The Shotgun Blog
« Celebrating 10 years of registering farmers and hunters: Canadian Firearms Program | Main | All I hear is the sweet music of political disgrace: 'What We Want' by Ashley Dupre »
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Social conservatives are an ally in the freedom movement. Only statists are not
The American Thinker has published on a subject close to my heart: the need for reconciliation between social conservatives and libertarians. In “A libertarian defense of social conservatism,” Randall Hoven opens with this:
Social conservatism is taking a beating lately. Not only did it lose in the recent elections, it is being blamed for the Republican losses. If only the religious right would get off the Republican Party's back, the GOP could win like it is supposed to again. I beg to differ.
I'm anything but a social conservative. In nine presidential elections, I voted Libertarian in six. I am a hard core "limited government" conservative/libertarian; I want government out of my pocket-book and out of my bedroom. Concerning my religion, it's none of your business, but I'm somewhere in the lapsed-Catholic-deist-agnostic-atheist spectrum; let's just call it agnostic.
Having said all that, I have no problem with "social conservatives" or the "religious right" and their supposed influence on the Republican party. I base this not on the Bible or historical authority, but on the love of liberty and the evidence of my own eyes.
Randall Hoven goes on to argue that the Nanny Statists are responsible for more intrusions on our liberty than social conservatives, who are actually quite weak politically. He also argues that on issues like drugs, there is bi-partisan support for prohibition, so don't blame conservative Republicans.
While it's an interesting and valuable column, Hoven doesn’t really address the concerns of social liberals that a more powerful social conservative movement could be a threat to social freedoms.
Hoven’s piece also falls short in that it ignores the libertarian nature of real conservative priorities: family, church and community. Those who advocate for a free society must understand that lasting freedom requires social order, which depends in large part on the private and voluntary institutions considered sacred by conservatives – family, church and community. These institutions are too often dismissed by reckless, counter-culture libertarians influenced by the “dynamism” of people like Virginia Postrel.
The war on the family decried by social conservatives is a very real war on liberty. And only when social conservatives and libertarians come together, will we have a movement that gives us both social order and freedom.
Social conservatives are an ally in the freedom movement. Only statists are not.
Posted by Matthew Johnston
Posted by westernstandard on November 23, 2008 in Canadian libertarian politics | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e201053612d7bf970b
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Social conservatives are an ally in the freedom movement. Only statists are not:
Comments
Matthew,
There is, of course, no inconsistencey with being a social conservative *personally* and a libertarian *politically*. And as you point out, the former can actually bolster the latter. But when someone is asked what term describes their *political* views, if they say "I'm a social conservative" watch out! That's a guy who will try to get the government to restrict your liberty in all sorts of ways that are "for your own good". He'll take your pot away, force your kids to pray in school, and try to put you in jail if he doesn't like your (consensual) sex life. People who are *politically* social conservatives are no friends of liberty.
Posted by: Fact Check | 2008-11-23 12:28:41 PM
"He'll take your pot away, force your kids to pray in school, and try to put you in jail if he doesn't like your (consensual) sex life. People who are *politically* social conservatives are no friends of liberty."
What is liberating about being forced to accept pot drenched brains, sexual perversion and 'NOT ALLOWING' prayer in school?
Unless the government puts a video camera in your bedroom and enters your home to sniff for pot smoke, how are they going to put you jail?
I know from personal experience that pot dulls the mind and make procrastination a way of life. Sexual perversion is not healthy for the mind or body. You are supporting the degradation of society with your progressive views.
We in Canada, may support the non-competitive life-style of pacifism and dependence, but the rest of the world does not. We will lose our freedoms not at the hands of social conservatives, but at the hands of our more totalitarian enemies. I consider our own violent left a greater bane on our freedoms than the social conservatives who are much more likely to adopt a 'live and let live philosophy of life'. That was shown where the US military adopted a 'don't ask, don't tell' policy regarding homosexuality in the forces.
Most Conservatives who do not agree with the debauchery you support are not generally predisposed to controlling your in-home activities. It is the violent left who would send their minions into your home to try to control your personal behavior with the power of the collectivist state and their tasers.
They will do this to control your cigarette smoking or your legal or non legal ownership of fire arms for example. In fact in some progressive countries they already do this.
Posted by: John V | 2008-11-23 1:04:31 PM
Hoven's article is full of annoying little errors. For example:
"The religious right usually just wants to be left alone, either to home school, pray in public or not get their children vaccinated with who-knows-what. Inasmuch as the "religious right" wants some things outlawed, they have failed miserably for at least the last 50 years. Abortion, sodomy, and pornography are now all Constitutional rights. However, praying in public school is outlawed, based on that same Constitution."
Students are not prohibited from praying in public schools. There have been cases (as I recall) in which over-zealous administrators have stopped students from praying. Every time this has happened, a higher authority (one actually familiar with the 1st Amendment) has chastized the administrator.
Errors like this make it difficult to take anything he says seriously.
He doesn't say anything about Lawrence v. Texas, which was based, not on a right to "privacy", but on a right to liberty. Full stop.
In addition, it's ridiculous for a libertarian to object to the substantive due process reading of the 14th Amendment.
Here's why: libertarians tend to believe that "law" must be subject to moral constraints. Law that doesn't meet those constraints -- that violates rights, enumerated or otherwise -- isn't really law, but just the exercise of coercion. Thus, when a state enforces such a rights-violating "law", it IS depriving people of liberty without due process of law.
I explain this point in more detail here:
http://tinyurl.com/5dftk9
Also, it's inaccurate to characterize Roe v. Wade as a "pro-abortion" decision that took the power to regulate abortion away from the states. Quite the contrary. Better to say: it took the decision about whether to ban abortion in the 1st trimester away from the states.
Finally, his argument is just conceptually confused, as Fact Check pointed out, and as Rothbard would have argued, given what he says here:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard48.html
Libertarianism is a view about the limits on legitimate government authority. It is not a comprehensive moral philosophy.
Someone with socially conservative views, who thinks it would be wrong for the state (ANY state) to impose those views on other people, might qualify as a libertarian. But in what sense would this person be a social conservative?
A more accurate description of the person would be "a libertarian who happens to agree with social conservatives about, e.g., the nature of virtue, the wrongness of homosexuality, etc." Insofar as this person believes that it would be wrong for a government to go around imposing his broader moral outlook on people who reject it, he's a libertarian.
Don't get me wrong: there's something nice and consistent about a conservative who believes a) homosexuality is intrinsically wrong, and b) therefore, the government ought to make life more difficult for homosexuals.
The libertarian who thinks a) homosexuality is intrinsically wrong, but b) the government ought not make life more difficult for homosexuals has a tougher road to hoe. He needs to explain why it is okay for the government to prohibit some intrinsically wrong actions (e.g. violations of rights) and not others (e.g. homosexual behavior.)
I'm not saying it can't be done. But premise (b) is the crucial bit, separating libertarians from social conservatives like (for example) Frank Turek. And socially liberal libertarians -- who think there is nothing intrinsically wrong with homosexuality -- don't face the difficulty of explaining why the government ought to enforce morality sometimes, but not others.
Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2008-11-23 1:12:22 PM
"He'll take your pot away,"
True, but as Hoven states, that is bipartisan stance in the US (as it is in Canada, unless you like the NDP).
"force your kids to pray in school,"
That's the first I've heard of it. No doubt such people exist on the extreme fringe, but most So-Cons I've known are more concerned with the right to pray in school for those who choose to do so.
"and try to put you in jail if he doesn't like your (consensual) sex life."
I'd like to know one politician or thinker in the western world who still advocates that position. The most anyone would argue these days is that, yes, what consenting adults do in private is none of the government's bussiness but neither should the government encourage "alternative lifestyles" by elevating them to the status of traditional marriage. (And even advocating that position is likely to get someone branded a knuckledragging homophobe.)
I think your exagerated carticature of Social Conservatives hinders reasonable debate on this topic.
Posted by: Ben Hicks | 2008-11-23 1:16:05 PM
"The most anyone would argue these days is that, yes, what consenting adults do in private is none of the government's bussiness"
Ben Hicks,
But this isn't really correct. For example, Lawrence v. Texas would not have gotten to the Supreme Court is someone hadn't been charged under Texas's anti-sodomy law. And that was in 2003. Colorado had a similar law on the books.
The Texas law, and others like it, directly prohibited private acts between consenting adults in the privacy of the home. Also, various states (Alabama being one, I think) have laws banning the sale of sex toys (Alabama's law was struck down, as I recall.)
That's not to say that every conservative agrees with these laws. But some do, given the negative reaction that occured when the laws were struck down.
Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2008-11-23 1:24:55 PM
John,
So you admit your mind has been dulled by pot. That's a good start. But not only does pot dull the mind, Kool-Aid does it too. In your case, while you are still able to see the ways that the so-called "left" tries to restrict liberty, it blinds you to the exact same flaws is the so-called "right". The ability of the "left" to control your in-home cigarette smoking is no different and no easier to do than the "right" trying to control your in-home pot smoking. Different fascist strokes for different folks. But both are anti-liberty controls.
You ask, "Unless the government puts a video camera in your bedroom ... how are they going to put you jail?" Well, John Lawrence and Tyron Garner were arrested for consensual sex in their own bedroom when cops came into their home based on a false report of a weapons disturbance. They only avoided jail because of a 2003 decision by the Supreme Court of the United States (in a 6-3 vote). It was only "judicial activism" that guaranteed their liberty from social conservatives.
John, the issue is not whether prayer is good or bad for you, pot is good or bad for you, or anal sex is good or bad for you. The question is who gets to decide if you will be forced to do the first or allowed to do the latter two. People who are politically social conservatives are in favour of restricting the liberty of those who disagree with them. That's fascist. That's you.
Posted by: Fact Check | 2008-11-23 1:26:43 PM
"The ability of the "left" to control your in-home cigarette smoking is no different and no easier to do than the "right" trying to control your in-home pot smoking. Different fascist strokes for different folks. But both are anti-liberty controls."
Fact Check,
Well said. Well said, indeed.
Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2008-11-23 1:29:05 PM
"That's not to say that every conservative agrees with these laws. But some do, given the negative reaction that occured when the laws were struck down."
Thanks for pointing this out. I honestly wasn't aware of this case and, needless to say, I strongly disagree with such Iran-style policies.
I also apprecaie your important point that "not ... every conservative agrees with these laws." Certainly in here Canada, I know none who do. The Harper-Obama compromise of "same sex unions" (ie: full legal equality without redining the english language to make it more "tolerant.") Is most extreme view I've encountered.
Posted by: Ben Hicks | 2008-11-23 1:51:56 PM
First, a libertarian is a Marxist who wants a tax cut and the ability to download Hollywood movies for free on the internet.
Second, there is a disturbing pattern of decidedly statist individuals, such as our friend Emrys, presenting themselves as libertarians. It emerged last election that Marc Emery supports an extremely statist labour party - the NDP - and that he and many others in the movement campaigned for the NDP and signed up "thousands" of NDP members. Forgive my language but you are on crack if you seriously expect people to believe a movement with such close ties to the NDP is "libertarian".
I do not believe for a second that Matthew Johnston, or Jaworski, or many others here can reasonably be described as libertarian, because
a) they are so narrrowly focused on trivial matters like legalizing weed and pirating rather than "grown up" issues like taxes and race\gender quotas; and
b) they are so reluctant to appear politically incorrect and to attack individuals or entities that are deemed politically correct as to reasonably conclude they are, by their silence, complicit with the left and indeed endorse the left's agenda.
The overwhelming majority of statism is because of interest groups such as feminists, gay radicals, soccer moms, immigrants, and ethnics; unless libertarians are willing to do their share of heavy lifting in criticizing these groups we conservatives are entirely justified at being disgusted with you.
Posted by: Statist Investigator | 2008-11-23 1:52:39 PM
Fact Check,
You I trust you enjoy attacking and insulting me. That is indicative of the violent left. I merely questioned your comments. I don't recall insulting you.
Perhaps you are unaware that pot dulls the mind when under it's influence, but then recovery occurs when smoking stops. If not ... now you know.
You appear to take such delight in attacking me (trait of the violent left) that you missed my point. I was stating that I don't care what people do privately whether I agree with it or not. That is largely the conservative or libertarian
point of view.
If a man was caught with his penis in another man's rectum by a misdirected report of a fire arms offense, that's just bad luck.
It boggles the mind that you think I am fascist for having a 'live and let live' philosophy, rather than one where all is controlled and sanctioned by big brother, but then, I think you are complete asshole for your inability to debate without the name calling which I just did to describe your attitude toward me.
The state has no business in the bedrooms or the pot dens of our homes and has no business supporting deviant behavior. It is always best to let people sort out their own behaviors and differences with others all on their own ... just like humans have always done until recently.
It is through that method of human interaction that we arrived at the high level of civilization and success that we in the western world have achieved.
Most of our social problems are due to governments getting involved with personal differences and trying to legislate the sort of behavior that they and their lobby groups pressure them to do.
It would be impossible to have a perfect society because humans are imperfect and will always disagree on a variety of issues. We are not all the same nor equal no matter how hard progressives try to make it so. The more that governments and pressure groups interfere in society at the personal and moral level the more complex and unsatisfying our society becomes.
That is why I cannot believe in a deity who controls all details of human existence and who is interested in our most intimate concerns. Especially now that we are aware that there is an entire universe filled with galaxies to manage.
You come across as a very bitter person and and intolerant, bloviating know-it-all. Another trait of the violent left.
Posted by: John V | 2008-11-23 2:19:52 PM
John,
"The state has no business in the bedrooms or the pot dens of our homes and has no business supporting deviant behavior."
Just a quick question: when the U.S. Supreme Court struck down anti-sodomy laws, was that an example of the state supporting deviant behavior?
Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2008-11-23 2:35:27 PM
John V - Hear, hear! You said it better than I could have.
Posted by: Alain | 2008-11-23 2:41:43 PM
Matthew, I consider myself a social conservative libertarian. I believe the libertarian movement can benefit from the support of the social conservatives, so long as they are not political social conservatives as Fact Check pointed out.
Fact Check, good points. I would only add that political activism from the social left or right is a problem.
Posted by: TM | 2008-11-23 3:17:27 PM
terrence, are you calling gay people deviants?
Posted by: lovilla | 2008-11-23 3:34:23 PM
Most of our social problems are due to governments getting involved with personal differences and trying to legislate the sort of behavior that they and their lobby groups pressure them to do.
It would be impossible to have a perfect society because humans are imperfect and will always disagree on a variety of issues. We are not all the same nor equal no matter how hard progressives try to make it so. The more that governments and pressure groups interfere in society at the personal and moral level the more complex and unsatisfying our society becomes.
Posted by: John V | 23-Nov-08 2:19:52 PM
Very well spoken. Since we are all "individuals" with individual rights, individual view points and individual life styles there will never be a "collective" government issued law (vs. natural / moral law)that will work.
Libertarians simply want to acknowledge this and repeal laws of control....ALL laws of control.
Which leaves each to sort out their own lives and live them as they wish provided there is no force or fraud used on others.
And Hoven is right about one thing....the Conservatives of the day are merely the "slower road to socialism".
I'll be a Libertarian until conservative principles once again are on the table at election time.
Posted by: JC | 2008-11-23 4:10:25 PM
"Just a quick question: when the U.S. Supreme Court struck down anti-sodomy laws, was that an example of the state supporting deviant behavior?"
By striking down such a law the state did what it should. There is no have such a law in the first place. If you don't perform sodomy in public... who cares where you put your dick? That is the point.
In Canada we have no law for against abortion. That is an issue of conscience and persuasion. The state should not fund it. By doing so, they are supporting it. That is wrong.
Lovilla,
May I say that when you deviate from the norm, you are deviant. That is the English language. whether that deviance is good bad, right or wrong is up to the individual to decided .. NOT THE STATE ... unless is it harming others.
Posted by: John V | 2008-11-23 4:33:06 PM
great post john and i agree. some libertarians tend to want the government to stay out of their lives and bedroom but dont fight for the same freedom for others. ie pot or homosexuality.
with deviant being defined as out of the ordinary, there are many act that are out of the ordinary that people dont run to make laws for or hate others when they do. i just wanted to know where terrance stood on people being gay and what he thought about it.
Posted by: lovilla | 2008-11-23 4:46:42 PM
The label "social conservatives" is atached to people. So what should we call the opposite? I wrote this two years ago, but since the topic is social conservatives, here it is. SJG
Should We Call Them Social Perverts?
By Stephen J. Gray
We read and hear the label social conservatives, or socons, put upon people who are opposed to the killing of the child in the womb, against abnormal lifestyles, and in favour of the traditional family. During the election campaign many of the media were working itself into a frenzy because there were “social conservatives” running for the Conservative Party. One media “bureau chief” being interviewed by the “news” reader on one TV station (both of them from the same corporate conglomerate kennel) was practically crying on air because “social conservatives” and “right wing Christians” were running and might even win some seats. This twosome of twaddle were each lofting politically correct questions and answers to each other that appeared to denigrate anyone opposed to their liberal philosophy. This was the way it came across, though it was done under the banner of “election news.”
It is fashionable by most of the media and their camp followers to sneer at what they like to call “social conservatives” and “right wing Christians” and use derogatory words as weapons to put them down. Imagine what would happen if these so-called journalists, announcers and radio hosts used the words “radical homosexual” or “right wing Jew” to describe people running for public office in the same way they use the words “social conservatives” and “rightwing Christians.” Ah, but they would not dare! Yet, it appears they can smear social conservatives and Christians generally, with impunity.
If decent and moral people are called “social conservatives” by the media and their liberal allies, and sneered at for standing up for decent and normal family values, what then should we call the opponents of normalcy, decency and truth? Should we call them Social Perverts or Sopervs?
Take, for example, abortion which is supported by much of the media.
Should we call those in the media in favour of abortion social perverts or sopervs? This atrocity is disguised as a “womans right to choose” by the media. “Choose what?” a thinking person might ask? Though "sopervs" never ever finish their sentence after the word “choose.” If they did they would then have to explain what is being chosen and its consequences. Since the so called “searchers of truth” in the media won’t do this, let me enlighten them on the act of abortion. The child in the womb is dismembered by being suctioned out or cut to pieces, or in the case of a partial birth abortion its head is pierced by a sharp medical instrument and its brains suctioned out. Some babies have even been born alive after abortion but are left to die. But hey, this is called “freedom of choice” by our “knowledgeable” media. Surely the mutilation, butchering, and killing of the innocent child in the womb qualifies to be called a social perversion. And are those supporting it entitled to be called social perverts or sopervs?
( Go to: http://www.AbortionNo.org and see the truth about abortion )
Another issue it is not politically correct to oppose is so called “same-sex marriage.” Social Conservatives or socons are lambasted, attacked and reviled for daring to even question this absurdity. Any sane person knows that marriage can only be between a man and a woman, except of course, for our conglomerate owned media, the judicial jackasses on the benches and many brain challenged politicians who are declaring this as a “right. So should we call those in favour of this nonsense social perverts or sopervs? Surely a man “marrying” a man is a not only bizarre behaviour but nonsense?
Yet if social conservatives or socons state that this behaviour not normal they are accused of being “neanderthal” of spreading “bile” and “hate” and of not being “socially moderate” by the purveyors of propaganda in the “mainstream” media. So all you people out there reading this. What do you think? Should we call the nutbars of “news” social perverts?
Stephen J. Gray
February 1, 2006.
[email protected] website: http://www.geocities.com/graysinfo
Posted by: Stephen J. Gray | 2008-11-23 6:38:02 PM
The opposite of a social conservative is a social liberal, SJG. Social pervert? Come on. I think we all want economic and social liberty. On the right (I hate that word) we largely agree on what economic liberty looks like. I think we need to give some thougth to what social liberty should look like if he hope to enhance self-regulating, non-governmental institutions and decrease the role of the state in our personal lives.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2008-11-23 6:53:25 PM
Come on. MJ. Butchering, carving and cutting up an innocent human life is surely a social perversion! And all the Orwellian words or phrases in "investigative journalism" or avoiding the issue cannot change the facts.
Posted by: Stephen J. Gray | 2008-11-23 7:08:53 PM
I have to agree with Stephen regarding the horrors of abortion, but once again, like any human activity, you cannot control what people do in back rooms. Our government supports this atrocity by supplying hospitals, clinics and doctors not to mention money for these murders. I very much disagree with it, but I know I can do nothing, but waste my time and emotional energy so I live and let live even as those in pro abortion world live and let die. Almost poetic in some weird way.
The debate often comes down to at what point does life begin. I can tell you without hesitation that it begins the moment the first couple of cells divide forming an embryo. To deny that this is living tissue IE LIFE is to deny one's intelligence or at the very least, one's understanding of biology.
I also agree with Stephen on the most bizarre spectical of two men taking wedding vows while holding hands and giggling like little girls at summer camp. I do not recall having the opportunity to vote on this perversion of one of our most sacred institutions, but then, the secular progressives have had their way with us for almost forty years now, beginning with that POS PET.
I consider myself a secular conservative in that I don't need a religion or a deity to tell me what is right and wrong. I can reason and employ logic, plus my gut tells me a lot as well.
Just as Al Gore went into the classrooms of our nation and scared the crap out of kids in order to support his false claims of global warming disaster, someone should do the same to show school kids what happens when a women exercises her right to choose to have her baby hacked up and sucked out her. Or worse show a live botched abortion where there is an actual baby having it's brain sucked out or being put in a room alone to die of neglect. That might go a long way to restoring some responsibility in procreation and help our faltering birth rates.
You always start with the kids if you want to make change. The violent left knows this too well. A famous German taught them that trick a long time ago.
We need to learn that trick too.
Posted by: John V | 2008-11-23 8:22:02 PM
Social conservatism is one of the three legs of conservatism in the United States. The other two were fiscal conservatives and foreign policy hawks(staunch anti-communists). It has helped to win votes from the working class(formerly Reagan Democrats) and middle class. If not for social conservatism, the Republican Party would at best have stayed as small as it was in the 1950's. At that time, the party's appeal was limited to country clubbers, rural communities outside of the south, and some of the middle class. It was a party that voters were overwhelmingly protestant and white. At the time, Catholic and Jewish voters voted overwhelmingly Democrat. Most evangelicals voted democrat for 1.)they were poor and believed in the New Deal's aftermath and 2.) many were based in the south which was a Democrat stronghold. The Republican Party of the time was as unsuccessful as the Progressive Conservative Party had been in Canada for most of the 20th century. Modern U.S. social conservatism arose from the chaos of the 1960's. During that time, the crime rate soared. Race and anti-war riots swept the country. Courts began to overturn long held laws on abortion, school prayer, guns, birth control, and the death penalty. All done by activist judges. Democrat politicians pushed policies such as affirmative action, expanded welfare programs where recipents were penalized if the father was in the home, affirmative action, and the ERA to supposedly make up for past wrongs. Once again, all this was done by judges and politicians without the consent of the public. Many traditional Americans(including large numbers of Catholics, Evangelicals, and the orthodox Jewish population) began to see the country turning into a land where not just were their views no longer supported but they were mocked as bigots, uneducated buffoons, and illiterates. A popular show at that time, "All in the Family" promoted this viewpoint. Archie was the conservative and "naturally" bigot. The son-in-law was an educated and modern thinking leftist. His views were considered right and forward thinking and correct(funny because his views seemed more the ravings of an ivory tower idiot). Modern social conservatism harnessed this anger. It was the awakening of the public that led to the defeat of the ERA amendment(would have been like establishing a federal human rights commission). It was social conservatism(and a few right-leaning politicians)and the anger over crime that led the American public to successfully push for the reinstatement of the death penalty in 1976(Unofficial moratorium 1968-1972, outlawed 1972-1976). Something that has failed in most countries despite strong public support. Social conservatives have been some of the strongest supporters of the right to bear arms because we know how judges can force their will on the public. We have supported welfare reform because we saw how the policies of Lyndon Johnson's Great Society had ruined families and led both to generations of dependency and a rise in births out of wedlock(stats show these children are more likely to get involved in crime and repeat the welfare cycle). Our opposition to abortion is based on the fact that we believe that an unborn child is still a person and not a piece of clay. They have a functioning system of nerves and a heartbeat by week 7. They are an innocent being whose only fault is to appear at an inconvenient time. Therefore, is abortion(a term used to cover various procedures all of which would lead to a painful death) for someone who can feel pain? Trudeau never understood that at this point it moves beyond the bedroom. Most Americans want abortion legal but very rare(with many exceptions). No one is calling for its outlawing in extreme cases like the life of the mother or rape but for crying out loud restrictions don't seem unreasonable when we are mentioning innocent lifes. Also, our call for school prayer is not groundless either. This was outlawed by the Supreme Court in 1962 against the wishes of the public. Today, Americans support school prayer by 3 to 1. We believe that this country was founded on Judeo-Christian values and our prayer recognizes this. Look at all that has been accomplished since Jamestown in 1607. The odds against our success were long. Our survival, our control of now 3.7 million sq miles, our growth from 3 million(est. 1775) to 305 million(est 2008), our rise as a world power, our defeats of fascism and communism, how can you look at that and not think that somehow someone is looking out for us. Fgrom 1776-1962, the country had school prayer and we were not a theocracy. With school prayer, we would still be a democracy. Social conservatism is a mass movement that speaks to tens of millions of Americans. It has helped the Republicans be a competive party. Look what shunning them did to the Progressive Conservatives in Canada? There is much to admire in the libertarian camp. I agree with free trade, less regulation, a flat tax, opposition to affirmative action, and the right to bear arms. However, libertarians should realize that the best chance of success is for the two groups to follow the Reagan formula and work together. This requires libertarians realizing that we are neither like the socialists of the left or backwards buffoons. Our views are legitimate and we deserve a place at the table as equals.
Posted by: Jesse | 2008-11-23 8:58:56 PM
Lovilla,
Nothing at all wrong with being gay. I've argued strongly in favor of marriage equality on this blog many times before.
Actually, I just wanted to know a) what John considered deviant behavior, and b) what would count as the state "supporting" such behavior.
I think I've got it know.
Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2008-11-23 11:43:46 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.