivocal way. The homosexual community is currently waging a leftist jihad to overturn the will of the people as expressed by means of the nation's actual democratic processess. They are invading churches, demonizing churches, they are physically attacking people, they are boycotting businesses. In short they are behaving with precisely the intolerance conservatives are blamed for but actually never do.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
NRO Editors: Legislating Immorality[^]
... To date, 30 states have voted on initiatives addressing same-sex marriage, and in every state traditional marriage has come out on top. But somehow the fact that Mormons got involved during the latest statewide referendum constitutes a bridge too far? In truth, Mormons are a target of convenience in the opening salvo of what is sure to be a full-scale assault on much of America’s religious infrastructure, which gay activists perceive as a barrier to their aspirations. Among religious groups, Mormons are not the biggest obstacle to same-sex marriage — not by a long shot. But they are an easy target. Anti-Mormon bigotry is unfortunately common, and gay-rights activists are cynically exploiting that fact. There are no websites dedicated to “outing” Catholics who supported Proposition 8, even though Catholic voters heavily outnumber Mormons. And the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is not remarkably strident in its beliefs on the subject. So far, no gay-rights activist has had the brass to burn a Qu’ran on the doorstep of a militant mosque where — forget marriage! — imams advocate the stoning of homosexuals. Churches oppose same-sex marriage in part because it represents an implicit threat to freedom of conscience and belief. California already had one of the broadest civil-unions laws in the country. There was little in the way of government-sanctioned privileges that a state-issued marriage license would confer. But the drive for same-sex marriage is in practice about legislating moral conformity — demanding that everybody recognize homosexual relationships in the same way, regardless of their own beliefs. Freedom of conscience, or diversity of belief, is the last thing the homosexual lobby will tolerate: In New Mexico, a state civil-rights commission fined an evangelical wedding photographer $6,637 for politely declining to photograph a gay commitment ceremony. In California, the state Supreme Court ruled unanimously against two San Diego fertility doctors who refused to give in-vitro fertilization to a lesbian owing to their religious beliefs, even though they had referred her to another doctor. And just this week, evangelical dating site eHarmony, which hadn’t previously provided same-sex matchmaking services, announ