Some replies of my own in BF in the text..... message dated 12/21/2010 8:45:07 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, [email protected] writes:
It's more complicated than that. Comments interspersed. _ "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 12/21/2010 7:07 PM, [email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected]) wrote: David : The "moral issue of homosexuality" ? I sent a lengthy article, in the from of a constitutional amendment, based on research, not guesswork, showing with empirical evidence, that homosexuality is a psychopathology, that is causes irreparable harm to society that can be measured objectively, and in the process argued that while it is valid to say that it is a moral issue, such a view is counter-productive precisely because not everyone agrees that the Bible is the only source of morality. The gist of everything was that there is a powerful --I think iron clad-- case to be made that homosexuality should be recriminalized because the weight of actual science says exactly that, homosexuality is a curable mental illness. The Amendment also says that it was a huge mistake for the Right to make its case on moral grounds UNLESS the moral factor was an add-on, lending support to the scientific case to make. Uhhh, a wild guess, you saw the title, assumed it was a moral argument and disregarded it. Actually it was completely different and based on the demonstrable fact that homosexuality not only injures homosexuals themselves, but families and entire communities, not even to count the very high crime rates among degenerates. I understand and agree with what you are saying. The debate has been re-framed to be a tolerance issue rather than a scientific one. Whether either of us likes that or not. (And it's obvious that we don't like it.) But that's where we find it today. Well, yeah, that IS where the debate is today. Not in doubt at all. However, if that is where it stays, then we end up with moral collapse nationwide. Or so it seems to me, maybe not universally, but massive nonetheless. So the question is, how do we reframe the debate and do so effectively and damned soon ? To do this, people must actually care. This is where moral considerations come into play in a politics / policy sense. Moral factors motivate people, are great for rallying the troops, etc, but you can't, in a pluralistic society, rely on an assumed morality, viz, the testimony of the Bible as privileged over the Buddhist sutras or the Upanishads, for example. So, how much do people care ? I'd say, off hand, speaking of the "Religious Right," a lot, but only about half as much as the issue of abortion. Well, we know the result, That's not enough. Next question, how to motivate people. For now, no answer that I am sure of --but it must happen or the next target of homosexuals will be marriage, nationally. OK, I agree about the sick values of most Democrats. The point is that the GOP could have stopped the Democrats since they have 41 Senators. But 10 defected to the Democrats. I am angry as hell at the defections and I don't see how beating up on Democrats solves the problem of defections. A California Democrat is more liberal than a Texas one (with the possible exceptions of Sheila Jackson-Lee and Lloyd Doggett), although both may fall to the left of center. A Massachusetts Republican is more liberal than a Texas one, although both may fall to the right of center. Old style establishment Republicans still exist, and they are barely to the right of center. It's not their social values that put them there, but their fiscal values. Rockefeller Republicans aren't dead. And this is all happening BEFORE the supposedly more "Libertarian" freshman class even takes their seats. And 10 DID NOT defect to the Democrats. 3 Republicans were not present and 1 Democrat, so they had 58 Democratic votes and got 7 Republican votes (65-31 was the vote I believe). The usual Northeasterners (Collins, Snowe, Brown) combined with Murkowski (AK), Burr (NC-WTF?), Ensign (NV), and Kirk (IL). The only surprise (really) to me was Burr, who may have a hard time being reelected with this vote. The rest are known squishes. Fair enough, but seems to me --you will correct me if I am wrong as a public service-- that someone does not need to be "a Libertarian" to sometimes use Libertarian logic. I've been paying attention to the reasons that various Reps gave for their support of the homosexuals, and while my "sample size" is small, what I mostly heard were the kinds of arguments which I have heard before by Libertarians. That's all I was trying to say. In other words, and I doubt if many Libertarians would disagree, the influence of Libertarian ideas is much greater than the hard count number of Libertarians would suggest, Which also is another reason I take Libertarianism seriously even if I disagree with parts of the philosophy. Finally, which I thought was a clear enough, but let me restate it, how does "leave me alone" square with what the Bible says about homosexuality ? How does it square with some kind of effective position to take against aggressive Islam ? Libertarianism's only moral code, if it can be called that, is to leave others alone. It is strictly individualistic, which leads to a lack of cohesion in Libertarian circles, but they are mostly all cool with that. I believe that I also said that Libertarianism is not based on Religion, and that most Libertarians are atheists. However, they also expect to be left alone. Since Libertarians are strong gun rights activists, an attempt at proselytizing a Libertarian would probably wind up with a dead Muslim. I get that. L is non-religious. The question is : How does a Christian square support for Libertarianism with being a Christian ? Granted, sometimes it is no problem, especially among highly individualistic Baptists and some other kinds of Evangelicals. But on a limited number of nonetheless very important issues, well, it sure seems to me that there is a huge gulf the size of the Gulf of Mexico. Specifically what the Bible says about homosexuality ( in no less than 20 books in 25 separate verses ) , and about Islam, a religion that is overtly opposed to Christianity, in the Qur'an itself, not only Muslim public opinion, with verses telling Muslims not to be friends with Christians ( or Jews ) and telling them that the Bible is false in all kinds of ways. I mean, this kind of direct attack on Christian faith is a major factor and --to do as BHO does plus almost the whole pundit class-- to pretend that the differences are trivial is to completely misconstrue Islam. On these two issues most ( 90 % ) of Libertarians take stands that, to put it in such terms, strike me , as a former Baptist who still knows something about Baptist principles, as anti-Baptist, So , how does a Baptist ( could be Missouri Synod Lutheran, etc ) square the circle ? BTW, do you know of any Libertarians who use Libertarian principles to criticize homosexuality ? If so, would be very useful to know. As a theory, it seems to me --setting aside my admiration for the Libertarian views of free speech and its role in seeking to check out of control gvt-- that what is a serious problem for Republicans is Libertarian influence in some key policy areas. Sure, about any number of things the Democrats are waaaaay BAD. But the issue is the question, why did the Republicans cave ? And the corollary, why are they such putzes when it comes to Islam even if their hearts are in the right place ? Burr, for whatever reason, thought that it was eventually inevitable. Murkowski will now do anything to put a stick in the eye of conservatives, her stated "reasons" don't mean squat. Ensign has his own problems in Nevada, and I'll let you explain Kirk, since he is from Illinois. I cannot. Collins, Snowe and Brown are dead meat in their blue states voting against this. True, I might not mind sacrificing them, but I doubt that they are going to sacrifice themselves. Maybe there is some other explanation, but as I read the arguments on these subjects made by Republicans, seems to me that their logic is Libertarian logic. And I just don't see where, on these two issues, that logic makes good sense. In fact, if the theory is correct, that way of thinking contributed directly to about a dozen GOP senators defecting to the Democrats. Hearing that any of THESE seven are Libertarians makes me laugh. Coburn and Inhofe, maybe, but that group of 7? PLEASE. I can only laugh maniacally for so long. If anything, 4 are "Democrat lite." If you have some other explanation that fits the facts about why these defections took place, I'm all ears. But telling me how evil the Democrats are isn't an explanation for a question about Republican behavior. At least I don't see how. They are scattered above and yes, they are rather weak. Maybe you can say that the evil Democrats influenced the Republicans, and there may be some truth to that, but if so, why were the Republicans "soft" in the first place and susceptible to the Dems ? Seems to me if "leave me alone"... FYI. I got the "leave me alone" metaphor from a lecture by O'Rourke on C-Span, he made a big deal of it. is the summun bonum of one's logic the result will be, on social values issues, abandonment of ( 1 ) the Bible, which is decidedly of the view, homosexuality must be stopped, and ( 2 ) of political debate to the Democrats except for delaying tactics. I would say that item number 2 has largely already taken place. The Media and Academia are staunchly Democratic, and I saw just the other day a Christian Astronomer was not hired by The University of Kentucky because he was "potentially evangelical." _http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/111718/_ (http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/111718/) As noted, this might not play well in Kentucky. Any comments ? Billy message dated 12/21/2010 11:45:22 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, [email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected]) writes: I read your introduction, expecting to find in the article some corroboration of the introduction. I let my e-mail program search for "ron paul" and he is only found in your introduction. Like I said, libertarian and conservative are each used 1 time in the article. So instead of belaboring the obvious we are now going to belabor the practically non-existent?? If so, bravo, excellent job at turning damn near nothing into something. I suppose that's the plan. Which SUX. Pardon me if I look to the left and I see demagogues and no leaders. This President always has to have something else to blame, be it Fox News, stupid voters, their lack of understanding, a failure on the public's part to understand and comprehend, but it is never HIS policies, HIS positions, HIS understanding. He is the first President in our history to be PERFECT (perfect what, I will have to self-censor). Libertarianism is not based on Religion, and the only thing I see based on religion to the left is their utter hatred for Christianity. Hence the easy bedfellows with the Muslims, they hate Christianity as well. Libertarians are basically, "you leave me alone and I'll leave you alone." They will at least never become Muslim, because the Muslims are not interested in leaving anyone alone when it comes to religion. Ayn Rand was an Objectivist, not a Christian by any stretch of the imagination. Those in the Libertarian fold who are Christian cannot and generally do not conform to totally doctrinaire Libertarianism without taking the stance that they are letting God take care of vengeance and punishment of the moral issues of Homosexuality and Abortion instead of trying to handle it themselves via the government. Because the religious right has been trying for that sort of intervention for a while and they don't seem to have been able to move the levers an inch in the direction they want it to go, what chance do the even smaller cadre of Libertarians have of moving it? Slim to none. Libertarians exclusively focus on the individual. David -- 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
