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] 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,"
an attempt at "reshaping social attitudes
regarding human sexuality" that
would "destroy the military's moral
backbone." A focus group
participant sums up their fear:
"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,
is that straight, unmarried personnel will
demand the same partner benefits
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 and his
colleagues repeatedly argued
that the military shouldn't care "who you love." [
even when that "love" is pathological and
anti-nature] They called that question a matter
of "personal liberty."
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 and the Manual
for Courts-Martial prohibit sodomy, bigamy, adultery, "wrongful" cohabitation,
and incest. But these
rules are now seldom enforced, [
even though they should be and it is inexcusable
that they are not ] and reformers are trying to repeal them. Nine
years ago, the Commission on the 50th Anniversary
of the Uniform Code of Military Justice proposed
to decriminalize sodomy and
adultery. And last year, the
Commission on Military Justice reinforced the
sodomy proposal, citing Lawrence v. Texas
and "changes in sexual behavior
that have occurred since the creation of the
UCMJ." [ 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.
A Web site dedicated to "Full Marriage Equality"
calls on supporters of the DADT repeal to consider
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?
Switzerland is proposing to drop its incest law
on exactly
this basis. In the United States,
the lawyer for David Epstein, the Columbia
professor recently charged with incest,
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. "How is this
so different?"
You can argue that homosexuality is quite
different. But to make that case, you have to go beyond privacy
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. [ 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" and "lifestyle." But
nobody who's gay experiences it that way. You
don't choose to be gay. You just are 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." 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]>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: 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
