The Candidates
Featured Archives
Soren Dayton links to this Economist post that I think encapsulates the rationale behind the third party effort being discussed by prominent social conservatives:
…at this point it looks like a Democrat, Hillary or otherwise, is going to win this election regardless. If Christian conservatives can argue that by withholding their support they caused the GOP to lose, they will enjoy more leverage in future, more winnable elections.
I think that that’s exactly the train of thought here. It’s also a testament not only to how much the social conservative influence over the party has waned that Rudy Giuliani is still the front runner despite more “acceptable” conservatives in the race, but also the fact that SoCons would be willing to deliberately cost the party the election merely to reassert their dominance.
While it’s possible that this could be the outcome, there is an equal, if not more, possibility that non-social conservatives become so upset that Rudy was basically the victim of fratricide that there’s a rebellion against social conservatives immediately following the election.
Another problem, potentially even more disastrous, is what happens if SoCons do organize a third party effort against Rudy and he manages to still win the election. Much like how Joe Lieberman was freed from the normal constraints on Senate Democrats (he votes with Republicans on almost all matters related to the GWOT) after fending off Ned Lamont and the netroots, it’s highly likely that Rudy wouldn’t go out of his way to advocate for SoCon policies. Such a scenario would essentially render their movement impotent.
UPDATE: Rudy responds:
“I’m working on one party right now, the Republican Party,” he said after visiting patrons at Dino’s Seaville Diner. “This is a long primary, and once there are nominees on either side, we’ll figure that out.”
October 1st, 2007 at 7:31 pm
You’ve hit on exactly why this is a load of bullcrap LJ.
This is a lot of sound and fury that is meant to try to bring Rudy down now. It will end the second Rudy wins the nomination. There is no way that folks like Dobson and Perkins risk throwing everything away. Especially when Rudy has made an offer of de facto fealty with specific mentions of SC appointments in the mold of Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Scalia.
October 1st, 2007 at 7:33 pm
Also, they’ve screwed themselves away from a place at the table with Thompson too. They are running out of ultimatums to give.
October 1st, 2007 at 7:35 pm
Kudos to Gary Bauer for speaking out against them.
The day Richard Viguerie runs the Republican party will be the day I drop the R. Reagan wasn’t conservative enough for Viguerie until after the 1980 primaries. Now, Viguerie acts as though he and Reagan were lifelong brothers in faith.
October 1st, 2007 at 7:36 pm
BTW;
Kudos to Thompson for brushing off Dobson’s comments and not pandering to him.
October 1st, 2007 at 7:41 pm
I second #1.
And — Power Rankings need changed! Keyes needs added at #10; Gingrich needs removed.
October 1st, 2007 at 7:49 pm
Giuliani is not a republican – he just knows he can’t beat Hillary in a Dem primary. He is as liberal as the dem candidates. What exactly makes him a republican?
October 1st, 2007 at 7:49 pm
By the way Dobson is backtracking now over the whole Thrid Party thing.
October 1st, 2007 at 7:51 pm
I don’t know what the so-cons are worried about,
If they can just weed down their many candidates to one and combine support around him, they will sizzle Giuliani. I think that the so-cons will back the person closest to beating Rudy after the first few contests – which will probably be Romney. Thompson could surprise me with an amazing string of debates and campaigning, but I don’t think he can keep the status quo and win, which is very good news. I will accept a super-Fred for a president, but I won’t stomach a lazy Fred.
I really think that Giuliani is overrated at this point. He doesn’t have the fundraising, straw polls, and early state polling to support his supposed “threat to the socons”. Sorry to you Rudy supporters out there. Too many skeletons in the closet and too many socons that are voting for him without knowlege of his stances on issues. Unfortunately since he is running for president, he will probably lose his hero status with a lot of Americans since they will probably hear more of the whole story – have you read the anti stuff on Giuliani? The dems would have a party on us in a general with this guy!
Giuliani’s place in America is either Secretary of defense or mayor of New York. He probably should have left the presidency alone, but that’s just me. I guess the media can shred him if they want.
Don’t get me wrong, I think Giuliani is competent above everyone in the feild on both sides except maybe Romney, but man, positions on things matter quite a bit. Abortion, cross-dressing, gun control, lawsuits, the confusing FDNY story on the guy, and publicized affairs among other things will wound Giuliani for good.
Once again, what are so-cons worried about? If they play it right…nothing. If they are schitzophrenic voters….a lot.
October 1st, 2007 at 7:59 pm
It’s interesting interview with Judge Napolitano:
http://www.thedavidallenshow.com/website/podcasts/Entries/2007/9/20_Judge_Andrew_Napolitano_-_%22Nation_of_Sheep%22_and_Ron_Paul_for_President.html
October 1st, 2007 at 8:03 pm
BC,
Guiliani is Republican in many respects, but in the social aspect of things, he is shakey. To defend Giuliani a little bit, he is not attacking social conservative principles, he just doesn’t care about them much, and doesn’t care to protect them too much.
October 1st, 2007 at 8:07 pm
Mirek,
Yea, we know he’s a Paul supporter. Most of us like Paul on a lot of issues as well.
Here’s a link to the Weekly Standard’s (my new second favorite blog) take on this same article on Rudy:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/CampaignStandard/
October 1st, 2007 at 8:13 pm
I’m sorry, but I think that Ron Paul makes our party look bad. He comes off as an angry old man that thinks America is stupid. I don’t like that.
October 1st, 2007 at 8:23 pm
A SoCon third-party candidate would basically be the right-wing version of Nader 2000. Nader, as you’ll recall, was so fed up with the rightward shift of the party under Bill Clinton that he was willing to torpedo Clinton’s heir’s candidacy in order to ensure that progressives regained influence in the Democratic Party. And now, eight years and two GOP terms later, the Democratic Party is about to nominate Bill Clinton’s wife by acclamation. Yep, that whole Nader run sure was worth it.
If SoCons torpedo Rudy’s candidacy with a third-party run, they’re basically pulling a Nader — setting their own causes back while doing nothing to gain greater longterm pull on the GOP. In fact, if SoCons nix Rudy in the general, they will basically guarantee a Hillary presidency for two terms, two young, liberal judges replacing Stevens and Ginsberg, and a subsequent GOP president just as divorced from SoCons as Rudy. Here’s why.
If Rudy loses the Electoral College to Hillary due to a few votes in Ohio and Missouri with a third-party SoCon candidate in the race, the conventional wisdom will immediately become that Rudy lost the election because of cultural conservatives. This will probably give SoCons the ability to nominate the candidate they really want in 2012, just as Democratic pacifists basically got to pick their party’s nominee in 1972 after ensuring Humphrey’s defeat in 1968. But just as George McGovern couldn’t win a national election, even against the creepy, oddly human Dick Nixon, neither can a tanned, rested, and ready Rick Santorum beat the equally creepy Hillary Clinton. As such, Hillary’s second election becomes a landslide, and Mrs. Clinton gets eight years of judicial appointments, the thing that SoCons care most about.
By the time 2016 rolls around, the SoCons’ influence will once again have waned as anxious Republicans look for an electable nominee. This means that a relatively moderate candidate will get the nod and possibly win the presidency. SoCons will have done nothing with their 2008 protest candidate other than install a phalanx of young liberals on the nation’s federal courts to act as a firewall against the overturn of Roe v. Wade. Way to go.
October 1st, 2007 at 8:30 pm
“but also the fact that SoCons would be willing to deliberately cost the party the election merely to reassert their dominance.”
I think that is reading a little much into it. These people believe that social conservative issues are very important. They want to see, at all costs, including losing an election, for the long term hopes of maintaining influence on these issues.
I think the want to stay in power over principle is what got our power in trouble in 06 in the first place. I don’t see anything wrong with people sitting it out to prove to their party what they think is important and if they don’t follow it, they will not support it.
If we had more of this going on, we may not be in as bad of shape today as we are.
Just because you don’t agree with them, doesn’t mean you have to infer that they are betraying someone or the party. the party is made up of its supporters. if the party doesn’t agree with them, they are free to leave it or try and influence it. There is no need to betray their principles just to stay in power.
October 1st, 2007 at 8:52 pm
First of all, its awfully hard to ask for the support of a group of people after essentially calling them worthless and giving them the finger – which is basically what the nomiation of pro-abortion Giuliani (without certain promises that he has not made) – would be doing.
I very much want a Republican in the White House in 2008 – but not a candidate who comes with a sharp left turn. I am a Conservative first, and a Republican second. I cannot support an anti-war candidate, a pro-tax president, or a pro-abortion candidate.
–
If Giuliani becomes the nominee, and that is a big “IF”, here are the choices the I am faced with:
1) Allow Clinton to Win – not a good option, but it does, at the very least, leave open the possibility of running a real Conservative in 2012. It could set the movement back a few years, but it would at least stop the GOP from being taken over by libertarian moderates.
2) Support Giuliani – At least on social issues, this option is not much better. Not only has Giuliani refused to say he will govern as a strictly pro-life President, but his idea of “strict constitutionalism” includes a Constitutional right to an abortion. If Giuliani runs, and wins, the GOP is stuck with him for eight years – with no gaurentee that Social Conservatives would retain their position in the party, and no promise that a pro-life president would immediately follow Giuliani.
Are you honestly going to tell me, that, at least on Social issues, a Giuliani v. Clinton matchup would not force SCs to choose between the “lesser of two evils?”
October 1st, 2007 at 8:53 pm
Right on ,DaveG.
I consider myself a SoCon, but am supporting Rudy(I will back our nominee ,whoever it turns out to be).If you read his web site and fairly evaluate his positions, he is a social moderate, not liberal,and a strong foreign policy and economic Conservative.
Only the Supreme Court and lower courts can prevent the nation from falling off the left cliff.Rudy has promised to appoint strict constructionists while every Democrat will stack all the courts with ACLU liberals. If you doubt Rudy, LOOK WHO IS ON HIS JUDICIAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE. It is lead by Ted Olson and a host of solid conservative lawyers and judges.
I am disappointed that certain So Con leaders would rather sacrifice our nation to Hillary Clinton because Rudy won’t kiss their ring on every social issue, even though he has promised not to liberalize any laws on guns, gays,or abortion.
It seems those who want to run a third party against Rudy must have a death wish for their cause and for the future of this nation.
October 1st, 2007 at 8:58 pm
Well, I know Rudy says that but his record suggest otherwise. So it could give some social conservatives issue to be hesitant.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0207/2957.html
A Politico review of the 75 judges Giuliani appointed to three of New York state’s lower courts found that Democrats outnumbered Republicans by more than 8 to 1. One of his appointments was an officer of the International Association of Lesbian and Gay Judges. Another ruled that the state law banning liquor sales on Sundays was unconstitutional because it was insufficiently secular. A third, an abortion-rights supporter, later made it to the federal bench in part because New York Sen. Charles E. Schumer, a liberal Democrat, said he liked her ideology.
Cumulatively, Giuilani’s record was enough to win applause from people like Kelli Conlin, the head of NARAL Pro-Choice New York, the state’s leading abortion-rights group. “They were decent, moderate people,” she said.
Not exactly strong on this point. Most would say this is a flip flop, but i am okay with a pledge. I think Giuliani is indeed strong on other issues and that is why, even though I am a socialy conservative, I would vote for him. I would probably not vote however for him if he had not made this pledge.
October 1st, 2007 at 9:03 pm
Let me ask you people a question – all of you “social conservatives” who say you will vote for Rudy:
Lets say Rudy wins the nomination, then the Presidency, serves two terms, and ends up appointing two moderate justices – and lets say that that does not change the shape of the Court. How can you be so sure that, after eight years of a liberal/moderate Republican, the Social Conservative movement would still have any power?
October 1st, 2007 at 9:06 pm
ACT BLOG,
You won’t get a Republican president in 2012 or mabey for the next 20 years because a Democrat Congress and President will find a way to allow all the illegals a way to become citizens( as well as allow more in) and most will register as Dems.
Putting the middle class on entitlements will also make them more dependant on government and thus the Democrats to keep the checks coming.
Eight years of Hillary will turn out to be a disaster Republicans my not recover from for a generation.
October 1st, 2007 at 9:10 pm
You did not answer my question. What assurances (spl?) can you give that Social Conservatives would still hold any real position in the party after eight years of Giuliani?
October 1st, 2007 at 9:10 pm
” the fact that SoCons would be willing to deliberately cost the party the election merely to reassert their dominance.”
You know, I don’t vote Republican because they have an “R” after their name, or because they are represented by an elephant, or because my daddy voted Republican. I vote Republican because they (sometimes) stand for the right to life and traditional values. When they cease to do that, so does my reason for voting for them.
I think the neocons are just ticked that the SoCons may not fall in line like they always have in the past; that they won’t keep running after Lucy’s football like Charlie Brown.
The social conservatives deliver the votes, but it’s Wall Street that gets all the action.
If Rudy gets the nomination, I don’t give a damn if he loses all 50 states to Al Sharpton because of a third party revolt. If Christians continue to let the Republican party jerk them around and take their votes for granted (and for what??? David Souter and empty promises????) then guess what? The Republican party is gonna’ keep jerking them around and taking their votes for granted.
I’m tired of Christians being treated like the Republican Party’s whore, and that’s exactly what a lot of the people who say we HAVE to vote for Rudy- “for the good of the party”- want us to be.
It’s not a matter of “dominance,” it’s a matter of principle.
October 1st, 2007 at 9:12 pm
Kevin,
“Especially when Rudy has made an offer of de facto fealty with specific mentions of SC appointments in the mold of Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Scalia.”
And the opportunistic promise of a politician is all you really need?
October 1st, 2007 at 9:13 pm
Act Blog ,
What power will Social Conservatives have when the Dems pack the courts with ACLU liberals who will serve for life.
So even if we do elect another Conservative Pres or Congress, the liberal courts will overrule any attempt to roll back liberal social policies.
With them it is not a question of mabey things won’t change ,like you have with Rudy, it is a certainty they won’t if the Dems control the whole Government!
October 1st, 2007 at 9:18 pm
My fear is, that while Clinton could set the Social Conservative movement back a few years (or even a couple decades), Rudy could forever move the party to the left – eliminating the Social Conservative movement from the stage completely.
October 1st, 2007 at 9:19 pm
ACT Blog — “Lets say Rudy wins the nomination, then the Presidency, serves two terms, and ends up appointing two moderate justices – and lets say that that does not change the shape of the Court. How can you be so sure that, after eight years of a liberal/moderate Republican, the Social Conservative movement would still have any power?”
Um…a little problem with your analysis:
What about Hillary appointing two liberal justices? Would you rather have two liberal justices than two moderate ones?
(Assuming Rudy breaks his promise, that is.)
No more mincing words: Are you a liar or just an idiot? You keep calling Rudy a “liberal” and refuse to note exactly what constitutes him as a “liberal.” I’ve literally been asking you this for months. Surely liberals best belong in the Democratic Party, right? So your next assignment is to tell me why a no-surrender, crime-busting free marketeer belongs in the party of Dennis Kucinich and Ted Kennedy.
Yep, Rudy is liberal on guns and abortion and a moderate on gay rights. By your standards — two strikes and you’re out — Hillary Clinton should be in the Republican Party because she voted for the War in Iraq and refuses to meet with enemy foreign leaders right away. Rudy’s a social moderate. Hillary’s taken a moderate stance on defense.
If you can’t tolerate a social moderate, please say so in those terms, but please don’t lie and call Rudy a liberal when all objective evidence says he’s not.
Thanks!
October 1st, 2007 at 9:20 pm
Bottom line…
If we keep rewarding the Republican party with our vote for giving us candidates like Guiliani, then they’re gonna’ keep giving us candidates like Guiliani (it let’s them “capture the middle” dontcha’ know).
Would anyone here expect blacks to rally behind segregationist Democrats?
October 1st, 2007 at 9:22 pm
“So your next assignment is to tell me why a no-surrender, crime-busting free marketeer belongs in the party of Dennis Kucinich and Ted Kennedy.”
He supports the “right” of mothers to kill their children.
And thinks we should all pay for it.
October 1st, 2007 at 9:22 pm
Another thing, you so-con fanatics:
You’re so concerned about being kicked out of the party, even giving us libertarian-leaners threats: “you can’t win without us!” and so on.
You people can’t win without the libertarian-leaners, either! If you want to nominate some hack like Rick Santorum or Sam Brownback in 2012 after your dream candidate Romney loses, do you seriously think people like myself and MetroRepublican are going to line up to vote for him!?
WE CAN’T WIN WITH MR. CONSERVATIVE. We have to moderate our positions on some of the issues to appeal to the broader electorate this time. Is it going to be the section of the GOP that’s against socialized medicine, against surrender, or against civil unions? No one reasonable can say that it’s more important to ban civil unions than to win in Iraq. If anyone believes that it is, then no, I DON’T want you in this party. And I think that 90% of the party would agree. You’re easily replaceable.
October 1st, 2007 at 9:23 pm
…….oh yeah, and as mayor, he was quite enamored with the gay, lesbian, bi, tranny movement.
October 1st, 2007 at 9:24 pm
““So your next assignment is to tell me why a no-surrender, crime-busting free marketeer belongs in the party of Dennis Kucinich and Ted Kennedy.â€
He supports the “right†of mothers to kill their children.
And thinks we should all pay for it.”
SO CALL HIM A SOCIAL MODERATE. But he is NOT a “LIBERAL.” Do I go around calling Mike Huckabee a “liberal” because he raised taxes!? No! I call him an “ECONOMIC MODERATE.”
October 1st, 2007 at 9:24 pm
“do you seriously think people like myself and MetroRepublican are going to line up to vote for him!?”
That’s up to you, but I wouldn’t DARE ask you to sacrifice principle for the sake of the party!
October 1st, 2007 at 9:24 pm
MWS — “…….oh yeah, and as mayor, he was quite enamored with the gay, lesbian, bi, tranny movement.”
Oh dear, wouldn’t want to offend the Alan Keyes kick-your-gay-daughter-out-of-your-house set, now would we?
October 1st, 2007 at 9:25 pm
“What about Hillary appointing two liberal justices? Would you rather have two liberal justices than two moderate ones?
(Assuming Rudy breaks his promise, that is.)”
What promise? Rudy (who believes in a Constitutional right to an abortion) could easily appoint a pro-abortion justice and still call them a “strict constitutionalist”. Keep in mind, Rudy has not promised to govern as a pro-life leader.
–
Rudy is a social liberal, ok, fine, I can try and stick with that term. HOWEVER – that still means that he gets a failing grade on one of three sets of issues – just like Brownback, or Paul.
I want a social, fiscal, and foreign policy Conservative – Rudy does not meet all three requirements.
October 1st, 2007 at 9:26 pm
MWS — “That’s up to you, but I wouldn’t DARE ask you to sacrifice principle for the sake of the party!”
Then how about doing it for the sake of principle? It’s better to get 80% of what you want than 0% of what you want.
Or am I wrong?
Is it better to get Hillary and Ruth Bader Ginsburg redux than Rudy Giuliani and, say, Miguel Estrada?
October 1st, 2007 at 9:27 pm
Libertarian,
So in your world there is no stance one can take on this issue other than marching in gay parades on the one hand or disowning gay children on the other?
Boy, and people accuse us of seeing everything in black and white!
October 1st, 2007 at 9:28 pm
ACT Blog — “I want a social, fiscal, and foreign policy Conservative – Rudy does not meet all three requirements.”
I don’t even see those three beliefs together as having a coherent philosophy behind them — proactive government, reactive government, and anti-government beliefs all mixed in — but that’s beyond the point –
The point is: When you say that you want those things in a candidate, what you really mean is that you want President Clinton II. Because Romney ain’t gonna win unless he moderates his positions and runs to the left in the general election (not that he’s not an expert at changing his positions).
October 1st, 2007 at 9:29 pm
MWS — “Libertarian — So in your world there is no stance one can take on this issue other than marching in gay parades on the one hand or disowning gay children on the other? Boy, and people accuse us of seeing everything in black and white!”
Unless you are openly homophobic, then I can’t see why Rudy being gay-friendly would be a liability.
October 1st, 2007 at 9:29 pm
Libertarian,
“It’s better to get 80% of what you want than 0% of what you want.”
Indeed, any fool knows that, but I reject your premise. If you think Rudy is going to give SoCons “80%” then I know of a great money-making bridge that just came on the market. I could get you a GREAT deal!
October 1st, 2007 at 9:29 pm
MWS,
So Cons will be relegated to lower than dirt if they are cause of the GOP loosing this election.
You really think the GOP will come begging on their knees to get us back and be so sorry for neglecting our issues.
Your living in fantasy land!
It is not up to the GOP to be the main advocate for our causes,IT IS THE CHURCH’S RESPONSIBILITY. If we are not being listened to, it is our falt for not more effectively reaching people with the Gospel.
Latest surveys by Christian pollers show ONLY 6% of the 16-29 year olds share our values,ONLY SIX PERCENT!
WE need to focus less on changing party registration and more ON CHANGING HEARTS!
October 1st, 2007 at 9:30 pm
TLG, do you honestly believe that we are in the gutter because we are social Conservatives? If you do, you are a fool.
Lets think for a minute, why were we so unpopular in 2006? I can think of a few reasons:
corruption
Iraq
high gas prices
high health care costs
Now, would you please point to one of those issues, or list your own, as to why Social Conservatism is what is really hurting us?
The fact is, if the GOP wanted to win, it would be much better advised to drop military or fiscal conservatism than social conservatism.
October 1st, 2007 at 9:30 pm
Libertarian,
If taxpayer funded abortion makes one a social moderate, what would one have to support to qualify as a “liberal” in your view?
October 1st, 2007 at 9:31 pm
MWS — “Indeed, any fool knows that, but I reject your premise. If you think Rudy is going to give SoCons “80%†then I know of a great money-making bridge that just came on the market. I could get you a GREAT deal!”
Huh? Don’t you also want victory in Iraq and free market health care..? I didn’t say that so-cons would get 80% of what they want — although they may, if Rudy appoints people like Estrada — but don’t you guys want a three-pronged conservative? Don’t you want victory in Iraq and free markets, too? With Hillary, you don’t get that, either!
October 1st, 2007 at 9:31 pm
For me, as a social conservative, it’s not just him being pro-choice that makes me unable to vote for him. The things that he did to second wife, Donna Hanover and his children is absolutely inexcusable and disgusting! It shows that he is no gentleman and has no honor! He doesn’t deserve the presidency! When more people learn about the how he publicly shamed his family, his chances as the Republican nominee will be destroyed. Mark my word, it will all come out. 527 groups will go after him eventually, so unlike Dobson and the rest, I’m not the least bit worried about Rudy.
October 1st, 2007 at 9:32 pm
“Latest surveys by Christian pollers show ONLY 6% of the 16-29 year olds share our values,ONLY SIX PERCENT!
WE need to focus less on changing party registration and more ON CHANGING HEARTS!”
Only six percent of 16-29 year old Christians believe that abortion is wrong?
October 1st, 2007 at 9:33 pm
“but don’t you guys want a three-pronged conservative?”
certainly, its the people like Giuliani and yourself who seem to reject the idea.
October 1st, 2007 at 9:33 pm
MWS — “Libertarian, If taxpayer funded abortion makes one a social moderate, what would one have to support to qualify as a “liberal†in your view?”
He’s a liberal on the issue of abortion. Abortion is just one of many social issues. Let’s not forget that he used the power of the state to drive ‘dirty’ stores out of tourist areas (something I disagree with), and he cut off funding to the museum featuring the “artwork” of Piss Christ. The judges he appoints will, by all indications, be like Estrada and Olson. What’s the problem? His personal support of abortion? As long as he appoints good justices, what’s your beef?
October 1st, 2007 at 9:34 pm
“Is it better to get Hillary and Ruth Bader Ginsburg redux than Rudy Giuliani and, say, Miguel Estrada?”
That’s easy. Hillary and Ginsburg. In both scenarios, the wanton murder of children continues unabated, but in the former scenario, pro-lifers might still have a party to stand with.
October 1st, 2007 at 9:35 pm
I don’t care if withholding my vote from an unacceptable candidate hurts the social conservative ’cause’.
I’m accountable for my vote and when I die I don’t want to explain why I voted for a man who supports the killing of prenatal human beings.
The absolute principle of supporting life matters more than anything else.
It’s a shame that some deranged individuals started pushing a candidate who principled pro-lifers can not morally vote for.
October 1st, 2007 at 9:35 pm
ACT Blog –
“Lets think for a minute, why were we so unpopular in 2006? I can think of a few reasons:
corruption
Iraq
high gas prices
high health care costs”
We all agree on Iraq and we all agree on health care.
Losing on gas prices is due to the stupidity of the American people — they don’t understand anything at all about economics.
Corruption was media hype. Why kick out JD Hayworth for what Mark Foley did?
This is a matter of priorities. Stopping civil unions isn’t quite as pressing as winning in Iraq decisively.
October 1st, 2007 at 9:37 pm
“For me, as a social conservative, it’s not just him being pro-choice that makes me unable to vote for him. The things that he did to second wife, Donna Hanover and his children is absolutely inexcusable and disgusting! It shows that he is no gentleman and has no honor! He doesn’t deserve the presidency! When more people learn about the how he publicly shamed his family, his chances as the Republican nominee will be destroyed. Mark my word, it will all come out. 527 groups will go after him eventually, so unlike Dobson and the rest, I’m not the least bit worried about Rudy.”
There’s a lot of misconceptions about what happened with Hanover, and I count on Rudy to address them when they come up. He won’t make the same lame mistake John Kerry made in 2004: ignoring problems with his candidacy. Rudy’s a fighter.
October 1st, 2007 at 9:38 pm
Rudy is a coward.
October 1st, 2007 at 9:39 pm
“I’m accountable for my vote and when I die I don’t want to explain why I voted for a man who supports the killing of prenatal human beings.”
This, ladies and gentlemen, is why religion is not a “private matter” and is not just some “individual choice.” When people like econ grad stud say that they won’t vote for a good candidate because he thinks that a supernatural being is going to judge him for it, it is no longer his problem. It’s ThatLibertarianGuy’s. It’s Awakened’s. It’s MetroRepublican’s. It’s Kavon W. Nikrad’s. It’s everyone’s problem when we can’t convince people to vote for good candidates because of some mythological beliefs they hold onto.
October 1st, 2007 at 9:39 pm
This post by LJ is ridiculous. A third-party effort would free Rudy to be the social sonservative that he really is?
http://www.newyorkforhuckabee.blogspot.com
October 1st, 2007 at 9:39 pm
Actually for all of the exaggeration and bluster about this supposed dissatisfaction of the Values voters with the 2008 field they have what I believe to be a very strong stable to choose from.
From a Values voter perspective I believe that each top tier candidate brings a very positive advocacy for their issues:
Mayor Giuliani is a devout Catholic who once considered entering the priesthood. He abhors abortion and has said repeatedly that he will appoint strict constructionist judges. I believe that values voters realize that changing the culture in the Middle East is as important as fighting the culture wars here at home and Giuliani has been very firm in his determination to go on the offense against terrorism and enemy nation states and spread freedom and liberty. He will get a lot of Catholic support.
Governor Romney is a very religious man who once served as a missionary to the world’s underprivileged. Romney would likely be able to unify many strands of Christianity including Evangelical support and LDS support for a broad global humanitarian effort. Romney would very likely be able to affect change in the culture domestically while appealing to a wide demographic including evangelicals and business.
Fred Thompson is a thoughtful and scholarly leader with a traditional United Church of Christ upbringing who will be an attractive candidate to Southern Evangelicals.
McCain is a Baptist and will likely draw much support from them. His firm stance on the surge and his promised pursuit and continuation of the War on Terror and the War in Iraq could strengthen his poll numbers among religious voters, though his recent comments suggesting that he does not need to be baptized may anger some Evangelicals.
Governor Huckabee has all sorts of religious bona-fides and may prove to be their go-to-guy down the road.
October 1st, 2007 at 9:40 pm
MWS — “That’s easy. Hillary and Ginsburg. In both scenarios, the wanton murder of children continues unabated, but in the former scenario, pro-lifers might still have a party to stand with.”
Huh? Estrada is a conservative dream justice. What are you talking about?
Actually, no matter what, abortion continues — it just goes back to the states — but that’s a separate matter…
October 1st, 2007 at 9:40 pm
Tenn,
“It is not up to the GOP to be the main advocate for our causes,IT IS THE CHURCH’S RESPONSIBILITY.”
You are absolutely right. At the same time, if the GOP does not reflect our values, want’s the point? I don’t know if a conservative revolt will make the Republican party pay attention, but I can apply the ‘definition of insanity’ to elections.
October 1st, 2007 at 9:40 pm
TLG, we are not simply talking about four or eight years of a pro-abortion President, we are talking about what could be a major leftward shift in the GOP that would eliminate the social conservative movement for a very long time – if not for good.
Can you tell me that you are 100% certain that pro-lifers and their associates would still have a position in the party after eight years of Giuliani?
October 1st, 2007 at 9:41 pm
JA Pruce – “Mayor Giuliani is a devout Catholic who once considered entering the priesthood. He abhors abortion and has said repeatedly that he will appoint strict constructionist judges. I believe that values voters realize that changing the culture in the Middle East is as important as fighting the culture wars here at home and Giuliani has been very firm in his determination to go on the offense against terrorism and enemy nation states and spread freedom and liberty. He will get a lot of Catholic support.”
And I think most people will accept that. Fundamentalist so-cons that you’ll see on this site won’t. But Rudy doesn’t need their support to win. For every fundie so-con that he loses, he’ll pick up two mainstream independents that wouldn’t support a man like, say, Romney, who is completely gung-ho on the social issues lately.
October 1st, 2007 at 9:44 pm
ACT Blog — “TLG, we are not simply talking about four or eight years of a pro-abortion President, we are talking about what could be a major leftward shift in the GOP that would eliminate the social conservative movement for a very long time – if not for good.
Can you tell me that you are 100% certain that pro-lifers and their associates would still have a position in the party after eight years of Giuliani?”
Yes, I can tell you that I am 100% certain. A movement just doesn’t die after eight years. Giuliani is just one of hundreds of elected Republicans. The pro-life movement will still hold some sway over Giuliani as President and he’s not going to want to go out of his way to piss it off. Additionally, the vast majority of GOP Senators and Congressman will still be pro-life. Giuliani is just one man. When he appoints justices to your satisfaction, you’ll be rather embarrassed looking back on all of this nonsense. Social conservatism will have a home in the GOP for a long, long time to come. That’s not something I like, but it is something that’s, well, true.
October 1st, 2007 at 9:44 pm
*Oh, come on guys, we can and we SHOULD abandon the abortion issue when it becomes burdensome. After all, how important is it to defend a person’s right to life anyway?
Just as long as we start a few more wars, then everybody will be happy!*
http://www.newyorkforhuckabee.blogspot.com
October 1st, 2007 at 9:45 pm
TLG – now, I know you don’t believe in God, but from the view of final judgement, while I am not sure that God will look at every single action we ever made – so much as he will look at our life in general, I can understand the belief that God would question voting decisions.
–
“McCain is a Baptist”
Actually, he has never been baptized into the Baptist church.
–
“Actually, no matter what, abortion continues — it just goes back to the states — but that’s a separate matter…”
Yes it is, but Roe is the big first step.
October 1st, 2007 at 9:46 pm
Libertarian,
Rudy ain’t appointing a pro-life justice. If he says he will appoint “strict constructionists,” then I must assume that he fancies himself a “strict constructionist,” otherwise, why pledge to appoint people who DON’T share your philosophy.
That means, for Rudy, there is nothing incompatible with upholding Roe and being a “strict constructionist.”
Ergo, his already meaningless ‘pledge’ is rendered even MORE meaningless- if that’s possible.
October 1st, 2007 at 9:47 pm
ThatLibertarianGuy,
Why vote for someone like Rudy who is “functionally” pro-life when we have plenty of choices in the Republican primaries to vote for someone who is ACTUALLY pro-life like Mike Huckabee?
October 1st, 2007 at 9:48 pm
ACT Blog — “Yes it is, but Roe is the big first step.”
South freaking Dakota wouldn’t ban abortions. No state will ban abortions. Just get over it. And the country will only become MORE socially liberal with time. THE BATTLE IS OVER. YOU HAVE LOST.
“TLG – now, I know you don’t believe in God, but from the view of final judgement, while I am not sure that God will look at every single action we ever made – so much as he will look at our life in general, I can understand the belief that God would question voting decisions.”
egs thinks he will go to Hell if he votes for Rudy. Do you understand how horrifying that is to me? That this country just might miss out on an amazing President due to people like him being unable to get past superstition?
Peter — “*Oh, come on guys, we can and we SHOULD abandon the abortion issue when it becomes burdensome. After all, how important is it to defend a person’s right to life anyway?
Just as long as we start a few more wars, then everybody will be happy!*”
Now, you do sound like a Huckabee guy! Or maybe a Ron Paul supporter.
October 1st, 2007 at 9:48 pm
Why wait till the general to pick the “lesser of two evils” when we can choose someone in the primaries who is actually a morally straightforward candidate?
October 1st, 2007 at 9:49 pm
“Yes, I can tell you that I am 100% certain. A movement just doesn’t die after eight years. Giuliani is just one of hundreds of elected Republicans. The pro-life movement will still hold some sway over Giuliani as President and he’s not going to want to go out of his way to piss it off. Additionally, the vast majority of GOP Senators and Congressman will still be pro-life. Giuliani is just one man. When he appoints justices to your satisfaction, you’ll be rather embarrassed looking back on all of this nonsense. Social conservatism will have a home in the GOP for a long, long time to come. That’s not something I like, but it is something that’s, well, true.”
Here is my problem, if Giuliani runs, and wins largely because of appeal to moderates, that could cause future GOP Prez. candidates to take the same route. And what good does it do to have a pro-life congress if there is no one to sign the legislation once it gets to the oval?
October 1st, 2007 at 9:49 pm
MWS — “Rudy ain’t appointing a pro-life justice. If he says he will appoint “strict constructionists,†then I must assume that he fancies himself a “strict constructionist,†otherwise, why pledge to appoint people who DON’T share your philosophy.”
Rudy doesn’t give two s*%ts about Roe. He’s giving you what you want so he can deal with more important issues. Don’t you get that? He’ll appease the so-cons if you’ll leave him alone and give him your vote. He doesn’t care about social issues. He wants to deal with the economy and the War on Terror — especially the War on Terror.
October 1st, 2007 at 9:50 pm
Who is the Socon candidate anyway? It doesn’t appear that the Socon even has a candidate so what is the discussion about? It would be different if the Socon had a candidate who could reasonably win the election. Instead, you have Romney who is a pretender and does not even past muster as a Mormon and Thompson who had a lackluster Senate stint and who is a moderdate Republican who has been pro-choice.
October 1st, 2007 at 9:50 pm
I thought Libertarians cared about “freedom.”
ThatLibertarianGuy,
Is the freedom to be alive not important enough for you to fight for?
I thought Libertarians cared about “freedom.”
October 1st, 2007 at 9:50 pm
“I believe that values voters realize that changing the culture in the Middle East is as important as…”
WOW!!!!!! Nothing like a little Imperial Hubris!!! Woodrow Wilson would even blanch at THAT statement.
Whatever happened to conservatism when “conservatives” thiink we can treat entire civilizations like puddy in our hands? You know, when the libs do that here at home, we call it “social engineering” and mock them for the foolishness of believing that people are mere blank slates.
If you truly think we can recreate the World, then you are no conservative.
October 1st, 2007 at 9:51 pm
“South freaking Dakota wouldn’t ban abortions.”
The South Dakota law, even in the eyes of many Social Conservatives went too far. I believe that a law that made exceptions for the four, widely-accepted reasons would have passed in that sate – and probably in others too.
October 1st, 2007 at 9:51 pm
Peter — “ThatLibertarianGuy,
Why vote for someone like Rudy who is “functionally†pro-life when we have plenty of choices in the Republican primaries to vote for someone who is ACTUALLY pro-life like Mike Huckabee?”
Because Mike Huckabee’s a rather electable candidate because he doesn’t care about the War on Terror and he’s a squishy moderate on economic issues. 1/3 ain’t cuttin’ it for so-cons, let alone someone like me, who disagrees with him as a whole on, well, most everything.
Functionally and actually are the same damn thing if you look at who they’d be appointing.
October 1st, 2007 at 9:51 pm
Tom,
Mike Huckabee is the so-con candidate and he just moved into third place in Iowa.
http://www.mikehuckabee.com
October 1st, 2007 at 9:53 pm
Peter — ”
I thought Libertarians cared about “freedom.â€
ThatLibertarianGuy,
Is the freedom to be alive not important enough for you to fight for?
I thought Libertarians cared about “freedom.—
Yes, which is why I’m for vigorously fighting the War on Terror.
The life of a two-month-old fetus doesn’t particularly concern me when the threat of Islamists taking over Pakistan or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad acquiring a nuclear weapon are also issues.
October 1st, 2007 at 9:53 pm
ACT Blog — “The South Dakota law, even in the eyes of many Social Conservatives went too far. I believe that a law that made exceptions for the four, widely-accepted reasons would have passed in that sate – and probably in others too.”
So babies conceived through rape don’t have a right to life.
Gotcha! Is this about the fetus’ right to life or the mother’s responsibility in the conception?
October 1st, 2007 at 9:54 pm
ThatLibertarianGuy,
“Functionally and actually are the same d*mn thing if you look at who they’d be appointing.”
That’s a the choo-choo train that Rudy’s using to get you to swallow his pro-abortion position.
If life isn’t worth protecting…
Then why are we all here?
October 1st, 2007 at 9:54 pm
“He doesn’t care about social issues. ”
You and Rudy must be quite intimate for you to know such things!
Even if I accept your premise, your rationale is, I should trust Rudy to do the right thing on social issues…….. because……..he……….doesn’t…………care………about……….them.
October 1st, 2007 at 9:57 pm
ThatLibertarianGuy,
Why protect the right of our own citizens to live when we CAN KILL MUSLIMS!!!
October 1st, 2007 at 9:57 pm
I believe that no matter which GOP candidate is elected, that we will likely be living in a post-Roe world (even Giuliani is functionally pro-life and will appoint strict constructionists). So the next battleground will become a candidate’s views on IVF (in vitro fertilization), stem cell research and contraception. Does anyone know what the top tier candidates’ positions are on these issues and if they pass muster with religious conservative voters?
October 1st, 2007 at 9:57 pm
MWS — “WOW!!!!!! Nothing like a little Imperial Hubris!!! Woodrow Wilson would even blanch at THAT statement. Whatever happened to conservatism when “conservatives†thiink we can treat entire civilizations like puddy in our hands? You know, when the libs do that here at home, we call it “social engineering†and mock them for the foolishness of believing that people are mere blank slates. If you truly think we can recreate the World, then you are no conservative.”
The point of the War on Terror is to crush al-Qaeda and similar Islamists. After that, I don’t care; those nations can go to Hell in a crescent-shaped handbasket as long as they leave us alone. However, they’re not going to do that if left to their own devices, so we have to try and implant some sort of stability so a new sovereign government can take care of terrorist threats in the same way Israel does.
(Oh, religion! No religion = WTC buildings still standing.)
October 1st, 2007 at 9:58 pm
“That’s a the choo-choo train that Rudy’s using to get you to swallow his pro-abortion position.
If life isn’t worth protecting…
Then why are we all here?”
I am pro-abortion.
But I am also for strict constructionist judges, ie; the Constitution.
I trust Rudy to hand the issue back to the states, as the Constitution dictates.
Why are we all here? Um…
…
Hmm…
Sex?
October 1st, 2007 at 9:58 pm
“Gotcha! Is this about the fetus’ right to life or the mother’s responsibility in the conception?”
Actually, the SD law did not even make exceptions for the health of the mother. As for rape, one step at a time, that is just going to have to sit on the “to do” list for a while.
–
Anyway, TLG, I have a question for you (although it may have originally been awakened who brought up this point). People like youself generally use two arguments against the pro-life movement:
1) The Pro-life movement is nothing more than a freedom-restiction movement that does not even belong in the GOP, because it is not a true “conservative position”
2) Abortion will never be banned, because the country’s culture only moves in a leftward direction, and being pro-life is a “conservative position”
Pick, one or the other – or explain how the strange combination of statements can still stand.
October 1st, 2007 at 9:59 pm
MWS,
The REASON that we shouldn’t trust Rudy is because of his hypocrisy.
How can we trust somebody who claims to care about protecting our safety while he won’t lift a finger to stop innocent children from being killed?
October 1st, 2007 at 9:59 pm
Peter — “ThatLibertarianGuy,
”
Why protect the right of our own citizens to live when we CAN KILL MUSLIMS!!!
Right here, R408, we have a man who does not understand the nature of the threat. That’s all the War on Terror is about: killing Muslims! Brilliant riposte! Care to put forth an argument sometime in the next two hours?
October 1st, 2007 at 10:00 pm
73,
What are Huckabee’s Q3 numbers? Is he topping Giuliani’s 1st place finish. Probably. Giuliani is on fire! Watch out for Huckabee!!! Huckabee is 6 percent in polls nationally and 3rd or less in early primary states. His message is on fire! His tax reductions in Arkansas have sounded throughout the nation, and now, every one knows who Huckabee is! Boy, if his money keeps up, this race is over. Giuliani is not spending a dime and is winning in Iowa and New Hampshire – he is Republican through and through. Romney is a liberal, and that is why he will lose to Giuliani!
Ron Paul 08 (because he made 30 percent of the leader of Q3 fundraising)
P.S. I better go to bed
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
October 1st, 2007 at 10:00 pm
ThatLibertarianGuy,
If you believe in the Constitution so much, why do you also believe that abortion should be legal?
October 1st, 2007 at 10:01 pm
ACT Blog —
“Actually, the SD law did not even make exceptions for the health of the mother. As for rape, one step at a time, that is just going to have to sit on the “to do†list for a while.”
Yeah, I know it didn’t. I thought you were pro-abortion in cases of rape, though. You aren’t. So, never mind.
“Anyway, TLG, I have a question for you (although it may have originally been awakened who brought up this point). People like youself generally use two arguments against the pro-life movement:
1) The Pro-life movement is nothing more than a freedom-restiction movement that does not even belong in the GOP, because it is not a true “conservative positionâ€
2) Abortion will never be banned, because the country’s culture only moves in a leftward direction, and being pro-life is a “conservative position—
Huh? I didn’t say that being anti-abortion isn’t a conservative position. I meant that it’s a statist position. Look at it in that context. Conservatism and liberalism make little sense to me.
October 1st, 2007 at 10:02 pm
Peter — “ThatLibertarianGuy,
If you believe in the Constitution so much, why do you also believe that abortion should be legal?”
…Huh?
?_?
Abortion is never mentioned in the Constitution. I want it on a state-by-state basis. I’d fight for it to be legal in Maryland, where I live, and anywhere else.
October 1st, 2007 at 10:03 pm
Well, like I said, I think it was Awakened who brought up the point anyway, so I didn’t know if you could answer or not.
October 1st, 2007 at 10:03 pm
The classically conservative position, in context, is overturning RvW. as it was redefined by Barry Goldwater, and Robert Bork.
October 1st, 2007 at 10:04 pm
ThatLibertarianGuy,
If Rudy doesn’t believe we should stop an abortionist from killing innocent people…
THEN why does he believe we should stop terrorists from killing innocent people?
October 1st, 2007 at 10:06 pm
Peter — “ThatLibertarianGuy,
If Rudy doesn’t believe we should stop an abortionist from killing innocent people…
THEN why does he believe we should stop terrorists from killing innocent people?”
Alright, you’re on Stupid Question No. 2. You get one more, and then I’m ignoring them.
Fetuses aren’t “people” and you’re morally depraved if you equate the life of a thirty-year-old businessman with a PhD working at the World Trade Center with a (literally) mindless, dependent fetus.
October 1st, 2007 at 10:07 pm
Tommy — “The classically conservative position, in context, is overturning RvW. as it was redefined by Barry Goldwater, and Robert Bork.”
All people who adhere to the Constitution (ie; everyone but liberals and other assorted statists), I think, should be able to unite on this issue, whether they believe in abortion or not.
October 1st, 2007 at 10:07 pm
ThatLibertarianGuy,
Abortion is not mentioned specifically in the Constitution because the Founding Fathers foolishly took it for granted that people would never believe in killing innocent children.
It’s hard to believe, but once there was a time when there WASN’T an assumption that innocent people should be allowed to be killed.
October 1st, 2007 at 10:08 pm
ThatLibertarianGuy,
Maybe the unborn child hasn’t HAD TIME TO GET HIS PHD?
October 1st, 2007 at 10:09 pm
Honestly, to Dobson and all those other socons who want to turn blue in the face until people listen to them all I have to say is “Let them eat cake”
October 1st, 2007 at 10:09 pm
Peter — “ThatLibertarianGuy,
Abortion is not mentioned specifically in the Constitution because the Founding Fathers foolishly took it for granted that people would never believe in killing innocent children.
It’s hard to believe, but once there was a time when there WASN’T an assumption that innocent people should be allowed to be killed.”
Children. I envision four-year-olds playing ball in a playground.
And then I remember what a “child” is to social conservatives.
So, um, where’s your source for what the Founding Fathers thought of abortion? I have a source for what they thought of it, and anything else not mentioned in the Constitution: the 10th Amendment.
Familiar?
October 1st, 2007 at 10:09 pm
It’s kind of hard to get an education when your skull has just been crushed.
October 1st, 2007 at 10:10 pm
Is this “familiar” to you ThatLibertarianGuy?
“Thou shalt not kill.”
There used to be a time when everybody knew what it meant.
October 1st, 2007 at 10:10 pm
ThatLibertarianGuy – (Oh, religion! No religion = WTC buildings still standing.)
So, I take it that you think that religion causes all the wars in the world? As I recall, atheists haven’t been too peaceful either.
October 1st, 2007 at 10:10 pm
Peter — “ThatLibertarianGuy,
”
Maybe the unborn child hasn’t HAD TIME TO GET HIS PHD?
He’s also utterly incapable of obtaining a PhD, inasmuch as he has no capacity to reason and is completely physically dependent on his mother.
We could take this to its extreme and say that semen hasn’t had time to get its PhD — but give it time! Think of its potential!
Don’t confuse potentiality with actuality. A fetus would someday be a human. But it’s not a human while it’s a fetus.
October 1st, 2007 at 10:11 pm
“It’s kind of hard to get an education when your skull has just been crushed.
”
Also, when you’re a fetus.
October 1st, 2007 at 10:12 pm
“Is this “familiar†to you ThatLibertarianGuy?
“Thou shalt not kill.â€
There used to be a time when everybody knew what it meant.”
Without any qualifications to that statement, I could say the same thing to you every time you kill an ant.
October 1st, 2007 at 10:13 pm
ThatLibertarianGuy,
You’re being illogical.
Ever heard of babies born prematurely?
That’s when babies are born when they’re not supposed to be able to survive outside the womb.
But most of them decide to survive anyway.
October 1st, 2007 at 10:14 pm
ThatLibertarianGuy,
An ant is worth more to you than a baby?
October 1st, 2007 at 10:15 pm
J. Martin — “So, I take it that you think that religion causes all the wars in the world? As I recall, atheists haven’t been too peaceful either.”
Atheists don’t go blowing up buildings in the name of atheism. Recently, atheists have taken to writing books when they get pissed off. When Muslims get pissed off, they blow up buildings and hijack airplanes.
Also, we must remember that it’s the abolition, not replacement, of religion that I advocate. We don’t need to replace a theological myth (Christianity) with a socioeconomic myth (Communism). The problem is dogma. Religion just happens to be the prevailing threatening dogma right now.
October 1st, 2007 at 10:16 pm
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people.”
The reason abortion wasn’t mentioned in the Constitution is because everybody took for granted the fact their descendants would believe that taking an innocent human life was wrong.
Natural law?
Ten commandments?
October 1st, 2007 at 10:18 pm
I said: “Without any qualifications to that statement [Thou Shalt Not Kill], I could say the same thing to you every time you kill an ant.”
Here’s your reply: “An ant is worth more to you than a baby?”
Please re-read what I wrote. If you honestly don’t know what I was getting at, I can spell it out for you: Thou Shalt Not Kill is typically applied to human beings. I do not consider a fetus to have an inalienable right to life. Nor do I consider an ant to. The former’s capacity to suffer is greater, though, which is why abortive methods should be humane. Also as a testament to the potential of fetuses. But a fetus is not yet a human with inalienable rights.
October 1st, 2007 at 10:18 pm
Peter — ”
”
ThatLibertarianGuy,
You’re being illogical.
Ever heard of babies born prematurely?
That’s when babies are born when they’re not supposed to be able to survive outside the womb.
But most of them decide to survive anyway.
What on Earth does this have to do with first-trimester abortions?
October 1st, 2007 at 10:19 pm
There is no developmental difference between a newborn and a prenatal human 8 months after conception.
If we base a human’s worth on its development than a newborn certainly doesn’t deserve privileges a 8 month old prenatal child doesn’t.
October 1st, 2007 at 10:19 pm
This whole exchange shows how abortion has poisoned the political debate and if those damned judges deciding Roe had just left it to the states to decide, we wouldn’t be having this problem. The voters that want abortion (as awful as it is) in their state get it, while those that don’t want it, don’t have to have it.
October 1st, 2007 at 10:19 pm
ThatLibertarianGuy,
Jesus said:
Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
Last time I checked, the 9/11 hijackers were MUSLIMS.
Muslims believe in ALLAH, not JESUS.
October 1st, 2007 at 10:20 pm
Peter — “The reason abortion wasn’t mentioned in the Constitution is because everybody took for granted the fact their descendants would believe that taking an innocent human life was wrong.
Natural law?
Ten commandments?”
I want to use that argument when the Constitution isn’t made to my liking. “Everyone would have taken it for granted!” We have ourselves a medium, Race42008!
Also — Nice try, but we aren’t governed by Natural Law or the Ten Commandments.
October 1st, 2007 at 10:21 pm
ThatLibertarianGuy,
If abortions should be illegal after the first trimester, then why shouldn’t they be illegal DURING the first trimester?
October 1st, 2007 at 10:22 pm
econ grad stud — “There is no developmental difference between a newborn and a prenatal human 8 months after conception. If we base a human’s worth on its development than a newborn certainly doesn’t deserve privileges a 8 month old prenatal child doesn’t.”
Surely you jest. Something quite important happens about nine months into the development of the fetus, if you’ll recall.
October 1st, 2007 at 10:22 pm
“Also — Nice try, but we aren’t governed by Natural Law or the Ten Commandments.”
Then why isn’t homicide legal?
And Why isn’t it legal to do ANYTHING you want?
October 1st, 2007 at 10:23 pm
Peter — “ThatLibertarianGuy, If abortions should be illegal after the first trimester, then why shouldn’t they be illegal DURING the first trimester?”
You’re the one who made that stupid argument about the premature babies. First trimester fetuses have no capacity to live outside of the mother. PERIOD. There is NO circumstance in which a first-trimester fetus can do that. It is NOT AUTONOMOUS. It does not have a right to use the mother’s body without her consent.
October 1st, 2007 at 10:24 pm
ThatLibertarianGuy – “Atheists don’t go blowing up buildings in the name of atheism. Recently, atheists have taken to writing books when they get pissed off. When Muslims get pissed off, they blow up buildings and hijack airplanes.
Also, we must remember that it’s the abolition, not replacement, of religion that I advocate. We don’t need to replace a theological myth (Christianity) with a socioeconomic myth (Communism). The problem is dogma. Religion just happens to be the prevailing threatening dogma right now.”
Maybe not, but they do start wars and kill millions of people. And Atheism with or without communism will lead to the same path of death, destruction, and restriction of freedoms.
October 1st, 2007 at 10:24 pm
Peter — ”
“Also — Nice try, but we aren’t governed by Natural Law or the Ten Commandments.â€
Then why isn’t homicide legal?
And Why isn’t it legal to do ANYTHING you want?”
Alright, you’re using up your last Stupid Question, here! I’m ignoring them after this.
BECAUSE WE’RE GOVERNED BY SOMETHING. Legal scholars refer to it as “the Constitution.”
October 1st, 2007 at 10:25 pm
Peter — ”
ThatLibertarianGuy,
Jesus said:
Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
Last time I checked, the 9/11 hijackers were MUSLIMS.
Muslims believe in ALLAH, not JESUS.”
Um. I said to envision a world without religion. Islam would be the first to go if it were up to me, but Christianity is pretty shoddy, too, as far as enlightenment and war goes, historically speaking.
October 1st, 2007 at 10:26 pm
“You’re the one who made that stupid argument about the premature babies. First trimester fetuses have no capacity to live outside of the mother. PERIOD. There is NO circumstance in which a first-trimester fetus can do that. It is NOT AUTONOMOUS. It does not have a right to use the mother’s body without her consent.”
Well, if my 105 year old grandma does something without “my consent,” does that justify me killing her?
If a person is unable to take care himself,
Are you justified to murder that person?
October 1st, 2007 at 10:26 pm
J. Martin — “Maybe not, but they do start wars and kill millions of people. And Atheism with or without communism will lead to the same path of death, destruction, and restriction of freedoms.”
Yeah, and Christians have never started wars and killed millions of people.
Adolf Hitler, contrary to popular belief, was not an atheist but a Christian that invoked Jesus’ name during many of his speeches. Whether he was “perverting” Christianity is irrelevant; without religion, there would have been nothing to pervert.
October 1st, 2007 at 10:27 pm
Peter — “Well, if my 105 year old grandma does something without “my consent,†does that justify me killing her? If a person is unable to take care himself,
Are you justified to murder that person?”
This is the 9234th time I’ve heard this argument on this site.
No, you aren’t justified in murdering her, because she isn’t reliant on your body for life.
However, you actually have no moral obligation to take care of her. You’ll want to if you love her, but you are not obligated to, since you are not responsible for her, inasmuch as she is an autonomous being.
October 1st, 2007 at 10:28 pm
ThatLibertarianGuy,
We are governed by LAW.
Where does that LAW come from. It is just made up out of thin air?
Or is there a basis to it?
October 1st, 2007 at 10:30 pm
“No, you aren’t justified in murdering her, because she isn’t reliant on your body for life.
However, you actually have no moral obligation to take care of her. You’ll want to if you love her, but you are not obligated to, since you are not responsible for her, inasmuch as she is an autonomous being.”
If I saw you saw living in the street, with no shelter and no food, would you tell me that same thing?
October 1st, 2007 at 10:31 pm
“ThatLibertarianGuy,
We are governed by LAW.
Where does that LAW come from. It is just made up out of thin air?
Or is there a basis to it?”
Natural law and philosophy. But that’s all put into legal documents. You don’t get to just make things up whenever you don’t like what’s there or you feel that something is omitted. There’s a legal process to it.
October 1st, 2007 at 10:32 pm
If a people have no obligation to take care of another,
THEN WHY ARE PEOPLE PUT IN JAIL FOR ABUSING THEIR KIDS?
October 1st, 2007 at 10:32 pm
Peter — “If I saw you saw living in the street, with no shelter and no food, would you tell me that same thing?”
Uhh…yes!
October 1st, 2007 at 10:33 pm
Peter — “If a people have no obligation to take care of another,
THEN WHY ARE PEOPLE PUT IN JAIL FOR ABUSING THEIR KIDS?”
I said: “People don’t have obligations to take care of each other.”
You said that I said: “People are allowed to do whatever they want to each other.”
How the hell did you get from Point A to Point B?
October 1st, 2007 at 10:34 pm
ThatLibertarianGuy,
“Natural law and philosophy.”
So there IS a basis for law after all!!!
Now we just have to find out where it came from.
October 1st, 2007 at 10:35 pm
“Oh, religion! No religion = WTC buildings still standing”
Oh, No religion! Religion = TENS of MILLIONS of Russians, Chinese, Cambodians, Vietnamese, Cubans, Koreans, Hungarians, Czechs, Slovaks, Croats, Slovenes, Serbs, Bosnians, Romanians, Poles, Bulgarians, Germans, Macedonians, Ukrainians, Kazahks, etc……. are still alive.
Hundreds of MILLIONS more have been killed in the name of atheism, secularism, nationalism, and godless ideologies than have ever been killed in the name of religion…
….even if you naively and blindly want to lump all religions together, and can’t differentiate one from the other.
October 1st, 2007 at 10:35 pm
ThatLibertarianGuy,
If people:
“are allowed to do whatever they want to each other”
Then why am I not allowed to shoot my neighbor in the head?
October 1st, 2007 at 10:36 pm
AND IF PEOPLE:
“are allowed to do whatever they want to each other.”
WHO TOLD THEM?
DID THE IDEA JUST POP INTO THEIR HEADS ALL AT ONCE?
October 1st, 2007 at 10:36 pm
ThatLibertarianGuy – “Yeah, and Christians have never started wars and killed millions of people.
Adolf Hitler, contrary to popular belief, was not an atheist but a Christian that invoked Jesus’ name during many of his speeches. Whether he was “perverting†Christianity is irrelevant; without religion, there would have been nothing to pervert.”
I don’t dispute that we haven’t been perfect, but I do think that we’ve had a better track record than atheism.
And that is a out right lie. Hitler was NOT a Christian. And no, it’s not irrelevant that he perverted it to his use. You just think it is because it supports your position.
Without religion, there would be nothing to pervert? So what about Stalin and Mao? They killed millions and they were atheist. I assume that you don’t support killing millions of innocent people, so did they corrupt atheism?
October 1st, 2007 at 10:37 pm
Then you must believe in miracles!
October 1st, 2007 at 10:37 pm
Peter, you’re not reading what I’m writing. Please stop asking stupid questions. How do you say that “You have no obligations toward other people” is the same thing as “You’re allowed to shoot other people in the head”?
October 1st, 2007 at 10:39 pm
“Hundreds of MILLIONS more have been killed in the name of atheism, secularism, nationalism, and godless ideologies than have ever been killed in the name of religion…”
Nationalism is closer to religiosity than it is to atheism.
Atheism just means not believing in gods.
How you lump that in with being statist is beyond me.
October 1st, 2007 at 10:39 pm
Has anybody who actually LIVED and BEHAVED like a good Christian ever started a war and killed millions of people?
October 1st, 2007 at 10:40 pm
J. Martin — “Without religion, there would be nothing to pervert? So what about Stalin and Mao? They killed millions and they were atheist. I assume that you don’t support killing millions of innocent people, so did they corrupt atheism?”
How can you corrupt atheism? It’s got no lame, poorly written book or belief structure. It just means that you don’t believe in any gods. It’s not an ideology. It’s a lack of belief in theism.
October 1st, 2007 at 10:40 pm
ThatLibertarianGuy,
You said:
“People are allowed to do whatever they want to each other.â€
If that is true, than why am I not allowed to murder anybody?
October 1st, 2007 at 10:41 pm
Peter, I never said that. What I said was that that was what you said I said.
Please read more carefully next time.
October 1st, 2007 at 10:41 pm
TLG,
Even if you don’t peg Hitler to the atheists (which he was) you still have to account for Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, etc……
Hitler killed his millions, but Stalin and Mao killed their TENS of millions (each).
If you’re gonna’ try to hang the WTC on Christianity, then you’d better start answering for the gulags and “reeducation” camps.
October 1st, 2007 at 10:42 pm
Where did this right to do whatever I want to come from?
October 1st, 2007 at 10:42 pm
MWS — “Oh, No religion! Religion = TENS of MILLIONS of Russians, Chinese, Cambodians, Vietnamese, Cubans, Koreans, Hungarians, Czechs, Slovaks, Croats, Slovenes, Serbs, Bosnians, Romanians, Poles, Bulgarians, Germans, Macedonians, Ukrainians, Kazahks, etc……. are still alive.”
So now religion toppled the USSR.
Was it Reagan and the arms race? Was it Gorbachev’s programs? Was it inevitable? Was it JESUS..?
October 1st, 2007 at 10:43 pm
TLG,
“It’s (atheism) not an ideology.”
No. It is faith.
October 1st, 2007 at 10:43 pm
Ah, forgive me!
THIS is what you said:
“People don’t have obligations to take care of each other.â€
Thdn why are parents arrested for abusing their children if they don’t have an obligation to take care of them?
October 1st, 2007 at 10:44 pm
MWS — “Even if you don’t peg Hitler to the atheists (which he was) you still have to account for Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, etc……Hitler killed his millions, but Stalin and Mao killed their TENS of millions (each). If you’re gonna’ try to hang the WTC on Christianity, then you’d better start answering for the gulags and “reeducation†camps.”
God! It’s just lie after lie after lie!
1) Hitler was not an atheist.
2) I don’t have to account for anything Pol Pot and Mao did. Communists can account for that. They murdered in the name of Communism, not atheism. Communism is a political doctrine.
3) I do not hang the WTC attacks on Christianity, but I do hang it on dogmatic beliefs and acceptance of “faith” as evidence, which Christianity approves of.
October 1st, 2007 at 10:45 pm
MWS — “No. It is faith.”
No, it’s a lack of faith.
October 1st, 2007 at 10:45 pm
TLG,
“So now religion toppled the USSR.”
In part, but that wasn’t my point. The atrocities that the Communists committed would not have been possible if the state were a respector of religion.
How is it that officially atheist countries always end up as police states killing bunches of people?
October 1st, 2007 at 10:45 pm
Maybe the judges who convict them don’t realize that:
“People don’t have obligations to take care of each other.â€
Oh! Silly them!
October 1st, 2007 at 10:46 pm
Peter — “Thdn why are parents arrested for abusing their children if they don’t have an obligation to take care of them?”
Parents have a responsibility to take care of their children until they are 18 years old.
No one has the right to harm others, anyway.
Where do you equate lack of obligation with a right to harm…!?
October 1st, 2007 at 10:46 pm
“Has anybody who actually LIVED and BEHAVED like a good Christian ever started a war and killed millions of people?”
Check out the Old Testament. It might not have been millions, but it was a lot.
October 1st, 2007 at 10:46 pm
TGL,
“No, it’s a lack of faith.”
That’s naive.
October 1st, 2007 at 10:47 pm
ThatLibertarianGuy,
Is it just a coincidence that worst countries in the world are the one’s who don’t follow the natural law?
October 1st, 2007 at 10:48 pm
…..what you think atheism operates in a vacuum?
I guarantee you that the transcendent, personal, salvific God of Christianity is replaced by something…..
That, in part, is why atheist countries are always locking people up and shooting them.
But even at the personal level, God’s non-existence cannot be proven by science, or “pure” reason, so we are left with…………
faith.
Sorry.
October 1st, 2007 at 10:48 pm
Anyway,
It’s been good talking with you all!
Peter
http://www.mikehuckabee.blogspot.com
October 1st, 2007 at 10:49 pm
Richard,
There were no Christians in the Old Testament.
October 1st, 2007 at 10:49 pm
MWS — “In part, but that wasn’t my point. The atrocities that the Communists committed would not have been possible if the state were a respector of religion. How is it that officially atheist countries always end up as police states killing bunches of people?”
Countries with official positions on religion tend to end up killing a lot of people. It’s not a government’s job to do so.
However, you’re trying to make this a simpler matter than it is. Countries that are officially atheist buck religion not because of its content, but because it’s tradition, and anything revolutionary will have to eschew traditions in order to implant a new mindset into the next generations. Marx greatly appreciated religion and saw it as a comfort for the proletariat, for example, but did not see it as useful in advancing Communist ideas. Those who carried out Marxist beliefs, then, got rid of it because it was a traditional belief.
Communists did not, however, kill in the name of atheism, but in the name of dogmatic political ideology. Christianity was an obstacle not by its virtues, but simply because it had been around for so long and had become part of the culture. Its own track record is pretty shoddy, actually.
Islam, on the other hand, has been and always will be good for nothing.
October 1st, 2007 at 10:50 pm
“2) I don’t have to account for anything Pol Pot and Mao did. Communists can account for that. They murdered in the name of Communism, not atheism. Communism is a political doctrine.
3) I do not hang the WTC attacks on Christianity, but I do hang it on dogmatic beliefs and acceptance of “faith†as evidence, which Christianity approves of.”
Athiesm is a dogmatic belief, as it believes there is no God without proof. As such, athiests exhibit a degree of “faith” in their doctrine.
October 1st, 2007 at 10:50 pm
Peter — “Is it just a coincidence that worst countries in the world are the one’s who don’t follow the natural law?”
Uh…no? What’s your point? Natural Law, obviously, to me, doesn’t come from any deities.
October 1st, 2007 at 10:52 pm
TLG,
“They murdered in the name of Communism, not atheism.”
Yeah, tell that to the millions of dead Christians, priests, Confucists, Buddhists, etc….. who didn’t conform to state imposed “non-religion.”
Oh, what a blessed world it was without religion!!!
Come to think of it, if you REALLY want to vacation in a non-religion paradise, I hear North Korea is lovely this time of year…….
October 1st, 2007 at 10:52 pm
MWS, Richard P, let’s address this “you can’t prove God DOESN’T exist” B.S. and stop this nonsense once and for all:
You’re asserting that it is “dogmatic” to reject the existence of gods without proof.
Fine. It’s dogma. Fine.
Then I assume you’re agnostic on the issue of invisible unicorns circling Mars? You can’t prove that they don’t exist.
Oh, and what about Vishnu? Prove that Vishnu doesn’t exist. Allah? What about Allah? Can you prove that Muhammed WASN’T the prophet?
You two have just stepped into Battleground: Logical Fallacy.
Also, let’s assume that I did accept that there was a god (or gods).
WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH JESUS’ DIVINITY?
October 1st, 2007 at 10:54 pm
MWS — “Yeah, tell that to the millions of dead Christians, priests, Confucists, Buddhists, etc….. who didn’t conform to state imposed “non-religion.â€
Oh, what a blessed world it was without religion!!!
Come to think of it, if you REALLY want to vacation in a non-religion paradise, I hear North Korea is lovely this time of year…….”
I’m getting tired of talking to people that distort my positions.
I am a laissez-faire capitalist.
My ideal society is a laissez-faire secular society.
…My ideal society is never going to exist…
By the way, I would tell that to those groups you just mentioned. Did you read 158?
October 1st, 2007 at 10:55 pm
MWS,
I thought the God of the Old Testament was the same God as that of the New Testament. It’s the same dude whether it’s Christ or Jehovah or Elohim or whoever. It’s the same fellow giving the direction. There are elements of justice and mercy in both the Old and New Testament, so I don’t see the old vs. new law talk as very instructive.
October 1st, 2007 at 10:58 pm
Guys we can’t have a meaningful discussion with folks like TLG about morals because they’ve rejected Western morality.
We may as well try to discuss the color of the sky with a lifelong blind individual. Or perhaps we could discuss tone with the tonedeaf. There is simply not enough in common between us and TLG to discuss moral issues.
October 1st, 2007 at 10:58 pm
TLG,
“Its (Christianity) own track record is pretty shoddy, actually.”
Give me an example of a civilazation that developed notions of equality, rights of women, the poor, and the dispossed, and the freedom of conscience (all of them) that was not part of Christendom or one of her direct colonies.
If you read the New Testament, you will see where these ideas come from, and it sure as hell wasn’t any atheists. Seriously, the Middle Ages- for all of the uninformed contempt it receives- was LIGHT years ahead of ancient Greece and Rome (the font of wisdom and holy grail of the ‘rationalists’) when it came to the rights of women and the poor.
October 1st, 2007 at 11:02 pm
“Give me an example of a civilazation that developed notions of equality, rights of women, the poor, and the dispossed, and the freedom of conscience (all of them) that was not part of Christendom or one of her direct colonies.”
Actually, those notions only came to civilization after we instituted a secular nation — ie; this one.
All of the nations of Europe were strongly Christian in the Middle Ages, remember?
The US was founded as a secular nation.
October 1st, 2007 at 11:03 pm
TLG,
“My ideal society is a laissez-faire secular society.”
And what do we do with the people who don’t want to be secular? Particularly if their “non-secularness” interferes with laissez-faire utopia?
And yes, I read your 158, and yes, the atheists killed in the name of atheism.
October 1st, 2007 at 11:03 pm
TLG,
If you want to assume he doesn’t exist, that’s fine. But to teach it as fact when you have about as much to back your claim up as those who say there is a God, makes no sense.
Be agnostic if you wish. Athiesm is a religion!
The same would be true if you started a group that believed there was no Vishnu. You just have no ground to say it doesn’t exist; the same goes for those who would believe there was such a thing. It’s all belief, or faith, without the ability to prove any of it.
October 1st, 2007 at 11:03 pm
econ grad stud — “Guys we can’t have a meaningful discussion with folks like TLG about morals because they’ve rejected Western morality.
We may as well try to discuss the color of the sky with a lifelong blind individual. Or perhaps we could discuss tone with the tonedeaf. There is simply not enough in common between us and TLG to discuss moral issues.”
This is true. I do reject Christian “morality.” I can’t get into the mindset of someone who needs a supernatural essence to grant him philosophy. I also can’t get into the mindset of anyone who thinks that it’s okay to use the government to tell other people what they can and cannot do.
October 1st, 2007 at 11:04 pm
econ grad stud – “Guys we can’t have a meaningful discussion with folks like TLG about morals because they’ve rejected Western morality.
We may as well try to discuss the color of the sky with a lifelong blind individual. Or perhaps we could discuss tone with the tonedeaf. There is simply not enough in common between us and TLG to discuss moral issues.”
You’re right as usual, econ.
October 1st, 2007 at 11:04 pm
MWS — “And what do we do with the people who don’t want to be secular? Particularly if their “non-secularness†interferes with laissez-faire utopia?”
Eh? They can do whatever the hell they want as long as they leave me alone.
‘And yes, I read your 158, and yes, the atheists killed in the name of atheism.”
lol…Okay then.
October 1st, 2007 at 11:05 pm
TGL,
“Actually, those notions only came to civilization after we instituted a secular nation — ie; this one.”
Ah, yes. The year 1, known to Christians as 1776. When all values and culture were created ex nihil……
Constitutional government arose out of the Middle Ages.
October 1st, 2007 at 11:05 pm
MWS — “Ah, yes. The year 1, known to Christians as 1776. When all values and culture were created ex nihil……Constitutional government arose out of the Middle Ages.”
LOL, yes, it arose due to the FAILURE of the Middle Ages!
October 1st, 2007 at 11:06 pm
“The same would be true if you started a group that believed there was no Vishnu. You just have no ground to say it doesn’t exist; the same goes for those who would believe there was such a thing. It’s all belief, or faith, without the ability to prove any of it.”
Vishnu is a Hindu god. Hindus have faith. So do you. Why is their faith less legitimate than yours?
October 1st, 2007 at 11:06 pm
I suppose TLG never heard of the Magna Carta. It’s a shame what public schools have become. (FYI the Magna Carta was signed in 1215 AD).
October 1st, 2007 at 11:06 pm
“All of the nations of Europe were strongly Christian in the Middle Ages, remember?”
Yep, and they didn’t kill NEARLY as many people (in total or %) as the godless ideologies of the last two centuries.
October 1st, 2007 at 11:07 pm
“LOL, yes, it arose due to the FAILURE of the Middle Ages!”
Whatever you say, Karl.
October 1st, 2007 at 11:08 pm
TLG,
Sorry, I’m not familiar with Hinduism. I thought you were just making it up to prove your point.
October 1st, 2007 at 11:09 pm
MWS — But European Christians killed in the name of Christendom (the Crusades, the Inquisition). They were Christians that happened to be European. The atheists of the USSR were killing in the name of Communism. They were Communists that happened to be atheists. You might as well argue that Russians are more dangerous because they have a track record of killing a lot of people. But they just SO HAPPENED to be Russian, just as they SO HAPPENED to be atheist.
To illustrate what I mean — which would be worse, in your opinion: an atheist capitalist that enjoys the works of people like Milton Friedman or a Communist Christian that enjoys the works of people like Karl Marx?
October 1st, 2007 at 11:09 pm
TLG,
Are you at all familiar with the influence feudalism had on the notion of reciprical rights and obligations between citizen and state?
October 1st, 2007 at 11:10 pm
Richard P — “TLG, Sorry, I’m not familiar with Hinduism. I thought you were just making it up to prove your point.”
Of course you’re not. Very rare indeed is the strong believer who has actually studied other religions and an overview of the history of religion.
October 1st, 2007 at 11:11 pm
MWS — ““LOL, yes, it arose due to the FAILURE of the Middle Ages!â€
Whatever you say, Karl.”
Alright, so the Middle Ages were a smashing success?
October 1st, 2007 at 11:12 pm
“I suppose TLG never heard of the Magna Carta. It’s a shame what public schools have become. (FYI the Magna Carta was signed in 1215 AD).”
Why is it that one progressive document from 1215 CE is supposed to make up for centuries of bloodlust throughout the centuries following it?
October 1st, 2007 at 11:12 pm
The modern beginning of human rights and the idea of limited government was in the Magna Carta signed in 1215.
England in 1215 was as religious as an society.
October 1st, 2007 at 11:13 pm
TLG,
“You might as well argue that Russians are more dangerous because they have a track record of killing a lot of people. But they just SO HAPPENED to be Russian, just as they SO HAPPENED to be atheist.”
That’s silly. A person’s own race doesn’t drive him to kill, but his ideology might. Atheism has a long and bloody track record of being that kind of ideology.
And it makes sense. If there is no God, then there is no judgement. There is no natural law. There is no right or wrong. There is only force. And then who gives a rip about who the state kills?
October 1st, 2007 at 11:13 pm
MWS — ”
“All of the nations of Europe were strongly Christian in the Middle Ages, remember?â€
Yep, and they didn’t kill NEARLY as many people (in total or %) as the godless ideologies of the last two centuries.”
Yes, this is due to exponential population growth in the many decades following the Industrial Revolution.
Oh, in percent? What’s your source for this? Your feelings?
October 1st, 2007 at 11:15 pm
ThatLibertarianGuy – “I also can’t get into the mindset of anyone who thinks that it’s okay to use the government to tell other people what they can and cannot do.”
But you want the abolition of religion? Doesn’t that mean that I won’t be allowed to talk about my faith in public, have any involvement in government because of my faith, or promote my faith?
October 1st, 2007 at 11:15 pm
MWS — “That’s silly. A person’s own race doesn’t drive him to kill, but his ideology might. Atheism has a long and bloody track record of being that kind of ideology. And it makes sense. If there is no God, then there is no judgement. There is no natural law. There is no right or wrong. There is only force. And then who gives a rip about who the state kills?”
Not believing in gods will compel one to kill? Watch out for me! I’m out to get you!
Shouldn’t we be fearing chemists, evolutionary biologists, and other assorted characters that reject the idea of a personal god?
Only a fool thinks that morality is impossible without gods. Ever heard of a thing called philosophy?
October 1st, 2007 at 11:16 pm
Bloodlust exists in all societies that lack resources. Religion is just a convenient cover used by aggressors just as communism, anarchism and other radical beliefs have been used by violent individuals.
At any time only a minority of people actually are motivated by religion and not personal selfishness.
October 1st, 2007 at 11:16 pm
J. Martin — “But you want the abolition of religion? Doesn’t that mean that I won’t be allowed to talk about my faith in public, have any involvement in government because of my faith, or promote my faith?”
Well, ideally, you wouldn’t believe. That’s what I mean by the abolition of religion. I wish it didn’t exist.
October 1st, 2007 at 11:17 pm
TLG,
“Oh, in percent? What’s your source for this? Your feelings?”
I specialized in Medieval history in college. Wars were generally quite local and pathetic by modern standards. On the other hand, did you know that Belarus lost 1/3 of its civilian population in WWII (just one example)?
I can’t do all of your homework for you, but I can tell you that the Christian kings never carried out campaigns to exterminate people like the godless ideologies.
October 1st, 2007 at 11:19 pm
“Bloodlust exists in all societies that lack resources. Religion is just a convenient cover used by aggressors just as communism, anarchism and other radical beliefs have been used by violent individuals. At any time only a minority of people actually are motivated by religion and not personal selfishness.”
Europe in the Middle Ages was the most advanced society on the planet. What reason would it have had besides Christianity to invade Middle Eastern countries?
(Answer: to “reclaim the holy land!”) And don’t forget the Inquisition, from the same time period.
al-Qaeda’s jihad? All you have to do is read the writings (Yes, I’ve done it) of al-Zawahiri to know that they’re motivated by religion.
Dogma attracts naturally violent people. It’s not the other way around.
October 1st, 2007 at 11:20 pm
TGL,
“Only a fool thinks that morality is impossible without gods. Ever heard of a thing called philosophy?”
What we are witnessing may be the last vestiges of Christian morality, which still shelters people like you and me, even in places like Holland and Norway. However, as the memories of Christian morality fade, and Christian sentiments and habits disappear, you will see the jungle grow back where civilization once lived.
October 1st, 2007 at 11:21 pm
MWS if you showed that atheists were more violent, less compassionate and more radical than Christians TLG would still support destroying Christianity. This isn’t a discussion worth your time. I’m just replying when TLG says things that are factually wrong.
October 1st, 2007 at 11:21 pm
MWS — ‘”TLG,
“Oh, in percent? What’s your source for this? Your feelings?â€
I specialized in Medieval history in college. Wars were generally quite local and pathetic by modern standards. On the other hand, did you know that Belarus lost 1/3 of its civilian population in WWII (just one example)?
I can’t do all of your homework for you, but I can tell you that the Christian kings never carried out campaigns to exterminate people like the godless ideologies.’”
I’m not even in college yet and I can point out everything that’s wrong here. Communists and Christian kings alike didn’t embark on missions to indiscriminately exterminate people. They had larger goals in mind. With the Crusades, it was reclaiming the Holy Land — which was, of course, motivated by religion — and with Communism, it was, of course, instating an all-powerful state that wouldn’t be resisted. Atheism didn’t compel that. Political beliefs did.
October 1st, 2007 at 11:23 pm
“MWS if you showed that atheists were more violent, less compassionate and more radical than Christians TLG would still support destroying Christianity. This isn’t a discussion worth your time. I’m just replying when TLG says things that are factually wrong.”
Except you can’t show this because all of the empirical data shows that it’s not true.
Hell, walk into any prison in the United States and you’ll find the most devoutly religious people in the country.
It does make me think, though — It is simply a fact the poor are more religious than the rich and high school dropouts are more religious than those with doctorates. Education and aspirations are the keys to abolishing religion.
I don’t say anything factually wrong.
October 1st, 2007 at 11:24 pm
ThatLibertarianGuy – “Well, ideally, you wouldn’t believe. That’s what I mean by the abolition of religion. I wish it didn’t exist.”
What would happen to me if I did lived in your ideal government and I did believe in a religion and promoted it? Wouldn’t you tell me that I can’t believe in it?
October 1st, 2007 at 11:24 pm
TLG’s false statement:
“Europe in the Middle Ages was the most advanced society on the planet. What reason would it have had besides Christianity to invade Middle Eastern countries?”
If you’re going to make assertions about history please try not to lie. In the Middle Ages India, China and Persia were more prosperous and more technologically advanced nations than any state in Europe.
The Chinese were the most advanced society in the world until the late 16th century.
Europe didn’t catch up until after the Black Plague.
October 1st, 2007 at 11:25 pm
MWS — “What we are witnessing may be the last vestiges of Christian morality, which still shelters people like you and me, even in places like Holland and Norway. However, as the memories of Christian morality fade, and Christian sentiments and habits disappear, you will see the jungle grow back where civilization once lived.”
Again, I applaud your talents as a medium.
October 1st, 2007 at 11:27 pm
econ grad stud — “If you’re going to make assertions about history please try not to lie. In the Middle Ages India, China and Persia were more prosperous and more technologically advanced nations than any state in Europe.
The Chinese were the most advanced society in the world until the late 16th century.
Europe didn’t catch up until after the Black Plague.”
I thought about that after I posted and wondered if it might have been incorrect.
The Chinese subscribed to relatively mundane religious beliefs and were never compelled to go on any crusades to kill civilians in the name of any of their convictions about the supernatural.
October 1st, 2007 at 11:30 pm
econ grad stud actually raises an interesting point –
1) Hinduism, the dominant religion in India, is one that is profoundly selfish and devoid of any commandments from the gods that would dictate crusades. India (and Hinduism) has yet to be responsible for the slaughter of millions.
2) The Chinese subscribe to regional beliefs, many relating to their deceased ancestors. Throughout China’s history, many of the gods were used to serve the interests of the state. Pretty mundane stuff. No slaughter in the name of religion there.
So let me refine what I was saying –
Religions where spreading the word of the holy book where the god of the book issues commandments are the dangerous ones.
October 1st, 2007 at 11:34 pm
The smartest comment i’ve read all month.
MWS Says:
October 1st, 2007 at 10:49 pm
Richard,
There were no Christians in the Old Testament
October 1st, 2007 at 11:34 pm
TGL,
“and with Communism, it was, of course, instating an all-powerful state that wouldn’t be resisted.”
Communists didn’t support an all powerful state for its own sake, or they could have been just as satisfied with any run-of-the-mill totalitarianism. Atheism was (is) integral to what communism sought (seeks) to DO with that all powerful state. That’s why they killed loads of people for not being atheist.
October 1st, 2007 at 11:39 pm
TGL,
“Again, I applaud your talents as a medium.”
It doesn’t take a prophet. The rise of abortion on demand, euthanasia (sometimes forced), harvesting and killing people for research, the neglect of the poor, the eradication of our familial and social obligations as manifest through divorce, abandoned children, drug use, and absent parents are all symptoms of the loss of the Christians faith.
October 1st, 2007 at 11:41 pm
Tommy,
“The smartest comment i’ve read all month.”
The month is still young.
October 1st, 2007 at 11:43 pm
The Chinese and Indians never developed human rights.
Genocide has been common in India for centuries before Muslims invaded.
The mongol Temüjin killed millions without religious motivation in the 13th century. This was after his horsemen had already conquered nations.
October 1st, 2007 at 11:45 pm
TGL,
“The Chinese subscribed to relatively mundane religious beliefs and were never compelled to go on any crusades to kill civilians in the name of any of their convictions about the supernatural.”
You have a very oversimplified understanding of history.
You may want to look up the conflicts (and yes violence) that existed between the Confucianists and the Buddhists.
October 1st, 2007 at 11:48 pm
TGL,
“Religions where spreading the word of the holy book where the god of the book issues commandments are the dangerous ones.”
So what does your secular, laissez faire utopia do with “dangerous” religions?
October 1st, 2007 at 11:51 pm
TLG,
You are ignorant of history if you can’t understand the great influence European philosophies of the time played on the founding of this great country. Many of the contemporary European philosophers were more widely read in America than in their own countries. That wasn’t just a coincidence. Although the philosophers were not universally religious the American colonies were deeply so and a great many of the ideas in the constitution and the Declaration can be found in the Bible.
October 1st, 2007 at 11:52 pm
There is no question that in the last century atheism and secularism became far more powerful in culture and government in the world than they were prior. Europe and North America are the most secular they have ever been. No one can doubt that atheism, agnosticism, and irreligion have far greater sway than they did 150 years ago.
So my question is, why isn’t the world more civilized?
October 1st, 2007 at 11:55 pm
TLG-
“Europe in the Middle Ages was the most advanced society on the planet. What reason would it have had besides Christianity to invade Middle Eastern countries?”
Considering this comment I am going to have to reassess my opinion of you. You may be intelligent but your knowledge of history is distinctly lacking.
October 2nd, 2007 at 12:09 am
“Very rare indeed is the strong believer who has actually studied other religions and an overview of the history of religion.”
One might suggest the very same thing of the atheists. Your lack of knowlege concerning the history of religion is manifest.
October 2nd, 2007 at 12:37 am
As a PS to my 212 I will say that I sometimes feel that history is the most useful subject of study for with a proper grasp of history we can more fully understand almost everything else.
October 2nd, 2007 at 8:45 am
The irony is that an exact opposite position by the SoCons would give the illusion that they are still a power and they would still get their way on many of their issues having a Republican President.
What do they really want that a President can do?
Giuliani has already said he would appoint the type of Justices acceptable to them.
He wouldn’t bother with gun issues. So status quo.
He wouldn’t support a marriage amendment but that wouldn’t happen under any nominee.
They can couch their endorsement of Giuliani as good for the security of the Nation.
When he wins, they maintain the fiction that they are important. They may even get a VP they love.
Win win.
October 2nd, 2007 at 8:49 am
8. “they will sizzle Giuliani.”
Yes, they could do that.
And then be eviscerated in the General.
October 2nd, 2007 at 8:49 am
Oh, gross, too much to reply to –
But this is important: “There is no question that in the last century atheism and secularism became far more powerful in culture and government in the world than they were prior. Europe and North America are the most secular they have ever been. No one can doubt that atheism, agnosticism, and irreligion have far greater sway than they did 150 years ago.
So my question is, why isn’t the world more civilized?”
This is the damn stupidest thing I’ve ever read. It’s almost as if he’s implying that the world hasn’t progressed in the last 150 years.
October 2nd, 2007 at 8:50 am
This is stupid, too: “So what does your secular, laissez faire utopia do with “dangerous†religions?”
NOTHING. It leaves them alone! Don’t you know what laissez-faire entails?!
October 2nd, 2007 at 9:03 am
6. “Giuliani is not a Republican”
There was a Republican party before Abortion, and a couple of other SoCon issues, became for some its litmus test.
The opinion- often heard from some- that Giuliani is Liberal, similar to Democrats, is the height of pure idiocy and ignorance.
October 2nd, 2007 at 9:06 am
I disagree with the assumption that tlg operates on. He seems to assume that you must be moderate to win an election. I disagree. I think, most the country is conservative and conservative principles have put the republicans in power time and time again.
Obviously, each candidate must moderate to the middle to some degree, but candidates must not be mccain’s or giuliani’s to win. That is just not true.
the reason we lost in 06 was because we moderated too much, we lost our way from conservative principles. conservatism is not dead as many would like to believe. it was just misrepresented by the republican leadership.
October 2nd, 2007 at 9:25 am
response to BC #6:
BC, I suggest you check the history blogs and read back to Rudy beating David Dinkins and being the hero of the liberal left machine in NYC for the first time in history.
October 2nd, 2007 at 9:26 am
oops, mis-wrote…. being the hero of the republicans, AGAINST the liberal left machine.
October 2nd, 2007 at 9:30 am
“must not be mccain’s or giuliani’s to win. That is just not true.”
As a rule no. In 2008, as unpopular as Republicans are today and barring a miracle will be then, it likely is true.
October 2nd, 2007 at 9:43 am
Mcon: ‘You are ignorant of history if you can’t understand the great influence European philosophies of the time played on the founding of this great country. Many of the contemporary European philosophers were more widely read in America than in their own countries. That wasn’t just a coincidence. Although the philosophers were not universally religious.’
So what does that have to do with your claims?
‘the American colonies were deeply so and a great many of the ideas in the constitution and the Declaration can be found in the Bible.’
Cite the Bible verses that are supposedly used for these two documents. The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were written on the basis of Enlightenment values, not . In fact, Thomas Jefferson had nothing but contempt for Christianity.
October 2nd, 2007 at 9:45 am
MWS: ‘There is no question that in the last century atheism and secularism became far more powerful in culture and government in the world than they were prior. Europe and North America are the most secular they have ever been. No one can doubt that atheism, agnosticism, and irreligion have far greater sway than they did 150 years ago.
So my question is, why isn’t the world more civilized?’
You’re hanging yourself with this statement. No surprise, really. The parts of the world that aren’t very civilized, usually are very religious. Look at the Islamic world – it reflects your so-called values. And look at the countries that are civilized, they are usually not very religious, or at least the state is secular.
October 2nd, 2007 at 9:48 am
MWS: ‘You have a very oversimplified understanding of history.’
And as is very usual for social conservatives and religious fundamentalists, you have no understanding of history – other than what you can find in politicized books.
Weren’t you the contemptible character who claimed that laws against rape do nothing but legislate morality?
October 2nd, 2007 at 10:27 am
Awakened,
“The parts of the world that aren’t very civilized, usually are very religious. Look at the Islamic world – it reflects your so-called values. ”
If you reread my post, you may note that I was not comparing Europe and North America to the Islamic world, but to their own past.
And while we may have high tech gadgetry, tons of leisure time, the internet, and microwave popcorn, I contest the notion that we are more civilized than we once were. When we look at how the hundreds of millions we’ve killed in the name of ideology, the hundreds of millions more snuffed out for convenience, the ever-growing impulse to ‘euthanize’ the old and infirm, the sky high divorce rates, the number of children not raised by their parents, the number of children born out of wedlock, the impulse to have government bear the burdon of familial responsibility, the mocking of virtue, the sewage out of Hollywood, the way our culture sexualizes children, and rampant drug use…..
I’d say we’re not all that civilized.
A more subtle and sophisticated analysis would differentiate between different religions and their respective impact on society. Would you lump all blonde people or tall people in the same boat.
October 2nd, 2007 at 10:33 am
TGL,
“This is the damn stupidest thing I’ve ever read. It’s almost as if he’s implying that the world hasn’t progressed in the last 150 years.”
Is that it?
October 2nd, 2007 at 10:37 am
Awakened,
“Weren’t you the contemptible character who claimed that laws against rape do nothing but legislate morality?”
I pointed out the obvious- that laws are based on some vision of morality (for instance that rape is wrong). That is rather obvious, sort of like saying that law is based on someone’s opinion.
And yes, I am rather contemptable.
October 2nd, 2007 at 10:40 am
Awakened,
“you have no understanding of history – other than what you can find in politicized books.”
Out of curiousity, how would you have any idea what I have and have not read? That’s kind of a puerile way of dismissing an entire group of people without having to debate anything, don’t you think?
So praytell, which authors and books must informed you about history?
October 2nd, 2007 at 12:09 pm
MWS: ‘If you reread my post, you may note that I was not comparing Europe and North America to the Islamic world, but to their own past.’
It matters not with which you choose to compare these areas. It is better to see how civilized relatively religious and non-religious areas are in this day and age. I know you wouldn’t want that, because it disproves your thesis, but some day, you’ll have to face facts.
‘I contest the notion that we are more civilized than we once were.’
Really? You think that we were more civilized when blacks were enslaved, women couldn’t vote and were the man’s property, bigotry against Jews and Catholics was mainstream? Was it really better because the divorce rate was low?
Only religion could justify such an insane statement. It is saddening that there still are lunatics like you out there. I can take heart in the fact that you are dying out at a rapid pace.
‘When we look at how the hundreds of millions we’ve killed in the name of ideology’
And how many millions were killed, before the onset of modernity? Many of them, men, women and children, at the express command of your God, Jahweh. Get off your horse and read your Bible, for a change. The Lord is the worst child-killer of all. And yet you seem to think that he’s a moral paragon. Strange, isn’t it? I don’t see many people considering killers like Charles Manson a great moralist, so why should you?
And really, you can’t blame a Hitler and Stalin on ‘modernity’ in general, as much as you would wish for a return to the 14th Century (you have that in common with your friend Mahmoud Ahmadinejad). Their existence doesn’t mean that their contemporary, Churchill, is also evil, or that modernity in general is evil.
‘the sky high divorce rates, the number of children not raised by their parents, the number of children born out of wedlock, the impulse to have government bear the burdon of familial responsibility’
MY GOD!!!!1 It’s worse than I thought. BRING BACK THE SLAVES!
‘the mocking of virtue’
Where? I don’t see virtue being mocked, merely faux virtue.
‘A more subtle and sophisticated analysis would differentiate between different religions and their respective impact on society.’
Nice try, but no deal. Countries with a lot of fundamentalist Christians aren’t much better off. Compare them to the secular countries and you’ll find the secular ones to be far more prosperous, developed and civilized. I wonder why.
October 2nd, 2007 at 12:13 pm
MWS: ‘I pointed out the obvious’
You didn’t point out anything that IS objectively obvious, you pointed out something YOU THOUGHT is obvious. Obviously, that has no objective worth at all, since you’ll find enough people in mental institutions who will point out ‘obvious’ things that aren’t very obvious to normal people.
‘that laws are based on some vision of morality (for instance that rape is wrong).’
Rape has been criminalized because “it’s wrong”, not because it’s a violation of some non-consenting person’s rights? Interesting, but not surprising that a theocrat would think like that. You adopt this form of reasoning so that you can criminalize other forms of behavior that is not to your liking, like gambling.
‘And yes, I am rather contemptable.’
Why?
October 2nd, 2007 at 12:15 pm
MWS: ‘Out of curiousity, how would you have any idea what I have and have not read? ‘
I can’t. I can only judge by their results. Even if you have read every historical book in the library, it hasn’t had much effect.
‘That’s kind of a puerile way of dismissing an entire group of people without having to debate anything, don’t you think?’
What group of people?
‘So praytell, which authors and books must informed you about history?’
Jay E. Killsworth. He wrote a nice book named “A Fourth-Grader’s Guide to World History”.
October 2nd, 2007 at 12:17 pm
AWA-
“So what does that have to do with your claims?”
If you knew how to read you would realize that I made no claims before that statement. I was responding to TLG’s apparent idea that the American “founding” sprouted from the nothingness and had nothing to do with Europe or our Christian background.
Re the Bible: If you wish I could write a thesis paper on the subject; suffice it to say that they prayed during the constitutional convention for a reason. Saying that the founding and the Enlightenment had nothing to do with Christianity is divorcing yourself from reality. Why don’t you provide me with original documents where Jefferson shows contempt for Christianity as a whole.
October 2nd, 2007 at 1:05 pm
Mcon: ‘If you knew how to read you would realize that I made no claims before that statement. ‘
My, my, aren’t you a ’sensitive’ one.
‘I was responding to TLG’s apparent idea that the American “founding†sprouted from the nothingness and had nothing to do with Europe or our Christian background.’
So what did it have to do with ‘our Christian background’? I note that you didn’t provide me with the Bible quotes that inspired the Constitution and the Declaration. That may be because they were inspired by (out of the top of my head) the Magna Carta, the Roman Republic, Enlightenment thinkers and John Locke.
’suffice it to say that they prayed during the constitutional convention for a reason’
And what reason is that? Because they wanted to establish a theocracy? That’s a new one.
‘Saying that the founding and the Enlightenment had nothing to do with Christianity is divorcing yourself from reality. ‘
The Enlightenment definitely had a lot to do with Christianity, it attempted to rid Western society from its public influences.
‘Why don’t you provide me with original documents where Jefferson shows contempt for Christianity as a whole.’
Original documents? Because I don’t happen to be one of his decenents, who inherited those original documents. But I can provide you with some quotes:
“Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth.”
- Thomas Jefferson, “Religion” in Notes on the State of Virginia (1782), p. 286.
“In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.”
- Letter of Thomas Jefferson to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814.
“The clergy, by getting themselves established by law and in-grafted into the machine of government, have been a very formidable engine against the civil and religious rights of man.”
- Letter of Thomas Jefferson to Jeremiah Moor, 1800.
Satisfied? Yet you claim that this man based the Declaration of Independence on the Bible…
October 2nd, 2007 at 1:23 pm
Awa,
Nice. I will reply later because my class started 8 minutes ago.
Quickly:
We agree about the influence of the Enlightenment, Locke, etc. If you reread my post you’ll see I said that many ideas in the Declaration and the Constitution can be found in the Bible. This isn’t quite the same as your portrayal of my claim.
I would never argue that the founders wanted a theocracy and neither do I. They did however found a distinctly Christian nation.
We disagree on the nature of the Enlightenment although I can sympathize with your position.
Re the “original documents”, I meant “primary” but you were kind enough to provide. I will research them in context. On a side note, I am much more fond of Adams than Jefferson.
“you claim that this man based the Declaration of Independence on the Bible…”
I don’t twist what you say like that. Why do it to me? You know what I said.
I will respond more in depth later.
October 2nd, 2007 at 1:25 pm
AWA,
also check out a link I left for you in a later thread about fund #’s.