Libertarian Defense of Social Conservativism

[DarkWizard12]

American Thinker: A Libertarian Defense of Social Conservatism

Discus. And I approve this Message! And my Grammer is sux!

 

[obvious Child]

Interestingly how it makes no mention of abstinence only education, literal creationism, and faith based policies.

The whole notion of "let's do this because a historical book and our God says so, damn the empirical evidence, damn the science, let's just do it because the voices in our heads tell us " is pretty frightening.

I'd love to see the National Journal's take on if the Republicans tend to be more socially conservative and thus more fiscally conservative, why our government ballooned to huge sizes, why our debt is hitting record levels and why our entitlement programs actually expanded under them.

He's also quite wrong about marriage. Not to mention sodomy laws which were in the books only until recently.
Gay marriage goes way back - LiveScience- msnbc.com

 

[DarkWizard12]

Interestingly how it makes no mention of abstinence only education, literal creationism, and faith based policies.

As a social conservative, that really doesn't matter to me. Sure, its nice, but its not a defining issue for me or any other social conservative I know. For the social conservatives, its Gay marriage, and Abortion. The most important being abortion. I tell you, if the democrats were prolife, they would be in power for a very, very, very long time.

The whole notion of "let's do this because a historical book and our God says so, damn the empirical evidence, damn the science, let's just do it because the voices in our heads tell us " is pretty frightening.

I know it is, isn't it great these stereotypes don't exist except by televangelists?

I'd love to see the National Journal's take on if the Republicans tend to be more socially conservative and thus more fiscally conservative, why our government ballooned to huge sizes, why our debt is hitting record levels and why our entitlement programs actually expanded under them.

Because they were not conservative, they were neo-conservative.

He's also quite wrong about marriage. Not to mention sodomy laws which were in the books only until recently.
Gay marriage goes way back - LiveScience- msnbc.com

ummm, no he's not? How does that apply at all to his short little 2 paragraphs on the issue?

 

[obvious Child]

As a social conservative, that really doesn't matter to me. Sure, its nice, but its not a defining issue for me or any other social conservative I know. For the social conservatives, its Gay marriage, and Abortion. The most important being abortion. I tell you, if the democrats were prolife, they would be in power for a very, very, very long time.

Perhaps but you can't ignore that the strongholds of literal creationism are in areas of strong social conservatism. You don't find bastions of literal creationism in Seattle, San Fran or New York.

I know it is, isn't it great these stereotypes don't exist except by televangelists?

And Sarah Palin.

Because they were not conservative, they were neo-conservative.

So you disagree with the National Journal's argument then? After all, those in their list were those who were in the majority in 2002 and 2004.

ummm, no he's not? How does that apply at all to his short little 2 paragraphs on the issue?

His statement about marriage being solely one woman one man for 6,000 years is flat out wrong. And his claim that social cons never get what they want is wrong too as Sodomy laws were only recently struck down.

 

[The silenced majority]

I really wouldn't put too much weight behind what somebody who claims to be a "Libertarian" thinks. It's a bastardized term approaching the status of "liberal"; it can mean just about anything at this point.

Libertarianism is an ideal place for one to be critical of everything, yet needing to defend just about nothing; a perfect safe-haven for cultural de-constructionists and political agitators.

If you don't understand what I mean, contrast how many "Libertarians" on this board rushed to defend Barack Obama regardless of the topic (taxes, spending, social programs, entitlements, etc...) compared to how many times you heard: "who is John Galt?" evoked...

 

[American]

Interestingly how it makes no mention of abstinence only education, literal creationism, and faith based policies.

The whole notion of "let's do this because a historical book and our God says so, damn the empirical evidence, damn the science, let's just do it because the voices in our heads tell us " is pretty frightening.

I'd love to see the National Journal's take on if the Republicans tend to be more socially conservative and thus more fiscally conservative, why our government ballooned to huge sizes, why our debt is hitting record levels and why our entitlement programs actually expanded under them.

He's also quite wrong about marriage. Not to mention sodomy laws which were in the books only until recently.
Gay marriage goes way back - LiveScience- msnbc.com

Do YOU really believe that you have science 100% on your side, and that there is no science or scientists supporting the otherside? I'm sure in your estimation that those that do, are fringe kooks and quacks, right? His point is well made that conservatism didn't fail, because it wasn't practiced. That's why Republicans lost in the last two recent elections.

I must say, even as an agnostic, something is creepy about a government that outlaws Nativity scenes at City Hall, but subsidizes Piss Christ. That tries to disband the Boy Scouts but promotes gay marriage. That disallows even voluntary, student-led prayer at public school, but teaches children how to put on condoms.

Here's a perfect example of liberal hypocracy. The reason prayer is banded in schools is because it makes atheists feel uncomfortable, not for some pseudo-noble reason as separation of church and state. For all your prattle about science, US students are doing poorly in science. If it's so damn important, why haven't liberals (who control the education system) seen to it that we are second to none in science scores and knowledge? Hmmmm? There's your empiracal evidence. Faith-based policies were about bringing fairness to the expenditure of money, not to create faith-based organizations, which had already existed for over 100 years. They will keep on existing whether money comes from the government or not. Feeding and clothing the poor is inherently Christian, as it has been for thousands of years. Charity wasn't invented by atheists.

1 Corinthians 13:2": And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.
13": And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.

 

[American]

I really wouldn't put too much weight behind what somebody who claims to be a "Libertarian" thinks. It's a bastardized term approaching the status of "liberal"; it can mean just about anything at this point.

Libertarianism is an ideal place for one to be critical of everything, yet needing to defend just about nothing; a perfect safe-haven for cultural de-constructionists and political agitators.

If you don't understand what I mean, contrast how many "Libertarians" on this board rushed to defend Barack Obama regardless of the topic (taxes, spending, social programs, entitlements, etc...) compared to how many times you heard: "who is John Galt?" evoked...

I've been saying this for some time, centrists, moderates and libertarians are really liberals for the most part.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

And Sarah Palin.

oh look another sarah palin attack. :roll:


what is it about her religion you think is relevant here?

 

[RightOfCenter]

I've been saying this for some time, centrists, moderates and libertarians are really liberals for the most part.

Yes if all you care about is gays, abortion, and war.

 

[DarkWizard12]

Perhaps but you can't ignore that the strongholds of literal creationism are in areas of strong social conservatism. You don't find bastions of literal creationism in Seattle, San Fran or New York.

Umm...really? Are you so sure about that?

As I said, thats not important to the vast majority of us social conservatives. Sure, we do "LIKE" this stuff, make no mistake, but its not really important to the more "sane" crowd. Leave our church alone, protect life, and we will be happy campers. Getting rid of gay marriage doesn't hurt either, or at least let us vote on the issue(Some christians I know, though they abhor gay marriage, would have a hard time voting against gay marriage as well).

I hope I have made that clear. Some of these religious right that you make fun of may be more libertarian than you think.

And Sarah Palin.

*le Sighs*

So you disagree with the National Journal's argument then? After all, those in their list were those who were in the majority in 2002 and 2004.

Depends, do you agree with the National Journal that Obama is the most liberal senator in the US?

Either way, I'll get back to you on the article itself, I'm still researching its sources and all. the NJ has been wrong before.

His statement about marriage being solely one woman one man for 6,000 years is flat out wrong. And his claim that social cons never get what they want is wrong too as Sodomy laws were only recently struck down.

Umm, he didn't say that. He said specifically that it has been defined as one man and one woman for every successful civilization for that last 6000 years, he never said it didn't exist.

 

[DarkWizard12]

I really wouldn't put too much weight behind what somebody who claims to be a "Libertarian" thinks. It's a bastardized term approaching the status of "liberal"; it can mean just about anything at this point.

Libertarianism is an ideal place for one to be critical of everything, yet needing to defend just about nothing; a perfect safe-haven for cultural de-constructionists and political agitators.

If you don't understand what I mean, contrast how many "Libertarians" on this board rushed to defend Barack Obama regardless of the topic (taxes, spending, social programs, entitlements, etc...) compared to how many times you heard: "who is John Galt?" evoked...

OMG I've said that once and recently!

 

[Ikari]

I can mostly agree with what he has written there, though I do not think he goes fully into what social conservatism is really for. I think there is definite attacks on evolution being taught, and the gay marriage thing I can not agree with since the marriage contract is State issued. In the end if you line up total conservative (fiscal and social) with liberals; I'm more oft than not going to side with the conservative even on many social issues (prayer in school, I think there were huge misdeeds perpetuated on the side of the State on this one. I understand not forcing people to pray to a specific god, but you can't forbid people from praying to a god; not even in public school. It's a free country and should remain that way). Hell, even with abortion; I'm pretty well pro-life and definitely think that it's a State issue. I'm a little weary of some in the social conservatism block because I'm not such a fan of the fringe religious right. Though many people aren't in the radical wing of that division; but those whom are I think sometimes want to take things well too far.

Overall, not the worst article I've read on the American Thinker.

 

[DarkWizard12]

You know what I don't like? The constant stereotypes. I think everyone here knows I'm a pretty social conservative as well as conservative on many other issues. In fact, I've never considered myself an enemy of 'science' either. Evolution being taught in schools? Sure, why not? As long as I can still go to a christian school when I want to, believe in creationism if I want to, wth cares?

but I di gress.

Why is it that anyone who is against abortion is a fringe religious right? When it comes to social conservativism, thats the most important to me, yet it seems every time I get into that discussion, I am "implied" to be 'anti-choice' or 'religious right-wing nut'. Tell me, outside of actually DISCUSSING my own religion, when have I used the bible to formulate an opinion? How many times have I said all girls who have an abortion will go to hell? When have I said such-and-such is wrong because the bible said so? Yet, it always seems that I can't debate abortion without being called(or at least 'implied') a "religious-social-antichoice-nut!"

 

[Ikari]

Should I assume that's directed towards me as I mentioned the evolution thing? It's not always good to assume, especially on internet boards where things can be easily misinterpreted. I don't think that the whole of social conservatives are stereotyped. In fact my own post clearly states that the problem I have is with the radical wing of the movement, not the whole.

As for why things are assumed on your end. Well the best I can tell you as it relates to the abortion/evolution thing is look at the group that is the most vocal and most advertised and note that people like to assume things.

 

[DarkWizard12]

Should I assume that's directed towards me as I mentioned the evolution thing? It's not always good to assume, especially on internet boards where things can be easily misinterpreted. I don't think that the whole of social conservatives are stereotyped. In fact my own post clearly states that the problem I have is with the radical wing of the movement, not the whole.

As for why things are assumed on your end. Well the best I can tell you as it relates to the abortion/evolution thing is look at the group that is the most vocal and most advertised and note that people like to assume things.

nah, it wasn't directed towards you, it was supposed to be added to my other post bt, for some reason, I couldn't edit it.

I was stuck

 

[obvious Child]

Do YOU really believe that you have science 100% on your side, and that there is no science or scientists supporting the otherside?

In the field of evolution vs literal creationism without a doubt. Of course there are scientists supporting the other side. It's just they don't practice science. One of the honest ones, Dr. Kurt Wise, was more or less stated that he believes despite the overwhelming amount of evidence saying literal creationism is crap. Dawkins called him one of the few honest creationists.

I'm sure in your estimation that those that do, are fringe kooks and quacks, right? His point is well made that conservatism didn't fail, because it wasn't practiced. That's why Republicans lost in the last two recent elections.

Fiscal conservatism wasn't practiced. Social, that's an entirely different story.

Here's a perfect example of liberal hypocracy.

Lol. Where did I say that such a belief was wrong? I said it clearly in the context of making policy on such ideas. Would you be afraid if someone said that in power? I have yet to see a liberal Christians or secularist, or frankly anyone outside of the Biblical Religions make such statements about policy. Yet we do see high profile social cons make such comments. Policy without evidence, without reason and without study. Sounds like a bad idea.

For all your prattle about science, US students are doing poorly in science.

That's largely due to the circulum not favoring it. NCLB doesn't push science. It's quite frightening.

If it's so damn important, why haven't liberals (who control the education system) seen to it that we are second to none in science scores and knowledge? Hmmmm? There's your empiracal evidence.

Because it deals with funding. If you allocate resources and time to science, you take them away from the criteria which your school gets judged on. Hence it is stupid for schools and teachers to spend time and resources on something that may cause their school to get shut down. And last time I checked, liberals weren't in charge of federal funding for schools.

Faith-based policies were about bringing fairness to the expenditure of money

O'rly? And you base that on what?

At least you got out of your one liners.

 

[obvious Child]

Umm...really? Are you so sure about that?

Not like you find them in the South.

I hope I have made that clear. Some of these religious right that you make fun of may be more libertarian than you think.

Those are generally not the type that venture into politics. The whole notion of religion as a private matter is quickly dying in this country. Religion is often more a stance for self political gain. Tibetan monks we are not.

*le Sighs*

She said it, not me.

Depends, do you agree with the National Journal that Obama is the most liberal senator in the US?

Define liberal. Labeling many Republicans who help create the largest government, largest debt, largest deficit and one of the largest foreign interventionist policies in US history "Conservatives" is ridiculous.

Umm, he didn't say that. He said specifically that it has been defined as one man and one woman for every successful civilization for that last 6000 years, he never said it didn't exist.

Except that he's wrong again. It was not exclusive.

 

[Ethereal]

I really wouldn't put too much weight behind what somebody who claims to be a "Libertarian" thinks. It's a bastardized term approaching the status of "liberal"; it can mean just about anything at this point.

Libertarianism is an ideal place for one to be critical of everything, yet needing to defend just about nothing; a perfect safe-haven for cultural de-constructionists and political agitators.

If you don't understand what I mean, contrast how many "Libertarians" on this board rushed to defend Barack Obama regardless of the topic (taxes, spending, social programs, entitlements, etc...) compared to how many times you heard: "who is John Galt?" evoked...

This is unfair and untrue. Libertarianism is not hard to define, it only becomes difficult when people assume the label but neglect to understand the ideology, much like the neo-cons and conservativism. Libertarianism in a purely American context is the message of smaller central government, lower taxes, balanced budgets, free-markets, free-trade, strict Constitutionalism, and non-interventionist foreign policy; Ron Paul represented this message perfectly. Basically it is a combination of fiscal conservatism and liberal social policy. Also, I refuse to accept the seperation of abortion and gay marriage (least important issue ever) into conservative and liberal stances, as the words conservative and liberal do not really enter into it. It's traditionalists v progressives, not conservatives v liberals. Furthermore, the issue of Iraq is not a conservative or liberal issue; that is preposterous. Iraq is an issue of right v wrong. Some people think it was right and some people thought it was wrong, the division along ideological lines was merely a creation of partisan politics.

I've been saying this for some time, centrists, moderates and libertarians are really liberals for the most part.

That's because you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[DarkWizard12]

Not like you find them in the South.

really?

Those are generally not the type that venture into politics. The whole notion of religion as a private matter is quickly dying in this country. Religion is often more a stance for self political gain. Tibetan monks we are not.

She said it, not me.

Well, I'm not talking about Sarah Palin. She's not a factor here.

Define liberal. Labeling many Republicans who help create the largest government, largest debt, largest deficit and one of the largest foreign interventionist policies in US history "Conservatives" is ridiculous.

agreed.

Except that he's wrong again. It was not exclusive.

Kind of like your comment about ID not being found in seattle, san fran, etc. riiight. Grammatically, your wrong. He never ever said gay marriage did no exist 6,000 years ago. Get over it.

If your only issue you found with the article was with gay marriage, out of all the others, he did a pretty fine job defending social conservative. Hell, gay marriage isn't even much of an issue for most of us, so, this entire arguement is pretty much mute.

 

[RightOfCenter]

If your only issue you found with the article was with gay marriage, out of all the others, he did a pretty fine job defending social conservative. Hell, gay marriage isn't even much of an issue for most of us, so, this entire arguement is pretty much mute.

Did you not read what he put? He made two whole posts about what he disagreed with the article and you respond by quoting four sentences and declaring him refuted?

 

[DarkWizard12]

Did you not read what he put? He made two whole posts about what he disagreed with the article and you respond by quoting four sentences and declaring him refuted?

uh...do you not read? I reccommend you go the first page of the thread, and read from 1st post, to last. Okay? good.

 

[Tucker Case]

My problem with the article is that many "social conservatives" are all too often Fiscal liberals.

There are conservatives who are Religious as well as conservatives, and then there are the Social Conservatives. I think the article does a disservice to many religious conservatives and gives a pass to many Social Conservatives.

My issue is not with people who are religious conservatives, people who may want to see their local jurisdiction take certain steps regarding "morality-based" laws, such as abortion, gay marriage etc.

I'm fine with these people.

My issue is with social conservatives who are trying to make morality-based federal laws. Such as Constitutional bans on Gay marriage, abortion, etc.

These Liberal social conservatives are the people the GOP needs to purge. But there is no way that they should purge religious conservatives.

 

[cascadian]

ugh.. this is a downright intellectually dishonest article.

For an example by hyperbole, I suppose you could criticize the 13th amendment for violating state rights and not allowing us the right to own slaves. I don't care what side of the fence you are on, abortion is not a states rights issue. Even if you feel Roe vs Wade was in error, in the end your view of what constitutes a human being is what will determine whether a federal law/amendment would be necessary in lieu of Roe vs Wade.

"The religious right usually just wants to be left alone, either to home school, pray in public or not get their children vaccinated with who-knows-what."

Give me a friggin break. Religion has stood in the way of science via legislatures many times. Ever wonder why we had the Scopes trial? You can thank liberals for being able to actually teach science in school. Now that we've won that right, and religious conservatives are in the minority, it's easy to forget what they would do if they could.

I honestly don't see how a fiscal conservative social liberal can support public funding for "creation science". It's a flat out waste of tax money.

"even as an agnostic, something is creepy about a government that outlaws Nativity scenes at City Hall"

Hmmm... what government and law is he talking about here? I don't remember any laws against nativity scenes.

"That disallows even voluntary, student-led prayer at public school"
You can pray any time you want even at school and school events. Just don't use the publicly funded P.A. systems to do it. TYVM.

"but teaches children how to put on condoms."

Wait, this guy isn't a social conservative?

 

[DarkWizard12]

My issue is with social conservatives who are trying to make morality-based federal laws. Such as Constitutional bans on Gay marriage, abortion, etc.

Blame the liberals on this issue! The religious right would not be having such an national movement to change federal laws if it wasn't for the fact the ACLU had to whine to the supreme court to make it federal. Most social conservatives would be fine with gay marriage and abortion if they were allowed to vote on it per state/local district.
We also need to remember, social conservatives are voting republican in large numbers for only one reason: Abortion, and to a lesser extent, gay marriage. Thats really it. If the democrats concede at least the abortion issue, the social conservatives will be split. The republicans knew this and is why they were able to get as far as they did in the first place.

 

[Tucker Case]

Blame the liberals on this issue! The religious right would not be having such an national movement to change federal laws if it wasn't for the fact the ACLU had to whine to the supreme court to make it federal. Most social conservatives would be fine with gay marriage and abortion if they were allowed to vote on it per state/local district.

I did blame the liberals. The socially conservative ones who pretend to be conservatives.

If they were conservatives, they wouldn't be playing the "victim" card and they would simply argue to return the rights back to the states etc. Instead, they play the victim card and go with the "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em" line of Bull****.

the fact that the "Liberals started it" is not an excuse for ****ty behavior.