What is the use of belaboring the obvious ? Well, OK, not exactly a secret, there is --as in the past-- criticism of BHO. For me, to do so is not only to express views about him as an individual, but his political supporters also. About Democrats and social issues, how many times is it necessary to make the point ? I'm sure the view has been expressed 100 times by now that on questions of values, my disdain for the Left is as conservative as that of any conservative you can name. Would one-hundred-and-one be enough ? This said, is the Right our source of "political salvation" ? I look at the Right and see all kinds of incompetents, leaders who are hopelessly uniformed about nearly every social issue, and unwilling to become informed, let alone to try and offer effective leadership in the good fight. In so many words, the Left is bad news, yet the Right is also bad news , but in a different way. I don't see any hope in change from the Left. Those people are impervious to reason and long ago threw out any sense of morality. Essentially they are nihilists. All in the name of enlightenment and, rather than no morality, the Highest Possible morality, the good of mankind, the good of the poor and oppressed, of the "wretched of the Earth" raised to glory. In so many words, the equivalent of the proletariat in Marxist-Leninism. I'm supposed to argue with neo-Communists and expect anything to come of it ? Believe me, I have done exactly that here in Berkeley North for more than a decade. Also believe me, those people can only understand defeat, not actual dialogue. On the Right things seem different, not by any means in all cases, but enough to think that dialogue just might work. However, the Right races after its own false messiahs, and there is no question that unless it confronts its own limitations then who cares who wins elections ? We get one set of evils rather than another. About Libertarians, generally, my thankfulness for their courage and their stands on free speech is considerable. But when we get into the category of nearly everything else, I am utterly mystified. OK, government would be better if it was scaled down, which is also Jeffersonian, but beyond that ? For me the Big Problem is morality. Where, in Libertarianism, is there room for religion-based morality ? Care to tell me ? Looking at the Mormons, I am flabbergasted since the LDS Church has elevated Libertarianism to divine status, as intrinsic to doctrine. But what happens to Mormon values if the greatest good is individual rights rather than revealed teachings about right and wrong ? The Mormons somehow live with this contradiction because the freedom to be left alone has obvious salience to the Mormon situation, they want to be left alone to further the interests of their Church, and if other Christians are also Libertarians, then how can they object to what the Mormons say and do ? But a number of things have stuck, like epoxy, from my Baptist years, among them the primacy of scripture as the final court of appeals. In those terms what counts the most, by far, is individuality but only in the context of a faith commitment grounded on the Bible, or in my case, the Bible and selective other scriptures also. So I part company with Libertarian philosophy because it, too, comes up short, and when there is no morality except one's self interest, well, that is no morality at all. Indeed, where is the line between that view and anti-religion ? Any thoughts on the matter ? These days, while I remain a defender of the rights of Atheists to hold to their views, my opinion of Atheist views has gone down the drain. Glad they are around so that honest criticisms of religion are never forgotten and so that believers must learn how to answer hard questions and become better as thinking people, but after that, the usefulness of Atheists gets really thin, really fast. When you told me that a large segment of Libertarians favors open borders I was more than a little surprised. That position is suicidal. Now we see the Right cave in to homosexuals without a fight. How did that happen ? Seems to me because of the extent of Libertarian influence. And Ron Paul has no issues with Islam ? ? ? In that case, Libertarianism is an excuse to forget doing any research at all except in law and economics, and to take ignorance as a virtue since who cares what people believe ? It doesn't matter because all that matters is number 1 and others who also think that number 1 is the be-all and end-all of political reality. No need to investigate Islam and understand that it inspires thousands of fanatics and has always inspired bloodthirsty fanatics. No need to understand the danger it poses to America No need because of what ? Because Atheists disdain faith and regard all religions as a waste of time, seems to be the answer. Which --surprise-- I really do not like. The way that opposition to the UCMJ collapsed --and maybe most of the GOP doesn't even know what it is, or why its principles are what they still are-- on the political Right in the past 48 hours tells me something very important. BTW, you are right about the "No Label" group. They use the words "Radical Centrism" but what they mean by the phrase is "Democrat lite." Think of Mark Satin, multiplied by a large number. So, that is a false hope, no point in worrying about it except that the brand name, Radical Centrism, is being diluted and misrepresented. My thoughts for the moment. Billy ===================================================== message dated 12/20/2010 8:20:14 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, [email protected] writes:
Well, the vast majority of Libertarians are atheists. I've seen 1 fellow Christian on libertarian lists. A Catholic at that. Ron Paul isn't even mentioned in the article, but is the subject of your displeasure. Why not those who are actually quoted in the article?? It must be OK for Reid, Murray, Boxer, Leahy, then, even though not a one of them is Libertarian. Once again, you save all of your scorn for conservatives and libertarians-mentioned once each in the article. The article, in the context of your introductory comments, reads as a non sequitor. David _ "There is no virtue in compulsory government charity, and there is no virtue in advocating it. A politician who portrays himself as "caring" and "sensitive" because he wants to expand the government's charitable programs is merely saying that he's willing to try to do good with other people's money. Well, who isn't? And a voter who takes pride in supporting such programs is telling us that he'll do good with his own money -- if a gun is held to his head."--P. J. O'Rourke On 12/20/2010 12:30 PM, [email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected]) wrote: Insanity is now official policy in the US military thanks to you-know-who This is just great, a White House based on principles of nihilism and a military that now is poised to include some percentage of sodomites. WWRPS ? What Would Ron Paul Say ? "What's the problem, its a matter of personal freedom" ? Seems to me that if this is, indeed, what he says, his brand of libertarianism has zero moral credibility. This matter has implications not only for Christian libertarians more generally, but specifically for Mormons since official LDS policy, based on a "revelation" of a past Church president, has it that libertarianism is sanctioned by God. Yet LDS policy toward homosexuals is as conservative as that of the SBC. How does any of this make sense for Mormons or Missouri Synod Lutherans or traditionalist Catholics, or Baptists, or Charismatic Christians, among others ? Or, when all is said, does libertarianism trump one's faith ? Seems to me that this is what it comes down to. And it seems to me the answer is "yes." If I am wrong, OK, but kindly show me some evidence that I am wrong. What have I missed ? I don't see any evidence to some other effect. My comments in brackets in the text --BR ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- human nature Patriot Gays "Don't ask, don't tell" and the future of sexual morality. By William Saletan Posted Monday, Dec. 20, 2010, at 8:01 AM ET ____________________________________ "Don't ask, don't tell" is history. The House and Senate votes to repeal it, backed by President Obama's promised signature, are a cultural milestone. But where is this revolution going? Are we abandoning moral judgments about sex, or just rethinking them? To social conservatives, DADT's demise is a collapse of values. It's an abandonment of "_character_ (http://www.afa.net/Detail.aspx?id=2147500766) ," an attempt at "_reshaping social attitudes regarding human sexuality_ (http://www.frc.org/newsroom/family-research-council-criticizes-senate-for-puttin g-social-agenda-ahead-of-military-mission) " that would "_destroy the military's moral backbon_ (http://www.coralridge.org/partnercentral/ministrynewsdetail.aspx?id=250) e." A focus group participant _sums up their fear_ (http://americansfortruth.com/news/congress-christmas-lump-of-coal-for-troops-ope n-homosexuality.html) : "People view the military as the last bastion of morals and what is good. If we break that down here … What's left?" The initial worry of these groups, bolstered by the military's _report on repealing DADT_ (http://www.defense.gov/home/features/2010/0610_gatesdadt/DADTReport_FINAL_20101130(secure-hires).pdf) , is that straight, _unmarried personnel will demand the same partner benefits_ (http://americansfortruth.com/news/congress-christmas-lump-of-coal-for-troops-open-homosexuality.html) accorded to gays. Conservatives [ who generally are as pathetically uninformed about homosexuality as is the Left ] tend to exaggerate the slippery slope from homosexuality to anything-goes. But many of the arguments for repealing DADT, coupled with ongoing efforts to reform military sex laws, do point in that direction. During the Senate debate, Majority Leader _Harry Reid_ (http://www.npr.org/2010/12/18/132164172/-dont-ask-dont-tell-clears-vital-hurdle) and his colleagues _repeatedly argued_ (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/12/lieberman-and-collins-on-dadt-repeal-this-is-a-civil-rights-bill.php) that the military shouldn't care "_who you love_ (http://wyden.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/?id=5896fb61-1200-402a-9dfd-48d88a700484) ." [ even when that "love" is pathological and anti-nature] They called that question a matter of "_personal liberty_ (http://wyden.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/?id=5896fb61-1200-402a-9dfd-48d88a700484) ." Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif, told her colleagues that after repealing DADT, "there is more work we have to do on this whole issue. There is still a lot of unfairness in our laws— partners not being able to have the same rights as married couples. That is another whole issue we will work on." The distinction between marriage and partnership isn't the only institution being challenged. Technically, the _Uniform Code of Military Justice_ (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sup_01_10_10_A_20_II_30_47. html) and the _Manual for Courts-Martial_ (http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/law/mcm.pdf) prohibit _sodomy_ (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sec_10_00000925----000-.html) , _bigamy_ (http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/mcm/bl134-5.htm) , _adultery_ (http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/mcm1342.htm) , _"wrongful" cohabitation_ (http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/1349.htm) , and _incest_ (http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/mcm/bl81.htm) . But these rules are now _seldom enforced_ (http://www.slate.com/id/2091777/) , [ even though they should be and it is inexcusable that they are not ] and reformers are trying to _repeal_ (http://www.stripes.com/news/panel-urges-ending-ucmj-s-sodomy-ban-1.95937) them. Nine years ago, the Commission on the 50th Anniversary of the Uniform Code of Military Justice proposed to _decriminalize sodomy and adultery_ (http://www.wcl.american.edu/nimj/documents/cox_comm_report2.pdf) . And last year, the Commission on Military Justice reinforced the sodomy proposal, citing _Lawrence v. Texas_ (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZS.html) and "_changes in sexual behavior that have occurred since the creation of the UCMJ_ (http://www.stripes.com/polopoly_fs/1.128855.1292429643!/menu/standard/file/coxreport.pdf) ." [ unsaid is whether such changes reflect collective stupidity ] Sodomy and adultery laws do seem outdated and silly. But if those laws are repealed on the grounds that consensual sex is private, it's hard to explain why the reform shouldn't extend to other laws. What about bigamy and incest? The "polyamory community," claiming support from the ACLU, accuses the military of _persecuting polyamorous troops_ (http://practicalpolyamory.blogspot.com/2009/10/army-disciminates-against-bereaved-poly.html) . A Web site dedicated to "_Full Marriage Equality_ (http://marriage-equality.blogspot.com/) " calls on supporters of the DADT repeal to _consider_ (http://marriage-equality.blogspot.com/2010/11/veterans-day.html) the men and women who risked their lives (and those who gave them) and endured so many things in service to their country, who haven't been free to be who they really are and share their lives openly with the person or persons they love. Shouldn't someone who risked their life for this county be able to marry someone of the same sex, or more than one person, or a biological relative? Or at least share a life with the person(s) he or she loves without a fear that their own government will be against them? Is bravery and valor negated if a man loves another man, or his long lost sister? [ this is crazy; the purpose of the military is national defense, not touchy-feelie psychological adventure ] Laugh or snort if you want to, but it's a serious question. If DADT repealers are correct that sex is a matter of personal liberty and it doesn't matter "who you love," why shouldn't that defense cover polyamory and _sibling couples_ (http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2008/05/07/scots-incest-pair-plan-to-move-to-france-to-continue-relationship-86908-20407939/) ? Switzerland is proposing to _drop its incest law_ (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/switzerland/8198917/Switzerland-considers-repeal ing-incest-laws.html) on _exactly this basis_ (http://www.admin.ch/ch/d/gg/pc/ind2010.html) . In the United States, the lawyer for David Epstein, the Columbia professor recently _charged with incest_ (http://www.slate.com/id/2277787/) , asks why tolerance of "what goes on privately in bedrooms" shouldn't extend to his client. "It's OK for homosexuals to do whatever they want in their own home," the lawyer _notes_ (http://abcnews.go.com/Health/switzerland-considers-legalizing-consensual-incest-columbia-professor-accused/s tory?id=12395499) . "How is this so different?" You can argue that homosexuality is quite different. But to make that case, you have to _go beyond privacy_ (http://www.slate.com/id/2081904/) and consent. You have to draw moral distinctions. Homosexuality isn't just a matter of who you love. It's a matter of who you are. And it's _compatible with traditional sexual values_ (http://www.slate.com/id/2091428/) . [ like hell it is, and anyone who takes this view is ludicrously uniformed about even the basics ] The conservative assumption about homosexuality, freely vented in the DADT debate, is that it's a "_behavior_ (http://www.afa.net/Detail.aspx?id=2147500766) " and "_lifestyle_ (http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=WU10L15&f=PG07J01) ." But nobody who's gay experiences it that way. You don't choose to be gay. You just _are_ (http://www.slate.com/id/2204534/) gay. [ more utter garbage, homosexualks spend a hellkuva lot of time and energy recruiting others for many reasons,, including the fact that they have a zero replacement rate in terms of biology ]This, too, was a common theme of the DADT repeal. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that DADT "_forces young men and women to lie about who they are_ (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/03/us/politics/03military.html) ." In Saturday's Senate debate, Sen. Pat Leahy, D-Vt., said repeal would let troops "be honest about who they are." Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., said the policy punished people "not because of something they did but because of who they are." [ ignorant fools who are clueless about just about every relevant fact ] If homosexuality is an orientation rather than a preference or choice—if it's a matter of who you are, not who you love—then it's detachable from other kinds of sexual deviance. In fact, it isn't deviant. A gay person can be just as faithful and monogamous as a straight person. [ which is more pure drivel, the monogamy rate among homosexual partners is less than 10 % among males and even is less than for heterosexual women among homosexual females ] And military rules of sexual propriety can apply just the same. As Boxer noted during Saturday's debate: The military has a very strict code of conduct … Everybody in the military must adhere to it, whether you are heterosexual, homosexual … In 1993 we had just come through this horrible scandal called Tailhook. It was awful. You had a series of rapes … Action was taken. So, clearly, heterosexuals in the military, when they misbehave in a sexual way, are going to be punished. It is the same way for improper homosexual behavior. It will not be tolerated. That is the point. I said that "Don't ask, don't tell" is a policy of discrimination based on your status instead of your behavior. If the fall of DADT is ultimately interpreted this way—as a rethinking of homosexuality, not of sexual morals generally—it won't satisfy libertines or libertarians. But culturally, it might prove easier to digest. Is homosexuality about who you love or who you are? That debate, unresolved by the fight over DADT, will rage on. -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community _<[email protected]>_ (mailto:[email protected]) Google Group: _http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism_ (http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism) Radical Centrism website and blog: _http://RadicalCentrism.org_ (http://radicalcentrism.org/) -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: _http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism_ (http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism) Radical Centrism website and blog: _http://RadicalCentrism.org_ (http://radicalcentrism.org/) -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
