"Conservative" Freedom?

[Superman]

In chatting with a group of other friends (yes, I have friends besides you looneys), my mind (yes, I have one of those too) is twisting. Perhaps you guys can help me out, again.

"Conservative" suggests more narrowness than "Liberal." Just the terms themselves. And in practice, the same is true. One of the big problems, and the reason that the Dems are more afraid of Independent candidates, is that the "liberal" belief structure is wider. There is more diversity. More people of color. More various religious beliefs or lack thereof.

"Conservatives" on the other hand not only have a narrower belief structure, they seem to have a deliberate intention of imposing that belief structure on the rest of America.

These thoughts came about after my friend, a very intelligent and successful and reasonable and compassionate conservative (oxymoron?) stated a common conservative remark. He said the "values" in our country have gone haywire and it is the role of public policy makers to bring those values back into vogue. Please don't be coy with me. We all know what I'm talking about. Marriage between a man and a woman. Prayer in school. yadda yadda.

My first reaction was to ask him if he thinks we can legislate morality and if so.....and here is the important question I am asking here......should we? Is the imposition of our values on our fellow Americans....an "American" goal?

[Nathans_Dad]

We have legislated morality in the past and will continue to legislate morality in the future. Examples abound, child porn laws, laws against polygamy, laws against prostitution, laws against murder, rape, incest, etc, etc, etc.

I disagree that the conservative ideal is to impose their values on the rest of America. I am a conservative and I don't want to impose my ideals on other people, I just want to stop the imposition of other people's ideals on me and my family. I don't think my kids should be taught their morality in school. It is my job to teach my kids what is right and wrong. They should not be forced to read textbooks about little Bobby and his two daddys and how happy and "normal" they are. I'm sorry, I believe that homosexuality is a sin and I will teach my children the same thing. I don't think it is my job to be the crusader and tell everyone else what they should teach their kids, just don't try to indoctrinate mine in the public school system. Don't teach my kid how to use a condom at the age of 8, thank you very much, I will take care of that when I think the time is right. And is it really all that bad to say "under God" in the pledge?

And conservatives don't have a narrower belief structure, we simply have beliefs. Real ones. Ones that define right and wrong. Liberals seem more and more to think that everything is ok as long as it makes you happy. Then they wonder why our society is crumbling.

[Superman]

Rick. Read through your post carefully, especially the last part, and then tell me again that you do not wish to impose your morality on the rest of society. Your post is, frankly, an excellent illustration of my concern.

And I say this from the perspective of a liberal who is a practicing Catholic who agrees that immorality is destructive and that the practice of homosexuality is a sin. I have homosexual friends and they never have to worry about a condescending attitude or a lecture coming from me. Why are these concepts so difficult for people to reconcile. Some things are sinful. We do them anyway. They are free, personal choices. Government's role does not include mandating morality.

"Freedom" is going to become an uncomfortable term for the conservative party. That party does not support that principle.

[onewhippedpuppy]

Rick, I couldn't have said it any better myself. Feel free to believe whatever you want, but don't expect me to join in. Being open minded doesn't mean you have to agree with whatever BS is being pushed upon you, it means you look at all of your options and make a choice. Having beliefs does not automatically make you closed minded.

A question, since when does the majority have to change to suit a minority? The "one nation under God" stuff is typically one parent of out of hundreds, why should everyone change to suit the agenda of one? PC has gone way too far in our country.

[Jeff Higgins]

You guys are all missing the point entirely. One of government's major roles in any society is precisely TO legislate morality. The morality of how we treat and interact with each other. This morality is manifested in the laws that we, as members of that society, make through our government and agree to live under. The nature of such law is to reflect the morale compass of the society that enacts them. It's unnavoidable; there has to be some baseline to work from.

The debate originating from the left today is just a smokescreen. They cry loudly that "government should not legislate morality" when in fact what they mean is that our laws should be changed to reflect their morality. They understand that the majority of society rejects their values, and that they have a very tough sell to gain any measure of support for those values.

So their strategy has shifted from "accept our values" to "don't force your values upon us". While on the surface this sounds like a more reasonable request, it is in fact the very same thing, repackaged in a more palatable guise. The goal has not changed. They want broad acceptance of their fringe values by society as a whole. They want that society, that enacts law through their government, to change the law to suit them. This fringe element on the left does not have the numbers to effect the change they would like (neither does the fringe element on the right, thank God), so they are resorting to this chicanery to try to sneak it past the majority, to impose their belief structure upon the rest of us.

[Nathans_Dad]

Supe, I did read my post carefully (even read it again just for you) and I still fail to see where you think I am saying I want to impose my beliefs on others.

Is it imposing my beliefs because I don't want gay lifestyles taught to my kids in public school? Isn't that the homosexual community imposing THEIR beliefs on MY kids? Is it imposing my beliefs because I don't want my kid to have to learn how to put on a condom before he can ride a bike? Isn't that someone else imposing their beliefs on my kid?

See, there's your problem. The liberals want to impose their agenda on others but see that as simply spreading freedom. You excuse it away because those beliefs fall in line with yours. It's a different story when someone else tries to stop you, then it's the evil conservatives trying to impose their beliefs again.

I am not for prayer in school, I am not for teaching kids that homosexuality is a sin in school, I am not for teaching that premarital sex is a sin in school. I think school should teach kids how to read, write, add, and subtract. They should teach kids what the capital of Montana is and how to speak german, latin, french or spanish. I think they should teach them history and music.

How about letting the parents parent for a change?

[Nathans_Dad]

Originally posted by Jeff Higgins
The debate originating from the left today is just a smokescreen. They cry loudly that "government should not legislate morality" when in fact what they mean is that our laws should be changed to reflect their morality.

DING DING DING!!!

Thank you Jeff, you nailed it on the head.

[IROC]

Originally posted by onewhippedpuppy
A question, since when does the majority have to change to suit a minority? The "one nation under God" stuff is typically one parent of out of hundreds, why should everyone change to suit the agenda of one? PC has gone way too far in our country.

Just because the majority of people in the country are Christians, it doesn't mean that their beliefs are more important than others. That is really what this country is all about, IMO. We're a republic where every person's rights carry the same weight, not just those in the majority.

Mike

[onewhippedpuppy]

When conservatives legislate morality, they're restricting individual freedom. When liberals legislate morality, they're enlightening us.

[Nathans_Dad]

That's true Mike, but the question really becomes where does the PC movement stop?

Let's say one person in the US is deeply personally offended by 1976 Continental Orange Porsche 911s. Pick a reason, maybe his dog was run over by that exact car as a child and he never recovered, whatever. So he sues to ask the gubmint to outlaw 1976 Continental Orange Porsche 911s. Is that reasonable? His beliefs are just as important as the next guy's...where does it end? Somewhere reality and common sense have to step in, I keep waiting for that moment to occur.

[onewhippedpuppy]

Originally posted by IROC
Just because the majority of people in the country are Christians, it doesn't mean that their beliefs are more important than others. That is really what this country is all about, IMO. We're a republic where every person's rights carry the same weight, not just those in the majority.

Mike

Yes, but is it your "right" to not ever be offended, by anyone, anywhere? I agree that everyone should have equal rights to believe as they see fit, but changing the actions of many to suit the agenda of a few, in an issue that causes no harm to the affected party, is simply ridiculous.

[Moneyguy1]

Matt:

I am curious though..

You made a statement something to the tune of "Since when does the majority have to change to suit the minority?"

If the Conservative religious right, for example, wants to have legislation passed reflecting their beliefs, is this not the minority attempting to impose their values on the majority?

Not taking sides. It is too difficult an issue for a bulletin board "sound bite" environment, just trying to understand who should be defining morality and the role of government in such a situation.

[IROC]

Originally posted by Nathans_Dad
That's true Mike, but the question really becomes where does the PC movement stop?

Let's say one person in the US is deeply personally offended by 1976 Continental Orange Porsche 911s. Pick a reason, maybe his dog was run over by that exact car as a child and he never recovered, whatever. So he sues to ask the gubmint to outlaw 1976 Continental Orange Porsche 911s. Is that reasonable? His beliefs are just as important as the next guy's...where does it end? Somewhere reality and common sense have to step in, I keep waiting for that moment to occur.

No, it's not reasonable. You kind of made my point for me. I don't think the government should be involved in legislating people's "beliefs". Just because some wacko doesn't like the beautiful shade of Continental Orange, the government shouldn't back him up with some inane legislation.

The government should never have legislated the "under God" statement into the pledge in the first place.

I think the real problem is that we, collectively, cannot agree on what is moral and what is not. There are huge gray areas. Some of the fruit is low hanging (child pornography) and some of it isn't (gay marriage). There are those that don't think I should be able to purchase lottery tickets because it violates what they feel is moral. Should lotteries be illegal?

Mike

[onewhippedpuppy]

If it is specific religious content that is being proposed as law, I would oppose it, despite the fact that I am a Christian. I feel that it is your right to believe as you wish, it's one of the things that makes this country great. I have friends that belong to many different churches, some that don't go at all, and some that I have no idea. The point? I don't really care, they're still friends to me, and can believe whatever they want. The point at which they try to impose their beliefs upon me is when we have problems.

[Nathans_Dad]

Mike: So we agree then. I don't think that government should be enacting laws to force certain beliefs on people either. That sword cuts both ways though. The left is trying to legislate their beliefs on the rest of us too, is it ok for them to do so?

BTW, on the "under God" issue. Is having that statement in the pledge forcing a belief on someone? Can't they just leave that part out when they recite the pledge? Is there a God Gestapo that charges in and arrests them for not saying "under God"?

[techweenie]

Originally posted by IROC
Just because the majority of people in the country are Christians, it doesn't mean that their beliefs are more important than others. That is really what this country is all about, IMO. We're a republic where every person's rights carry the same weight, not just those in the majority.

Mike

That is the opinion of Thomas Jefferson and most of the founding fathers, as well. The fact that at least three Supreme Court Justices apparently believe the Bible overrules the Constitution is evidence of how far we have come from that concept.

[onewhippedpuppy]

Originally posted by techweenie
That is the opinion of Thomas Jefferson and most of the founding fathers, as well. The fact that at least three Supreme Court Justices apparently believe the Bible overrules the Constitution is evidence of how far we have come from that concept.

Last time I checked, the "one nation under God" came from the same bunch, or thereabouts. The Pledge of Allegiance isn't exactly a recent development. In fact, good luck finding a document from the founding fathers that doesn't somehow mention God, all while they were establishing for the separation of church and state and freedom of religion. I guess people didn't get their panties in a bunch the same way they do today.

[IROC]

Originally posted by Nathans_Dad
The left is trying to legislate their beliefs on the rest of us too, is it ok for them to do so?

No. You're right - it works both ways. I still drop back to the position that the government should not be legislating any beliefs.

Oh...and Tech...Thomas Jefferson was a brilliant man.

Mike

[IROC]

Originally posted by onewhippedpuppy
In fact, good luck finding a document from the founding fathers that doesn't somehow mention God, all while they were establishing for the separation of church and state and freedom of religion.

The Constitution?

[onewhippedpuppy]

Correct, I thought it was in the preamble. It is in the Declaration of Independence.