The End of the Christian Right

[The Gadfly]

It really does trend toward an amoral degeneracy. Then it collapses. We won't be any different. We could try to hold it off, but eventually all great nations commit suicide.

And by what means available to the federal government under the constitution, would you propose turning the tide of what you describe as amoral degeneracy? Remember that the first tenet of faith among your fellow Conservatives is smaller, less intrusive government.

I wouldn't, actuallyGovernment is not the solution to the problem, we, the people, are. Beyond reasonable limits on truly anti-social conduct, government cannot legislate morality; the best it can do is provide the citizenry the right to make their own moral choice. You will never have public morality, without private morality; you will never have public decency without the foundation of private decency. Government did not create the increasingly filthy and debased popular culture we have; it simply allows it. We are not forced to consume this garbage; we have the option, to turn off the TV, or the radio; we have the option, to refuse to consume what's in the newspapers, magazines, popular fiction, or the movies. You don't like sleaze? Then don't buy it, or watch it...and don't let your kids do it either. Don't like a particular lifestyle? Then don't engage in it. Don't like alcohol? Then don't drink it. Don't like drugs? Don't use them. No one is forcing you.

Liberty is NOT license. Character and self-discipline cannot be imposed from the outside; they come from within. Government cannot, and should not, be a substitute for conscience. Those things have to be nourished, built, and sustained at the individual level. The responsibility for that lies with each one of us. We are what we make ourselves, and government cannot either make that, or take it away.

 

[Katzndogz]

Not being a homophobe and being pro-choice doesn't mean you're ok with big debt, big gov't, big deficits and big taxes.





I'm a straight man for gay marriage, pro-choice, and our huge fiscally liberal gov't sickens me.

There are many reasons not to support the country. What the reason IS, is far less important than the existence of many reasons. The people are divided, they do not support the values or goals of one another. This means the country is weak and will eventually have no choice but to collapse or be overtaken by another stronger ideal.

A call to conformity? Really? We all have to hold the same values in order to be a viavble country? That's right out of the Taliban playbook, nes pas?

You are exactly what you complain about.

Yes, a country is a community held together by its values and traditions. That's just a fact of social cohesion. As far as a Taliban type forcing conformity on an unwilling people, that's coming from the left. Acceptance of same sex marriage will be imposed on the people who voted against it as a matter of conformity. Legalization of marijuna will be imposed on the very people who have rejected it. Liberals are quite happy and willing to impose conformity, as long as it conforms to their ideals. How is that for Taliban style rule? Religion is permitted to be held privately and not exposed to the public. How's that for religious freedom?

Whether you agree with liberalism or conservatisim the one inescapable fact is we no longer have shared values. The values of one side are alien to the values of the other. Nations this fractured do not continue for long. There is not enough support from either side to hold the country together in the event of a serious confrontation.

I'm inclined to agree with John Adams.

 

[Newby]

The Founding Fathers must be rolling over in their graves when they see the left's slobbering hatred of Christianity today. As far as political history goes we thought communism was dead back in the 50's but the left managed to resuscitate the failed institution to the point that a socialist president hired a communist to serve on his jobs board. Wishful thinking won't make morality go away.

Speaking as a Liberal and a Christian, I can say I don't hold a slobbering hatred of Christianity. I do have a concern that Puritanism might make a comeback and pillory folks for because they're homosexual and are seeking the same legal protections under contract law available to anyone who is heterosexual. I do have contempt for folks who have the temerity to legislate their narrow view of morality. We tried that in the 1920s and it failed.

There is more than just one narrow view of morality, christians don't corner the market on it, nor does religion. Telling people how many fat grams they're allowed to eat, how much water they can use, what kind of fuel they can use, how warm they can keep their homes heated, etc... is also 'morality' that is being pushed on the masses. Why is it only morality originating from religion that is vilified?

 

[Dr.Drock]

There are many reasons not to support the country. What the reason IS, is far less important than the existence of many reasons. The people are divided, they do not support the values or goals of one another. This means the country is weak and will eventually have no choice but to collapse or be overtaken by another stronger ideal.

A call to conformity? Really? We all have to hold the same values in order to be a viavble country? That's right out of the Taliban playbook, nes pas?

You are exactly what you complain about.

Yes, a country is a community held together by its values and traditions. That's just a fact of social cohesion. As far as a Taliban type forcing conformity on an unwilling people, that's coming from the left. Acceptance of same sex marriage will be imposed on the people who voted against it as a matter of conformity. Legalization of marijuna will be imposed on the very people who have rejected it. Liberals are quite happy and willing to impose conformity, as long as it conforms to their ideals. How is that for Taliban style rule? Religion is permitted to be held privately and not exposed to the public. How's that for religious freedom?

Whether you agree with liberalism or conservatisim the one inescapable fact is we no longer have shared values. The values of one side are alien to the values of the other. Nations this fractured do not continue for long. There is not enough support from either side to hold the country together in the event of a serious confrontation.

I'm inclined to agree with John Adams.

Gay marriage being legal isn't forcing you to have a gay marriage or even approve of it.

Marijuana being legal isn't forcing you to use it or approve of others who use it.

You either side with freedom on these issues, or you don't. Me I side with freedom as often as possible, whether they're freedoms I choose to exercise or not. I don't own a gun, can't hit the broadside of a barn, but having gun rights in the United States is incredibly important to me.

 

[Newby]

There are many reasons not to support the country. What the reason IS, is far less important than the existence of many reasons. The people are divided, they do not support the values or goals of one another. This means the country is weak and will eventually have no choice but to collapse or be overtaken by another stronger ideal.

A call to conformity? Really? We all have to hold the same values in order to be a viavble country? That's right out of the Taliban playbook, nes pas?

You are exactly what you complain about.

Yes, a country is a community held together by its values and traditions. That's just a fact of social cohesion. As far as a Taliban type forcing conformity on an unwilling people, that's coming from the left. Acceptance of same sex marriage will be imposed on the people who voted against it as a matter of conformity. Legalization of marijuna will be imposed on the very people who have rejected it. Liberals are quite happy and willing to impose conformity, as long as it conforms to their ideals. How is that for Taliban style rule? Religion is permitted to be held privately and not exposed to the public. How's that for religious freedom?

Whether you agree with liberalism or conservatisim the one inescapable fact is we no longer have shared values. The values of one side are alien to the values of the other. Nations this fractured do not continue for long. There is not enough support from either side to hold the country together in the event of a serious confrontation.

I'm inclined to agree with John Adams.

Exactly my point, somehow their morals are the 'right' ones, and they have no problem imposing them on others. Then they turn around and use the excuse that morality tied to religion is somehow worse than morality tied to their idealogies. Hypocrisy at its finest.

 

[Katzndogz]

It doesn't matter what view of morality there is, that's far from the point. The point is there has to be some common view of morality or the whole fails. Amoral nations do not survive because it does not have the support of the people who are the foundation of the country's existence. Nations that are significantly populated by drug addicts have no hope whatsoever.

The New American. Some fat, uneducated, lazy lout with teeth rotted from drug use and whose only concern is what man, woman, dog or toaster is going to provide the next orgasm.

There aren't enough people in the United States to defend amorality and degeneracy.

 

[Newby]

It doesn't matter what view of morality there is, that's far from the point. The point is there has to be some common view of morality or the whole fails. Amoral nations do not survive because it does not have the support of the people who are the foundation of the country's existence. Nations that are significantly populated by drug addicts have no hope whatsoever.

The New American. Some fat, uneducated, lazy lout with teeth rotted from drug use and whose only concern is what man, woman, dog or toaster is going to provide the next orgasm.

There aren't enough people in the United States to defend amorality and degeneracy.

But I think it does matter, as I said, they vilify one form morality and uphold another, acting like it's only 'forced morality' that stems from religion that is bad. That is liberalism, that is the wedge that you are talking about that will eventually rip the country apart. Morality does need a common source, liberalism does not have that.

 

[Dr.Drock]

What religious text speaks out against marijuana use or gays being married?

 

[Katzndogz]

It doesn't matter what view of morality there is, that's far from the point. The point is there has to be some common view of morality or the whole fails. Amoral nations do not survive because it does not have the support of the people who are the foundation of the country's existence. Nations that are significantly populated by drug addicts have no hope whatsoever.

The New American. Some fat, uneducated, lazy lout with teeth rotted from drug use and whose only concern is what man, woman, dog or toaster is going to provide the next orgasm.

There aren't enough people in the United States to defend amorality and degeneracy.

But I think it does matter, as I said, they vilify one form morality and uphold another, acting like it's only 'forced morality' that stems from religion that is bad. That is liberalism, that is the wedge that you are talking about that will eventually rip the country apart. Morality does need a common source, liberalism does not have that.

Liberals have a source for their fractured version of morality. It's relative! All morality is relative. It is moral to steal from your neighbor if they are immoral in not sharing sufficiently in giving you what you want.

Liberalism isn't immoral, it is amoral. Christianity isn't going anyplace. For all that China has tried to stamp out religion, Christianity is the fastest growing religion in China. It won't be stamped out in this country either. You can bet that as this country becomes less supportive of Christianity, Christians will be less supportive of this country too.

That's part of why the nation is failing.

 

[Katzndogz]

What religious text speaks out against marijuana use or gays being married?

I don't think that matters. This isn't really a discussion of religion. Religion might have some impact, but that's neither important nor determinative in the real fact that the country is too divided to sustain itself.

 

[Nosmo King]

The Founding Fathers must be rolling over in their graves when they see the left's slobbering hatred of Christianity today. As far as political history goes we thought communism was dead back in the 50's but the left managed to resuscitate the failed institution to the point that a socialist president hired a communist to serve on his jobs board. Wishful thinking won't make morality go away.

Speaking as a Liberal and a Christian, I can say I don't hold a slobbering hatred of Christianity. I do have a concern that Puritanism might make a comeback and pillory folks for because they're homosexual and are seeking the same legal protections under contract law available to anyone who is heterosexual. I do have contempt for folks who have the temerity to legislate their narrow view of morality. We tried that in the 1920s and it failed.

There is more than just one narrow view of morality, christians don't corner the market on it, nor does religion. Telling people how many fat grams they're allowed to eat, how much water they can use, what kind of fuel they can use, how warm they can keep their homes heated, etc... is also 'morality' that is being pushed on the masses. Why is it only morality originating from religion that is vilified?

I think you're expanding the definition of morality just to try to score some ham handed political points. No one is telling you how many fat grams to eat as a matter of law. There are some folks who are comfortable telling other who they can and cannot marry. See the difference? A recommended intake of fat versus your wedded bliss.

Now there may be areas in this country with severe water shortages. Fortunately, I do not live in such a place. But if I were to be restricted as to how much water I could use, I would understand. I made a mistake moving to the desert and I now have to conserve the precious resource. There are some folks who want to regulate what I can and cannot see and hear on television. I don't need television to live. But I would want to reserve the right to chose what I watch. The water issue effects the entire community (not the nation) while the television issue effects conduct in my own home. See the difference?

Don't water down morality to save it. Stick to the issue.

 

[Nosmo King]

It doesn't matter what view of morality there is, that's far from the point. The point is there has to be some common view of morality or the whole fails. Amoral nations do not survive because it does not have the support of the people who are the foundation of the country's existence. Nations that are significantly populated by drug addicts have no hope whatsoever.

The New American. Some fat, uneducated, lazy lout with teeth rotted from drug use and whose only concern is what man, woman, dog or toaster is going to provide the next orgasm.

There aren't enough people in the United States to defend amorality and degeneracy.

exaggerate much?

Perhaps you would have us all adopt an Amish lifestyle. Or revert to Puritanism. Or employ us as spies the way the American Legion was used by the Hoover FBI so we can reveal who the biggest transgressors are. Or maybe we can have mass rallies held at night under torch light so the one, true moral code can be inculcated. Then we could burn all those perverted books that are making us amoral!

That's just one fat, uneducated, lazy lout with teeth rotted from drug use and whose only concern is what man, woman, dog or toaster is going to provide the next orgasm American trying to do the right thing.

 

[Newby]

Speaking as a Liberal and a Christian, I can say I don't hold a slobbering hatred of Christianity. I do have a concern that Puritanism might make a comeback and pillory folks for because they're homosexual and are seeking the same legal protections under contract law available to anyone who is heterosexual. I do have contempt for folks who have the temerity to legislate their narrow view of morality. We tried that in the 1920s and it failed.

There is more than just one narrow view of morality, christians don't corner the market on it, nor does religion. Telling people how many fat grams they're allowed to eat, how much water they can use, what kind of fuel they can use, how warm they can keep their homes heated, etc... is also 'morality' that is being pushed on the masses. Why is it only morality originating from religion that is vilified?

I think you're expanding the definition of morality just to try to score some ham handed political points. No one is telling you how many fat grams to eat as a matter of law. There are some folks who are comfortable telling other who they can and cannot marry. See the difference? A recommended intake of fat versus your wedded bliss.

Now there may be areas in this country with severe water shortages. Fortunately, I do not live in such a place. But if I were to be restricted as to how much water I could use, I would understand. I made a mistake moving to the desert and I now have to conserve the precious resource. There are some folks who want to regulate what I can and cannot see and hear on television. I don't need television to live. But I would want to reserve the right to chose what I watch. The water issue effects the entire community (not the nation) while the television issue effects conduct in my own home. See the difference?

Don't water down morality to save it. Stick to the issue.

It's coming, along with that mandated health care... just wait.

 

[Nosmo King]

There is more than just one narrow view of morality, christians don't corner the market on it, nor does religion. Telling people how many fat grams they're allowed to eat, how much water they can use, what kind of fuel they can use, how warm they can keep their homes heated, etc... is also 'morality' that is being pushed on the masses. Why is it only morality originating from religion that is vilified?

I think you're expanding the definition of morality just to try to score some ham handed political points. No one is telling you how many fat grams to eat as a matter of law. There are some folks who are comfortable telling other who they can and cannot marry. See the difference? A recommended intake of fat versus your wedded bliss.

Now there may be areas in this country with severe water shortages. Fortunately, I do not live in such a place. But if I were to be restricted as to how much water I could use, I would understand. I made a mistake moving to the desert and I now have to conserve the precious resource. There are some folks who want to regulate what I can and cannot see and hear on television. I don't need television to live. But I would want to reserve the right to chose what I watch. The water issue effects the entire community (not the nation) while the television issue effects conduct in my own home. See the difference?

Don't water down morality to save it. Stick to the issue.

It's coming, along with that mandated health care... just wait.

Oh! I was too busy worrying about the Rapture to notice.

 

[Newby]

I think you're expanding the definition of morality just to try to score some ham handed political points. No one is telling you how many fat grams to eat as a matter of law. There are some folks who are comfortable telling other who they can and cannot marry. See the difference? A recommended intake of fat versus your wedded bliss.

Now there may be areas in this country with severe water shortages. Fortunately, I do not live in such a place. But if I were to be restricted as to how much water I could use, I would understand. I made a mistake moving to the desert and I now have to conserve the precious resource. There are some folks who want to regulate what I can and cannot see and hear on television. I don't need television to live. But I would want to reserve the right to chose what I watch. The water issue effects the entire community (not the nation) while the television issue effects conduct in my own home. See the difference?

Don't water down morality to save it. Stick to the issue.

It's coming, along with that mandated health care... just wait.

Oh! I was too busy worrying about the Rapture to notice.

That's the point, you really don't know what's good for you, but the government does!

 

[Dr.Drock]

What religious text speaks out against marijuana use or gays being married?

I don't think that matters. This isn't really a discussion of religion. Religion might have some impact, but that's neither important nor determinative in the real fact that the country is too divided to sustain itself.

The End of the Christian Right

On the religion forum.



Yes, it is a discussion about religion. I don't think our country is being destroyed by social progressives, being socially progressive is what caused americans to view slavery as an abomination and to view blacks as equals.

I think our country is being destroyed by fascism, select corporations and the gov't teaming up to rape and pillage every penny from the average american. The well is running dry though.

 

[Nosmo King]

It's coming, along with that mandated health care... just wait.

Oh! I was too busy worrying about the Rapture to notice.

That's the point, you really don't know what's good for you, but the government does!

I know that eating more than the recommended amount of fat in my daily diet is bad for me. No one has stopped the food manufacturers, butchers, restaurants and grocers from providing that amount and more. Hard cheese getting complete acquiescence with those recommendations.

But there are laws stopping homosexuals from getting legally married.

Which morality cop wields a bigger stick? The non-existent Food Police or the Neo-Puritan?

 

[koshergrl]

There aren't laws PREVENTING homos from getting married. There just aren't laws that RECOGNIZE homo marriages.

See, the progressives want MORE laws...they want to restrict the majority from doing the things that they think they shouldn't do, and they want more laws that will allow them, the minority, to do the things THEY want to..even though those things aren't currently recognized.

 

[Katzndogz]

Who they can marry, or how many, or how old, or what species.

Everyone has boundaries, it's just where should that boundary be. You might support same sex marriage, but not support plural marriages, or marriage to a four year old, or your neighbor's german shepard. Those are your boundaries.

That's a peripeheral issue. Those are fights that will happen tomorrow. As the culture starts pushing those boundaries back, degeneracy grows and the ability of the country to hang on diminishes.

While I don't care what people do. I do object the ability of the abnormal to force me to treat them as normal. I reject it which means I don't support these people. I don't share what's in their best interests. I would not support them, defend them, or give them any consideration whatsoever. Multiply that by millions. It's a fracture line. A fault line. It is a weak spot.

Drug addicts are different. American drug addiction is becoming part of the American sterotype like American lazyness. American avarice. Whether true or not, it is another fault line, another fracture. Another point at which Americans do not find other Americans national kinsmen.

 

[Nosmo King]

There aren't laws PREVENTING homos from getting married. There just aren't laws that RECOGNIZE homo marriages.

See, the progressives want MORE laws...they want to restrict the majority from doing the things that they think they shouldn't do, and they want more laws that will allow them, the minority, to do the things THEY want to..even though those things aren't currently recognized.

Your premise is flawed. Progressives (your word, not mine) want to EXPAND FREEDOM rather than restrict it to a select group. The freedom to finally access the stabilizing force that IS marriage. The freedom to access the protections of contract law.

Conservatives, particularly Social Conservatives, would RESTRICT freedom and the protections of contract law. Just as they did by resisting the Civil Rights movement, the Women's Rights movement and every other demand from the oppressed who simply yearn to live free.