Quotes of the day

posted at 9:45 pm on September 18, 2010 by Allahpundit

“The establishment is in such a state of shock,” said Mr. Gingrich, a former speaker of the House whose name has emerged among possible 2012 contenders. “I am a great passionate believer in the wisdom of the American people over time. They occasionally make mistakes — 2008 was an example — but they gradually correct.”…

“Every person who cares about America’s future has an absolute obligation to work as hard as they can from now and election day this year and to work for the next two years to replace the elites with common sense, grass-roots Americans who at least understand the truth and who have the courage to act on the truth and who are not afraid to tell the truth,” Mr. Gingrich said. “And who are not afraid to take the heat from our elites who, by the way, if we win those two cycles, will no longer be the elites.”

***
“Those who would have us ignore the battle being fought over life, marriage and religious liberty have forgotten the lessons of history,” said Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) in his speech Friday. “America’s darkest moments have come when economic arguments trumped moral principles.”…

[S]ocial conservatives here said that if the GOP takes back control of the House or Senate this November, they won’t tolerate compromise with Democrats on cultural matters.

Perkins said he expected a new Republican majority in the House to push back against any attempt to end the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy against gays in the military and legislation to restrict businesses from discriminating against gay employees…

The consensus among the establishment wing of the Republican Party is that to do anything but run against the purported fiscal excesses of the Democratic majority is folly.

***
COLBY KING, WASHINGTON POST: They [the Tea Party] have a litmus test that goes into being right to life, social conservative issues that they’re strong on. No, they would get rid of the IRS if they could. There is no room, there is no room for compromise because compromise is a bad word as far as they’re concerned.

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: Look, I hate to say this, but I think that is completely wrong. The Tea Party has distinguished itself in being almost exclusively about governance, the reach of governance, taxation, economic issues. It is not the social conservatives. In fact, that is what distinguishes it. And I think the other element that is being missed here is it arose spontaneously as a reaction to an extremely aggressive, extremely ambitious left liberal administration that instead of, for example, attacking tax reform – which had it tried that at the beginning of its administration would have had bipartisan agreement and great success, as Reagan in ’86 – it decided it wants a reform of health care which nobody at the time thought was the major issue in the time of economic recession.

***


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

signed ‘The Tea Party’

sonnyspats1 on September 19, 2010 at 12:56 AM

The Tea Party I know here, are made up of Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, Atheists, Agnostics, and Christians.

There’s no hidden agenda. We’re pretty open about what we want.

Government fiscal responsibility, and limited government.
Social issues, aren’t even on the table.

Kini on September 19, 2010 at 1:07 AM

Gingrich is an opportunist. The man has never run anything as a manager or administrator, except for being Speaker of the House, and he had a mixed record in that position. That makes him only slightly more experienced than Obama. Let’s not make that mistake again for a long, long time, mmmkay?
`
`
Are the Stalinista-Libertines who think they own the Tea Party telling the social conservatives to shut up? Fine, we’ll stay home and the lunatic fringe can have their usual 0.5% of the vote.

Adjoran on September 19, 2010 at 1:08 AM

In The Long Run, Fiscal Conservatism Without Social Conservatism Is A Fantasy

The Right needs to be “fiscally conservative” but embrace social liberalism. You hear this line over and over and over. If you want to really think through why this is bogus study Edmund Burke and Russell Kirk. Or read Mark Levin’s “Liberty and Tyranny” http://www.amazon.com/Liberty-Tyranny-Conservative-Mark-Levin/dp/1416562850 But for the quick version here’s my best shot:

In short it is the bedrock institutions of western civilization: family, church, and school that make a representative democracy and a free market economy possible. With broken families, government schools run by left wing ideologues and churches reduced to yet another form of entertainment or group therapy (for those who even still attend) you will never be able to maintain limited government. Because people will look to government to do everything these institutions can no longer do or equip us to do for ourselves. This is why conservatism doesn’t sell in the inner cities for example. These institutions have crumbled. You can’t separate the social and the economic. They are inextricably linked.

To be a conservative is to be about “conserving” something. What are we trying to conserve? Western civilization. The American Constitution. Ordered liberty. The civil society. To think that you can have a society vote for a libertarian economic agenda if they grow up in broken homes, attend schools where they’re not taught critical thinking or civics or real American history and breathe in a new ‘spirituality’ that says morality is relative along with everything else …..well that’s just as utopian as any left wing radical. It won’t work for the same reason communism won’t work. HUMAN NATURE.

Without social conservatism you can’t ever hope to achieve the economic and fiscal goals of the Right in the long run. To quote George Washington, “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports”. And John Adams, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other”.

D0WNT0WN on September 19, 2010 at 1:08 AM

Anyone not really politically educated would take them at their word: This is what moderate Republicans really think.

Which is light years from the truth.

Kini on September 19, 2010 at 1:03 AM

Yes it is and I know it’s irritating but and it’s okay if they don’t discover their mistake until it too late. It’s kind of fun watching them twist themselves inside out. But the speak only to their own kind Kini.

Texas Gal on September 19, 2010 at 1:09 AM

Texas Gal on September 19, 2010 at 1:09 AM

This is why, more than ever, Tea Party People must take an Evangelistic approach to delivering the message of Limited Government and Limited Government Spending.

Carry that Gospel of Truth.

It’s very simple. Do you want government running all aspects of your life? Do you want to go to the government to get permission to start a business, to get a loan, to get health care?

Kini on September 19, 2010 at 1:15 AM

Most of us are pro-life because we answer to a high power than public opinion. I’m sorry, we will not stop, we can’t.

Too bad, because here is where the SoCons can take a lesson from their progressive counterparts.

Stop being out in the open and work underneath the radar for transformation.

You will only scare the independents away.

Since the 2006 November debacle, survey after questionaire after survey of groups asking people about what bothers them about the right is the overt (and much of it hypocritical), nanny state type moralizing.

Most libertarians and independents who who otherwise vote without hesitation will not come to the table with social hysteria and moralizing as a core plank in the parties platform.

Enough already.

rickyricardo on September 19, 2010 at 1:24 AM

It’s very simple. Do you want government running all aspects of your life? Do you want to go to the government to get permission to start a business, to get a loan, to get health care?

Kini on September 19, 2010 at 1:15 AM

I think the Tea Party People as a whole have done a really good job of staying on message. I think they’ve done a good job of fending off attempts to co-op them.

Texas Gal on September 19, 2010 at 1:36 AM

I’m not a social conservative and I support the Tea Party.

Metro on September 19, 2010 at 1:36 AM

Without social conservatism you can’t ever hope to achieve the economic and fiscal goals of the Right in the long run. To quote George Washington, “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports”. And John Adams, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other”.

D0WNT0WN on September 19, 2010 at 1:08 AM

This is why they call Levin the Great One.

They are the supports of the Constitution. As with any society, there has to be a moral grounding. A foundation that provides values, which gives hope to the individual, and faith for the community.

However, the bounds are limited to direction, and not to religious application.

Kini on September 19, 2010 at 1:37 AM

I think they’ve done a good job of fending off attempts to co-op them.

Texas Gal on September 19, 2010 at 1:36 AM

It feels good to be in control, doesn’t it.

Kini on September 19, 2010 at 1:38 AM

It feels good to be in control, doesn’t it.

Kini on September 19, 2010 at 1:38 AM

Yes it does. And it’s only going to feel BETTER! …:)

Texas Gal on September 19, 2010 at 1:41 AM

I’m not a social conservative and I support the Tea Party.

Metro on September 19, 2010 at 1:36 AM

It’s the message of Limited Government and fiscal responsibility.

The social aspect of your life, are yours to do as you will.

Kini on September 19, 2010 at 1:41 AM

replace the irs with max. 10% vat. its painless and the more you have the more you pay and its paid more or less automatically.
Speakup on September 18, 2010 at 11:00 PM

___________________________

Speakup – disabuse yourself of this notion right now & forever! The average VAT in EU member countries is 21.5%. And in every single instance, it began at a 5%-6% rate – with the politicians swearing it would never increase

Q. You say “max” 10% VA. Do you honestly trust any politician in Washington to keep it at a 10% rate??? Has any tax in your lifetime stayed steady or declined?

Given that a 1% increase to a US VAT translates to a $100 billion increase in tax revenues (based on our current 300 million population and GDP), do you honestly think any politician could forego the temptation to pass over $100 billion??

Q. 2. And just how long do you think it would take before we would be at a 21.5% VAT rate – just like Europe?

alwyr on September 19, 2010 at 1:43 AM

What Newt said:

“The establishment is in such a state of shock … I am a great passionate believer in the wisdom of the American people over time. They occasionally make mistakes — 2008 was an example — but they gradually correct.

Every person who cares about America’s future has an absolute obligation to work as hard as they can from now and election day this year and to work for the next two years to replace the elites with common sense, grass-roots Americans who at least understand the truth and who have the courage to act on the truth and who are not afraid to tell the truth … And who are not afraid to take the heat from our elites who, by the way, if we win those two cycles, will no longer be the elites.

What Newt meant:

Hey! Look over here! Pay attention to me! Forget this and this and this!! I like whatever it is you like!!! I’m relevant!!1!eleventy!

OhioCoastie on September 19, 2010 at 2:13 AM

Adjoran on September 19, 2010 at 1:08 AM

We don’t need or want ‘Christians’ telling us how to run our lives any more than we want the leftist scum telling us how to run our lives. Having a ‘Christian’ moniker attached to your party is only a label for a stereotypical group that people can identify with. We Tea Party folks have our own moral compass and don’t need or want ‘Christians’ proselytizing and evengelizing any more than we want the Muslims converting school kids to islam. Every politician who spouts the ‘Christian’ meme has been a liar and slippery snake like Mike Huckabee who hides behind the ‘Christian’label but is a self promoting slimeball!
So yes go the back of the bus and enjoy the ride and of course decency shall prevail and be restored in our land.
People know how to live good christian lives without you cramming it down out throats!

sonnyspats1 on September 19, 2010 at 2:25 AM

our*

sonnyspats1 on September 19, 2010 at 2:25 AM

“And who are not afraid to take the heat from our elites who, by the way, if we win those two cycles, will no longer be the elites.”

Thus spoke Scuzzyfava’s endorser. For a guy who made his $$ spotting a trend and getting in front of it, the TP ‘Express’ done ran him over. With that first test of the TP, he was the epistemic closer. Epic. Fail.

AH_C on September 19, 2010 at 2:36 AM

From Der Speigel
09/19/2010
================
The World from Berlin

‘Obama Has Underestimated the Frustration in the Country’
———————————————————-

The dramatic ascent of the Tea Party continued in America this week, with the conservative movement scoring another surprise victory in the Republican primary in Delaware. German editorialists digested the news on Thursday and warned that both Republicans and Democrats were right to feel uneasy.
==========

Even a few weeks ago, it was considered impossible that the Tea Party favorite Christine O’Donnell would win the primary in Delaware. She was long seen as being too far to the right to woo enough votes. On Tuesday, such predictions were consigned to the trash when O’Donnell beat a veteran congressman to secure the Republican nomination in the Delaware race for the US Senate.
=================================

The center-right Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung writes:

The conservative daily Die Welt writes:

The business daily Handelsblatt writes:

The center-left Süddeutsche Zeitung writes:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,717845,00.html

canopfor on September 19, 2010 at 2:46 AM

We Tea Party folks have our own moral compass and don’t need or want ‘Christians’ proselytizing and evengelizing any more than we want the Muslims converting school kids to islam.

Yeah, who gave Christians the right to freely exercise their religion anyways?

CliveStaples on September 19, 2010 at 2:59 AM

Yeah, who gave Christians the right to freely exercise their religion anyways?

CliveStaples on September 19, 2010 at 2:59 AM

You don’t have a right to use the state apparatus to evangelize. In fact, you’re constitutionally prohibited from doing so in almost every case. You can still annoy the heathens on your time and your own dime, which is all the right to freely exercise your religion you need.

RightOFLeft on September 19, 2010 at 3:28 AM

You don’t have a right to use the state apparatus to evangelize. In fact, you’re constitutionally prohibited from doing so in almost every case. You can still annoy the heathens on your time and your own dime, which is all the right to freely exercise your religion you need.

Hey, I’ve got a libertarian streak a mile wide. I don’t want the government anywhere near religion.

But when Tea Party purists start telling me that they don’t want or need me to actually, you know, practice my religion…well, then the Tea Party can just f*ck right off, mkay?

CliveStaples on September 19, 2010 at 3:35 AM

CliveStaples on September 19, 2010 at 3:35 AM

There is a difference between you practising your religion on you, and practising it on me.

OldEnglish on September 19, 2010 at 3:56 AM

There is a difference between you practising your religion on you, and practising it on me.

Ah, so I have freedom of speech and freedom of religion, as long as I don’t use both at the same time when you’re around?

CliveStaples on September 19, 2010 at 3:57 AM

There is a difference between you practising your religion on you, and practising it on me.

OldEnglish on September 19, 2010 at 3:56 AM

Are you talking about human sacrifice, or is that actually supposed to mean something?

Have Christians forced you into a church against your will, or forcibly converted your children?

Or just more leftist talking points?

sharrukin on September 19, 2010 at 4:00 AM

CliveStaples on September 19, 2010 at 3:57 AM

You may speak, but I may not listen.

Actually, I meant that you don’t have the right to insist that laws be enacted to suit your religion. That would imprison me in your beliefs.

OldEnglish on September 19, 2010 at 4:02 AM

CliveStaples on September 19, 2010 at 3:35 AM
If by ‘practicing’ you mean evangelizing the populace via government then yes go away!

sonnyspats1 on September 19, 2010 at 4:05 AM

I’m not insisting on enacting any laws that suit my religion. I’m bristling at the “we don’t take kindly to your kind ’round here” attitude that ‘sonnyspats1′ takes. [Now Skeeter, I ain't hurtin' nobody...]

I’m down with the separation of church and state. I just don’t like people who say “Yeah, we don’t want your oogy-boogy religion around these parts.”

CliveStaples on September 19, 2010 at 4:07 AM

sharrukin on September 19, 2010 at 4:00 AM

You lost it by calling me a leftist. I am further to the right than most of this board.

To answer your question: compulsion has been a factor in the past, and, if not kept in check, could surface again.

Further, those that insist that only religion can instil morality are bald-face liars, seeking to be the sole arbiters of same.

OldEnglish on September 19, 2010 at 4:11 AM

You lost it by calling me a leftist.

I didn’t call you a leftist. I stated those are leftist talking points and they are.

Further, those that insist that only religion can instil morality are bald-face liars, seeking to be the sole arbiters of same.

OldEnglish on September 19, 2010 at 4:11 AM

I will believe that when I see a semi-consistent pattern of atheist states that don’t murder their own populace in large numbers.

I don’t think that’s a terribly demanding standard.

sharrukin on September 19, 2010 at 4:15 AM

Been hearing this tidbit,on the News Hour Break,on AM Talk
radio!
======

QUOTE from:
Congressman Pence wins conservative straw poll

SOURCE: Reuters
11 hours ago
—————

” What a dream ticket — Mike Pence and Sarah Palin. That would give the liberals heartburn”.

http://themes.thestar.com/quote/0fpq7UC7ok4Tl

canopfor on September 19, 2010 at 4:19 AM

I just don’t like people who say “Yeah, we don’t want your oogy-boogy religion around these parts.”

CliveStaples on September 19, 2010 at 4:07 AM

Why? Everyone has their own comfort zone. Speaking only for myself, I would remain silent on the issue if all I heard was the sound of silence.

Foe example, i didn’t have a real problem with the existence of homosexuals until they forced their presence into my life.

OldEnglish on September 19, 2010 at 4:19 AM

CliveStaples on September 19, 2010 at 4:07 AM

Get a grip! What I’m saying is that ‘Christians’ play the moraly superior card and it ain’t so. Many millions of christians are secure in their beliefs and don’t want to hear your preaching!!!

sonnyspats1 on September 19, 2010 at 4:22 AM

sharrukin on September 19, 2010 at 4:15 AM

Ever studied the Holy Roman Empire? The time of Henry the eighth? Cromwell?

OldEnglish on September 19, 2010 at 4:23 AM

Get a grip! What I’m saying is that ‘Christians’ play the moraly superior card and it ain’t so. Many millions of christians are secure in their beliefs and don’t want to hear your preaching!!!

sonnyspats1 on September 19, 2010 at 4:22 AM

The only one doing the preaching here is you.

The ‘Christians’ have an hidden agenda too that is driven at it’s core by a lust for power!!! So STFD and STFU ‘Christians’we’re driving this bus!!!!

And…

We Tea Party folks have our own moral compass and don’t need or want ‘Christians’

And…

So yes go the back of the bus and enjoy the ride and of course decency shall prevail and be restored in our land.

So they have a hidden agenda, and a lust for power, and should go to the back of the bus while decency is restored and STFD and STFU and also go away.

But you aren’t a narrow minded bigot or anything. /s

sharrukin on September 19, 2010 at 4:28 AM

Ever studied the Holy Roman Empire? The time of Henry the eighth? Cromwell?

OldEnglish on September 19, 2010 at 4:23 AM

Yes, I have.

sharrukin on September 19, 2010 at 4:29 AM

Why? Everyone has their own comfort zone. Speaking only for myself, I would remain silent on the issue if all I heard was the sound of silence.

Foe example, i didn’t have a real problem with the existence of homosexuals until they forced their presence into my life.

Why? Because it’s stupid to alienate people who agree with you politically because you find their religious practices annoying.

Get a grip! What I’m saying is that ‘Christians’ play the moraly superior card and it ain’t so. Many millions of christians are secure in their beliefs and don’t want to hear your preaching!!!

I can’t really say who is morally superior to whom. I can say that I’m going to practice my religion where, when, and how I think is best, and if that makes me anathema to the Tea Party, then f*ck you guys, I’m going home.

CliveStaples on September 19, 2010 at 4:35 AM

“replace the elites with common sense, grass-roots Americans who at least understand the truth and who have the courage to act on the truth and who are not afraid to tell the truth”

And don’t dodge questions because they can’t take the heat.

rjl1999 on September 19, 2010 at 5:14 AM

Without social conservatism you can’t ever hope to achieve the economic and fiscal goals of the Right in the long run. To quote George Washington, “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports”. And John Adams, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other”.

D0WNT0WN on September 19, 2010 at 1:08 AM

Washington and Adams on the one hand, and Thomas Jefferson on the other, must have had some very ‘interesting’ conversations.

Luka on September 19, 2010 at 5:19 AM

Further, those that insist that only religion can instill morality are bald-face liars, seeking to be the sole arbiters of same.

OldEnglish on September 19, 2010 at 4:11 AM

Mohammad may not have agreed with you, but Thomas Jefferson clearly did.

I concur with you strictly in your opinion of the comparative merits of atheism and demonism, and really see nothing but the latter in the being worshiped by many who think themselves Christians.
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Richard Price from Paris, January 8, 1789

If we did a good act merely from the love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? It is idle to say, as some do, that no such thing exists. We have the same evidence of the fact as of most of those we act on, to wit: their own affirmations, and their reasonings in support of them. I have observed, indeed, generally, that while in Protestant countries the defections from the Platonic Christianity of the priests is to Deism, in Catholic countries they are to Atheism. Diderot, D’Alembert, D’Holbach, Condorcet, are known to have been among the most virtuous of men. Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than love of God.
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Law, June 13, 1814

Luka on September 19, 2010 at 5:26 AM

I think this is the most extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has ever been gathered at the White House – with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone.
- John F. Kennedy (to a group of scholars assembled in the White House)

Luka on September 19, 2010 at 5:31 AM

do not think a return to Smoot Hawley type tariffs that so exacerbated the Great Depression are what we need at this time. We need free trade that knocks down inefficient labor practices and contracts and imposes discipline on competing entities without the currupting interference of government.

KW64 on September 18, 2010 at 11:54 PM

Welcome to the Big Lie. the Smoot-Hawley tarriffs did not make the depression worse. It was the uncontrolled government spending on projects like WPA etc and the total destruction and take over of the free market by FDR. The uncertainity of businesses as government become a major player in economic decisions of big business. Just like today.

However even if true at that time the USA was not running $50 billion trade imbalances per month in the red.

unseen on September 19, 2010 at 7:04 AM

Luka on September 19, 2010 at 5:31 AM

Thank you for those snippets of history. Most interesting – and enlightening.

OldEnglish on September 19, 2010 at 7:06 AM

CliveStaples on September 19, 2010 at 4:35 AM

To clarify a point or two, I don’t find Christian practises annoying, at all. I take great joy from Christmas, as a time of reflection and truce. Easter, also, i treat as a time when Christians celebrate an important occasion. Although that part leaves me cold, I would not dream of spoiling it in any way.

My sole objection is when Christians try to ignore their own prophet’s command:- render unto Caesar …

OldEnglish on September 19, 2010 at 7:12 AM

“The policy of the American government is to leave their citizens free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits.”
–Thomas Jefferson to M. L’Hommande, 1787

This quote, I think, embodies the essence of the Tea Party movement.

powerpro on September 19, 2010 at 7:26 AM

DeMint is such an extreamist./s

stenwin77 on September 19, 2010 at 7:41 AM

My sole objection is when Christians try to ignore their own prophet’s command:- render unto Caesar …

Problem is our tax dollars are paying for the reelection campaigns for Caesar and for the slaughter of (millions of) innocent children.

stenwin77 on September 19, 2010 at 7:43 AM

Since the 2006 November debacle, survey after questionaire after survey of groups asking people about what bothers them about the right is the overt (and much of it hypocritical), nanny state type moralizing.

Outrage over the slaughter of 50 million of our fellow Americans is not “nanny state type moralizing.”

How about this as a libertarian rebuttal: How abusive and tyrannical is a government that decides that your right to life is, in the end, not inalienable?

Fallen Sparrow on September 19, 2010 at 7:57 AM

If and when the Republicans get the majority back, they had better not spend their time dithering on social policy. They had better tackle the economy first. Then, in my opinion, they had better deal with social policy by leaving it up to the states. Even DADT. Let each state set that policy for its national guard units and the federal government sets it for the regular army.

Kafir on September 19, 2010 at 8:06 AM

“And who are not afraid to take the heat from our elites who, by the way, if we they win those two cycles, will no longer be the elites.”

Buh-bye Gingrich.

Valiant on September 19, 2010 at 8:19 AM

You don’t have a right to use the state apparatus to evangelize. In fact, you’re constitutionally prohibited from doing so in almost every case. You can still annoy the heathens on your time and your own dime, which is all the right to freely exercise your religion you need.

RightOFLeft on September 19, 2010 at 3:28 AM

I love it when people who have no idea what they’re talking about. The lefts propaganda has wormed it’s way deep into the American subconscious.

darwin on September 19, 2010 at 8:25 AM

OldEnglish on September 19, 2010 at 7:12 AM

What if Caesar wants too much?

Really Right on September 19, 2010 at 8:29 AM

Too bad, because here is where the SoCons can take a lesson from their progressive counterparts.

Stop being out in the open and work underneath the radar for transformation.

You will only scare the independents away.

“Stop being what you are, compromise your values, because there is no room for your social conservative values anywhere. There is not room in the “big” tent for you, and certainly there is going to be no compromise or tolerance fr4om so called “independents” like me.”

That is what you sound like. By the way did you know that MOST Of the country is moving away from the “have it all do it all abortion” mentality that you have? You, my dear, are the extremist. Not the social conservatives you insist shut up and go away.

Noelie on September 19, 2010 at 8:35 AM

Further, those that insist that only religion can instil morality are bald-face liars, seeking to be the sole arbiters of same.

OldEnglish on September 19, 2010 at 4:11 AM

The problem is government has instilled its own version of morality into society, instead of staying out of our business and letting society dictate it’s own morals. “Morality” would vary from town to town and state to state. What’s frowned upon in Idaho may not be in San Francisco.

Instead of letting individuals run their own lives, the state has now become the moral compass for the nation. When that happens, society naturally tries to take it back. The struggle is between government and society.

darwin on September 19, 2010 at 8:35 AM

Without social conservatism you can’t ever hope to achieve the economic and fiscal goals of the Right in the long run. To quote George Washington, “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports”. And John Adams, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other”.

D0WNT0WN on September 19, 2010 at 1:08 AM

This is true; but they were talking about the disposition of the people were they not? I didn’t read that they were calling for government intervention.

In other words the moral principles and social institutions were strong without government imposed morality. The inherent morality of the people guided legislators in upholding the principles of ordered liberty.

Goldwater cautioned that you can’t legislate morality. What Beck is focused on and, IMHO socons should focus on, is rebuilding these social institutions and the moral fabric in their communities. Inclination toward morality, respect for life, strengthening of families, etc. will follow. But it remains hypocritical for conservatives to demand government stay out of our private economic lives if they turn around and ask the government to impose their views of morality. In fact, its kind of the lazy way out. Convince and educate the people that your version of morality is best for society.

This is why Huckabee is not popular except with social conservatives. And might I say that social conservatism is not always compatible with econimic liberty – i.e., “compassionate conservatism.”

Firefly_76 on September 19, 2010 at 8:42 AM

And might I say that social conservatism is not always compatible with econimic liberty – i.e., “compassionate conservatism.”

oh please don’t try to tie social conservatives with bush’s compassionate conservatism. social conservatives know that government programs are neither compassionate nor conservative.

Goldwater cautioned that you can’t legislate morality.

right, all of our laws reflect our morality. we legislate morality all the time…this is a ridiculous statement…goldwater was a bitter old loser.

right4life on September 19, 2010 at 8:58 AM

My sole objection is when Christians try to ignore their own prophet’s command:- render unto Caesar …

OldEnglish on September 19, 2010 at 7:12 AM

we don’t call Jesus a prophet, even though He was, He is so much more…why are you trying to make us equivalent to the muslims and their prophet?

right4life on September 19, 2010 at 9:01 AM

Newt Gingrich.(or any Pol in D.C)…..ANTI-ESTABLISHMENT?

HAHAHAHA…HAHAHAHAHAHA…you tellers just is full a little Crapola thar….heeeheee.

PappyD61 on September 19, 2010 at 9:02 AM

CliveStaples on September 19, 2010 at 3:57 AM

how are you Mr. Lewis??

right4life on September 19, 2010 at 9:04 AM

FELLERS….not Tellers, stinking little keypad on dis here iPhoney thingymajigger.

PappyD61 on September 19, 2010 at 9:04 AM

When non-tea partiers start bloviating about what the Tea Party is, I just have to laugh at the insanity that permeates this converstation about how smart everyone isn’t.
The Tea Pary has limited government and fiscal responsiblity in its mission statement. The big and only thing about the Tea Party is the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. When you study and follow them everthing falls into place.
It is immoral to take money and give it to someone else. If you want to donate, then that is your choice. We have allowed the big government into our lives bit by bit and now we are stuck with a monumental problem. Not only have we allowed them to steal from We the People, but We have also allowed them to divide us into groups that really do not exist except for the purpose of denigrating us and making us take our eyes off the ball. They control the conversation and now we are loosing our culture and our common sense.
It’s all about the Constitution. Learn it, live it, love it!

BetseyRoss on September 19, 2010 at 9:07 AM

My sole objection is when Christians try to ignore their own prophet’s command:- render unto Caesar …

OldEnglish on September 19, 2010 at 7:12 AM

Yeah, the problem comes in when Caesar wants rendered to him that which isn’t his.

darwin on September 19, 2010 at 9:08 AM

Well the reason the DOTUS left out the word “CREATOR” is a no brainer

He hates the competition.

PappyD61 on September 19, 2010 at 9:19 AM

If the Tea party had “a litmus test that goes into being right to life, social conservative issues”, it would have collapsed by now, as all these elite pundits had predicted a long time ago.
Every time one of this victims of a “social cascade” appears making obtuse statements, it only reinforces the view in the “Tea Party” that the “elites” are completely out of touch with reality.

J_Crater on September 19, 2010 at 9:50 AM

stenwin77 on September 19, 2010 at 7:43 AM

I, too, have real problems with Roe v Wade, but on two points, not one.

However, unlike China, I don’t think Caesar forces anyone to abort.

The law may be in place (for now), but no-one has to partake of it. This is all down to people who will find a way – no matter what.

OldEnglish on September 19, 2010 at 10:02 AM

What if Caesar wants too much?

Really Right on September 19, 2010 at 8:29 AM

I think Brutus had the answer to that question. Caesar, too, has his limits, which should be defined by the people – but not by introducing yet another set of laws.

OldEnglish on September 19, 2010 at 10:06 AM

replace the irs with max. 10% vat. its painless and the more you have the more you pay and its paid more or less automatically.
Speakup on September 18, 2010 at 11:00 PM
___________________________

Speakup – disabuse yourself of this notion right now & forever! The average VAT in EU member countries is 21.5%. And in every single instance, it began at a 5%-6% rate – with the politicians swearing it would never increase

Q. You say “max” 10% VA. Do you honestly trust any politician in Washington to keep it at a 10% rate??? Has any tax in your lifetime stayed steady or declined?

Given that a 1% increase to a US VAT translates to a $100 billion increase in tax revenues (based on our current 300 million population and GDP), do you honestly think any politician could forego the temptation to pass over $100 billion??

Q. 2. And just how long do you think it would take before we would be at a 21.5% VAT rate – just like Europe?

alwyr on September 19, 2010 at 1:43 AM

Always remember the Canadian experience, called a GST in their case. The ruling class story was that they would get GST up and running and it would replace personal income taxes. Of course they now have both.

Is there a significant revenue source that government has ever been able to entirely eliminate? The IRS has 100,000 employees. What politician would be willing to lay off 100,000 people?

slickwillie2001 on September 19, 2010 at 10:11 AM

Noelie on September 19, 2010 at 8:35 AM

If I may reply. I loathe compromise, and would never ask anyone else to do so.

However, in the current situation, I think it best to fix one problem at a time, and the economy is the most widespread problem facing us all at this time.

Fix the economy, get people back to work, and then work on the other degradations which the Left have caused.

OldEnglish on September 19, 2010 at 10:12 AM

darwin on September 19, 2010 at 8:35 AM

Not a word of your post will I argue with.

OldEnglish on September 19, 2010 at 10:14 AM

I am not a Tea Partier, in the sense that I have not attended a rally or organized in any way, but I am in line with the Tea Party limitations on the reach of governments (including state and local governments, too…). I am also strongly opposed to the unfettered right to an abortion. However, I do not believe at this point that the political arena is the arena in which to fight the abortion battle. It is a cultural battle, one in which the pro-life side is slowly building strength. Today, I would much rather debate with you the ills of an unfettered right to abortion and its deleterious effects on our society and try to convince you with my arguments, rather than attempt to impose a political solution on our disagreements. This is the only way the pro-life side can eventually win out.

either orr on September 19, 2010 at 10:17 AM

right4life on September 19, 2010 at 9:01 AM

He was a prophet – one followed by Christians, and the statement regarding Caesar was a prophecy as to how life should be lived – with the implied result if ignored.

Your dogmatic attitude is akin to Muslims getting all upset over perceived slights to their prophet.

I have no axe to grind, here – prophets are all the same to me.

OldEnglish on September 19, 2010 at 10:24 AM

Pappy what are your thoughts on this:

http://www.house.gov/house/Contract/CONTRACT.html

CWforFreedom on September 19, 2010 at 10:27 AM

, rather than attempt to impose a political solution on our disagreements. This is the only way the pro-life side can eventually win out.

either orr on September 19, 2010 at 10:17 AM

Actually the movement is working from both ends. They are educating people while working to change laws. To think that the rights of some of the most vulnerable humans can be protected without laws in today’s America is naive.

CWforFreedom on September 19, 2010 at 10:29 AM

Yeah, the problem comes in when Caesar wants rendered to him that which isn’t his.

darwin on September 19, 2010 at 9:08 AM

Granted. But, if it is not his, then it belongs to the people – no-one else.

OldEnglish on September 19, 2010 at 10:30 AM

slickwillie2001 on September 19, 2010 at 10:11 AM

Australia, also.

OldEnglish on September 19, 2010 at 10:32 AM

sharrukin on September 19, 2010 at 4:28 AM
No I am not a name calling norrow minded bigot. I am a christian like millions who don’t subscribe to TV style ‘god wants your money’ mega church ‘Christianity’! I am not perfect God is, and I know the difference. So yes STFD and STFU !

sonnyspats1 on September 19, 2010 at 10:36 AM

Clive, why don’t you and oldenglish get a room with a bible in it and leave the rest of us alone. As for Gingrich, he is a great talker and has some good ideas but is not presidential material. He has been caught many times taking the “Moderate” road to some pretty serious issues. I think he is pulling a McCain right now and manning up for the coming election season. He has not been a leader on tax issues or on smaller gov.

inspectorudy on September 19, 2010 at 10:37 AM

inspectorudy on September 19, 2010 at 10:37 AM

Funny, that’s what i want, too. I like my own life just as it is, but some won’t allow it.

OldEnglish on September 19, 2010 at 10:47 AM

Who is it that are to form the more perfect Union? We the people.

Notice that the entire Preamble does not mention government and tells us what our responsibilities are before we even declare government. Whenever it is asked ‘where is our bill of responsibilities?’ I can point to the Preamble and say ‘read this’. Our Constitution follows a methodology of outlaying things and the very first, in each section, is responsibilities: before any power or right is announced, before liberty is upheld the responsibilities are laid out. Thus it is for each section, thus it is for the Constitution as a whole.

Who are we to pass liberty and freedom on to unmolested and enhanced by our lives? Our Posterity.

You cannot do that when you are spendthrift, put the Nation in debt and bequeath OUR debt that WE should pay off to OUR children. Each and every time we expand the role of government in society, in our lives, and in sucking our pocketbook dry we are abdicating our responsibilities as laid out in the Preamble. If you think of yourself as a member of ‘We the people’ then that is what you agree to do.

That seems like a good way to go: small, limited government doing a very few things, costing a modest amount, paying off its debts and leaving us free to figure out our lives without the lackluster capabilities of government that is not thrifty nor even all that wise.

Yes supporting life is important.

So is keeping ourselves and future generations free so that they do not spit when they refer to us as those that sold them into perpetual servitude of government. And if the answer to save life is to give government ever more power over it, then I have a real and deep problem with that as that is not the role nor place of government to dictate our lives to us in service of government.

It is we who have to ask ourselves if we are prepared to go into some relative hard times to do away with the ‘nice’ things that cannot be supported by government so as to sell our children into service to government for our passing pleasures… or if we are willing, as a people, to say that the cost in our liberty for such ‘safety nets’ is far too high and that we survived all the way to the 1930′s without it, did well in the Great Depression until government stuck its nose into our business to ‘help’ society. That means hardship for you, for me, and possibly even my life due to my lack of health.

Sucks, that, but a price not too high to be paid so that our children, and their children can say: ‘this is the generation that turned its back on tyranny, vowed to pay off their debts and to leave us with modest government and enhanced liberty… just as the Preamble said they should do.’

That sounds very socially conservative to me, but then I am no conservative.

ajacksonian on September 19, 2010 at 10:55 AM

sharrukin on September 19, 2010 at 4:15 AM

So the Tea Party needs you around to oversee our ‘standards’?
That to me sounds like a control issue. Take a poll of Tea Party folks and I bet you would find that 90% are against abortion if not more. We just don’t want or need ‘Christians’ preaching what we already believe. That is normal life 101 to us so move on. Oh and by the way how are the ‘Christians’ doing in legislating their brand of morality? The country is a rotting cesspool of moral decay now so where the hell have you guys been? I blame YOU for that it happened on YOUR watch!!!!! So you want to be a practicing ‘Christian’ good then go down to the nearest ghetto and find some underpriveleged kids and teach them a trade or build them a house or make regular visits to mentor them in a skill or art form of their choosing. Keep them out of gangs and prison and off drugs. You can visit the sick in the hospice’s and bring a little joy into their life in their last days. Go visit the imprisoned . Help widows and seniors and the handiacapped. You can take a vow of poverty and silence too. So you see my friend your brand of ‘Christianity’ isn’t the only way to ‘practice’ and I have a RIGHT to practice the way I want without orvezealous, overreaching or overbearing people passing judgement on me and pushing their brand of religion down my throat!!!

sonnyspats1 on September 19, 2010 at 11:08 AM

^ Wot e sed!

OldEnglish on September 19, 2010 at 11:34 AM

I blame YOU for that it happened on YOUR watch!!!!! So you want to be a practicing ‘Christian’…

So you see my friend your brand of ‘Christianity’ isn’t the only way to ‘practice’ and I have a RIGHT to practice the way I want without orvezealous, overreaching or overbearing people passing judgement on me and pushing their brand of religion down my throat!!!

sonnyspats1 on September 19, 2010 at 11:08 AM

I am an atheist idiot.

I also however understand tolerance and the concept of freedom, which you clearly don’t.

sharrukin on September 19, 2010 at 12:23 PM

The Politico article is a wonderful demonstration of how tied Colby King is to the Democrat anti-Tea Party narrative, which is essentially a work of fiction. Mr. King spouts off, confidently and condescendingly about the Tea Party’s “litmus test” on moral issues. He pretends to sound as though he knows what he is talking about.

Mr. Krauthammer corrects this and points out that Mr. King is completely wrong. The Tea Party’s issues are economic and issues of governance. They are constitutional in many ways. I think that Mr. Krauthammer is intellectually honest, unlike Mr. King, and even when I disagree with him, I know he is telling the truth as he believes it to be after doing his research and thinking things through.

The Politico article, however, is written by journalists not “pundits”. This article is “reporting”, not commentary. And the writers of the article are clear…indeed they take it as a given…that the Tea Party issues are economic and governance issues. The point of their article is how these issues may, in fact, put them in conflict with social conservatives.

Mr. King shows himself to be “full of it”. He is nothing more than a re-gurgitator of DNC spin. His credibility as a commentator ought to be zilch…even among democrats who may not like the Tea Party but who must want a true picture rather than a fictional picture of what they are up against. How else can they develop an effective strategy? (in this sense, commentators such as Mr. Colby are, as a result of their intellectual corruption and dishonesty are the GOP’s great allies, for as long as the Democrats believe their own propaganda, they are doomed).

Mr. King is a joke.

Blaise on September 19, 2010 at 12:36 PM

“Those who would have us ignore the battle being fought over life, marriage and religious liberty have forgotten the lessons of history,” said Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) in his speech Friday. “America’s darkest moments have come when economic arguments trumped moral principles.”…
[S]ocial conservatives here said that if the GOP takes back control of the House or Senate this November, they won’t tolerate compromise with Democrats on cultural matters.
Perkins said he expected a new Republican majority in the House to push back against any attempt to end the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy against gays in the military and legislation to restrict businesses from discriminating against gay employees…
The consensus among the establishment wing of the Republican Party is that to do anything but run against the purported fiscal excesses of the Democratic majority is folly.

Jesus Christ. No pun intended.

It’s things like this which have lead me, in the past week, to doubt all of you attempted peacemakers when you’ve said, “No, really, the ‘true cons’ don’t want to purge you from the conservative movement, we’re only focused on fiscal issues.”

Then this sort of thing comes along. Yeah, YOU may only be concerned with fiscal issues, peacemakers. Your “true con” brethren, I don’t think they have the same unity of message as you do.

Vyce on September 19, 2010 at 1:45 PM

Clive, why don’t you and oldenglish get a room with a bible in it and leave the rest of us alone.

Guess Christians aren’t welcome in the Conservative movement anymore. Shame, really.

CliveStaples on September 19, 2010 at 2:02 PM

I’d like to know just what it is that Christians and social conservatives are trying to force down peoples’ throats. I and no one I know is trying to impose new laws. We only want to repeal a horrid ‘law’ that was imposed on us by a handful of activist judges and return the laws to the way they were. We only want to maintain the universal and historic definition of marriage. We aren’t trying to create any new law. We are trying to stop the imposition of a new law that forces immorality down our throats. There have always been decency laws and we just want to maintain them so our children can safely watch television without commercials showing people butt naked and having sex, or the Super bowl without having Janet Jackson’s nipple shoved in their faces. Frankly, I want to be protected from that filth too. The progressives are the ones changing everything. Stop with this leftist propaganda that we are the ones trying to impose something new or give more power to the government. That would be the action of you libertines. Some are over-correcting due to the intrusion of the leftists into new areas of our lives, not the traditional ones. That is dangerous to society, too. While government shouldn’t be involved in what we eat, how much toilet paper we use, etc…some restriction is actually good for society, like keeping porn off the public airways. Hence we and all successful civilizations have laws for good order. A society where anything goes, without law, is chaos and it quickly disintegrates. Our Founding Fathers lived with laws. They didn’t foresee a lawless country. They also based their laws on their faith, ie Christianity. But now, suddenly that’s a problem for our libertines. No wonder we are going down the drain.

So yes go the back of the bus and enjoy the ride and of course decency shall prevail and be restored in our land.
People know how to live good christian lives without you cramming it down out throats!
sonnyspats1 on September 19, 2010 at 2:25 AM

Tell that to the 4000 babies who will die in the abortuaries tomorrow, and the next day, and the next…. And explain that to the children that are dragged to the ‘gay pride’ parades to see perverts in leather chaps and nothing else jerking each other off in the streets. You are an idiot and a scary one. Back of the bus…why don’t we just build a coliseum and be done with it. Man, you are one angry hate filled dude, aren’t you? But sorry, I will not go to the back of the bus. What I will do is stay at home on election day if you and your libertine ilk shove a liberal/progressive candidate on me and I will pray that all of my fellow Christians do the same. Then let’s see how we all enjoy the ride as we all go off the cliff into the abyss together. K? /disgust.

Candidates can focus on fiscal issues in their campaign. Fine. So long as they hold conservative moral positions on social issues and will vote based on them and not run away from them when confronted. No Rudy or $50-abortions Mitt, etc… And why is this being made an issue? Social conservatism does not defeat the fiscal conservatives. Chris Christie, Bob McDonnell, Bobby Jindal, Marco Rubio, Christine O’Donnell, Prop 8…. Social conservatism is a winning platform. I’d say the greedy libertines have hijacked the Tea Party from social conservatives rather than the other way around.

Guess Christians aren’t welcome in the Conservative movement anymore. Shame, really.
CliveStaples on September 19, 2010 at 2:02 PM

Only if the new Conservative movement is suicidal. It could be very interesting to see how well it works without us. And very depressing, and probably dangerous. Glad I trust in Jesus.

pannw on September 19, 2010 at 4:21 PM

“America’s darkest moments have come when economic arguments trumped moral principles.”…

.
Examples? Guy’s gotta go.
.
Hey Pence! Stay out of my life and PAY THE BILLS!

ronsfi on September 19, 2010 at 4:30 PM

I

’d like to know just what it is that Christians and social conservatives are trying to force down peoples’ throats. I and no one I know is trying to impose new laws. We only want to repeal a horrid ‘law’ that was imposed on us by a handful of activist judges and return the laws to the way they were. We only want to maintain the universal and historic definition of marriage. We aren’t trying to create any new law. We are trying to stop the imposition of a new law that forces immorality down our throats. There have always been decency laws and we just want to maintain them so our children can safely watch television without commercials showing people butt naked and having sex, or the Super bowl without having Janet Jackson’s nipple shoved in their faces. Frankly, I want to be protected from that filth too. The progressives are the ones changing everything. Stop with this leftist propaganda that we are the ones trying to impose something new or give more power to the government. That would be the action of you libertines. Some are over-correcting due to the intrusion of the leftists into new areas of our lives, not the traditional ones. That is dangerous to society, too. While government shouldn’t be involved in what we eat, how much toilet paper we use, etc…some restriction is actually good for society, like keeping porn off the public airways. Hence we and all successful civilizations have laws for good order. A society where anything goes, without law, is chaos and it quickly disintegrates. Our Founding Fathers lived with laws. They didn’t foresee a lawless country. They also based their laws on their faith, ie Christianity. But now, suddenly that’s a problem for our libertines. No wonder we are going down the drain.

So yes go the back of the bus and enjoy the ride and of course decency shall prevail and be restored in our land.
People know how to live good christian lives without you cramming it down out throats!
sonnyspats1 on September 19, 2010 at 2:25 AM
Tell that to the 4000 babies who will die in the abortuaries tomorrow, and the next day, and the next…. And explain that to the children that are dragged to the ‘gay pride’ parades to see perverts in leather chaps and nothing else jerking each other off in the streets. You are an idiot and a scary one. Back of the bus…why don’t we just build a coliseum and be done with it. Man, you are one angry hate filled dude, aren’t you? But sorry, I will not go to the back of the bus. What I will do is stay at home on election day if you and your libertine ilk shove a liberal/progressive candidate on me and I will pray that all of my fellow Christians do the same. Then let’s see how we all enjoy the ride as we all go off the cliff into the abyss together. K? /disgust.

Candidates can focus on fiscal issues in their campaign. Fine. So long as they hold conservative moral positions on social issues and will vote based on them and not run away from them when confronted. No Rudy or $50-abortions Mitt, etc… And why is this being made an issue? Social conservatism conservatism is a winning platform. I’d say the greedy libertines have hijacked the Tea Party from social conservatives rather than the other way around.

Guess Christians aren’t welcome in the Conservative movement anymore. Shame, really.
CliveStaples on September 19, 2010 at 2:02 PM
Only if the new Conservative movement is suicidal. It could be very interesting to see how well it works without us. And very depressing, and probably dangerous. Glad I trust in Jesus.

pannw on September 19, 2010 at 4:21 PM

Ladies and Gentlemen may I present EXIBIT-A

So yes STFU and STFD. This screed is pure rage and insanity.
Your passing judgement on a person based on a few words you read. That is what I am writing about and why ‘Christians’ need to get a grip and worry about your behavior and not everyone else.

sonnyspats1 on September 19, 2010 at 7:51 PM

sharrukin on September 19, 2010 at 12:23 PM

atheist
bigot
idiot
It must be nice to go through life with the handi list-O- names you have. Life must really be sooo organized and peachy for you. You have all the answers so you can go now and leave me alone with my list-o-name #47 idiocy.

sonnyspats1 on September 19, 2010 at 8:04 PM

sonnyspats1 on September 19, 2010 at 7:51 PM

Wow… Sonny, you are a raving lunatic. You keep telling people to STFU and STFD and ‘go to the back of the bus’, etc… and you are surprised I or others make a judgment about you. Wow, can’t figure out why anyone would make any sort of judgment. Yes, I’m rolling my eyes.

Please show me the rage and or insanity in anything I posted. I’m not the one yelling for others to STFU. But please tell me, what about my ‘screed’ bothers you so much. That I’m not willing to STFU? Well, sonny, this is still a free country for the time being and so I will say what I want to say. Now, you clearly would like to have me ‘shut up’ (I get the feeling that isn’t just figuratively speaking on your part, perhaps ‘shut up’ in a re-education camp is more to your liking, from the impression I get from your apparent rage.) and trust me, I see a time in the not too distant future where we might be facing serious persecution for speaking up, but until then, sorry. I won’t. Everything I wrote is true. I don’t know what immoral behavior you are so attached to, and don’t really care, but unless you are looking to kill some future unborn child or perhaps are one of the pervs walking around in the chaps getting off on the streets, you don’t have much to worry about. Seriously, what are you doing that you think we are trying to prevent? And I don’t want your usual ‘you want to force your morality’ crap. I’d like specifics. Are you a baby murder fan, or radical homosexual activist? Those are usually the ones who are so unhinged towards social conservatives. Please tell me which of these morals we are trying to shove down your throat are that have you so up in arms.

pannw on September 19, 2010 at 10:57 PM

sonnyspats1 on September 19, 2010 at 7:51 PM

Wow… Sonny, you are a raving lunatic. You keep telling people to STFU and STFD and ‘go to the back of the bus’, etc… and you are surprised I or others make a judgment about you. Wow, can’t figure out why anyone would make any sort of judgment. Yes, I’m rolling my eyes.

Please show me the rage and or insanity in anything I posted. I’m not the one yelling for others to STFU. But please tell me, what about my ‘screed’ bothers you so much. That I’m not willing to STFU? Well, sonny, this is still a free country for the time being and so I will say what I want to say. Now, you clearly would like to have me ‘shut up’ (I get the feeling that isn’t just figuratively speaking on your part, perhaps ‘shut up’ in a re-education camp is more to your liking, from the impression I get from your apparent rage.) and trust me, I see a time in the not too distant future where we might be facing serious persecution for speaking up, but until then, sorry. I won’t. Everything I wrote is true. I don’t know what immoral behavior you are so attached to, and don’t really care, but unless you are looking to kill some future unborn child or perhaps are one of the pervs walking around in the chaps getting off on the streets, you don’t have much to worry about. Seriously, what are you doing that you think we are trying to prevent? And I don’t want your usual ‘you want to force your morality’ crap. I’d like specifics. Are you a baby murder fan, or radical homosexual activist? Those are usually the ones who are so unhinged towards social conservatives. Please tell me which of these morals we are trying to shove down your throat are that have you so up in arms.

pannw on September 19, 2010 at 10:57 PM

Ladies and Gentlemen I submit EXHIBIT-B
All this from reading some lines on a computer screen.
So I rest my case and yes still STFU and STFD!!LMAO

sonnyspats1 on September 20, 2010 at 12:08 AM

sonnyspats1 on September 20, 2010 at 12:08 AM

:) No. And what a sad little person you are if you think trying to bully people into silence is funny. But by all means, continue to copy/paste my posts and tell people to read it. I appreciate that. Maybe they will wonder like I do why you won’t answer my question instead of yelling at me to STFU? Just what do you want to do that you think we social conservatives/Christians won’t let you do?

pannw on September 20, 2010 at 10:49 AM

The Christians have a lust for power? Wow, there’s delusion on ice. What Christians “lust” for is a return to a recognition of the sanctity of life, as it is defined by the founders in the Declaration, and provided for in the Constitution.

Why are we fighting each other when we want the same things? Aim your rhetorical weapons at real enemies, please.

Freelancer on September 20, 2010 at 2:37 PM

Further, those that insist that only religion can instil morality are bald-face liars, seeking to be the sole arbiters of same.

OldEnglish on September 19, 2010 at 4:11 AM

I will believe that when I see a semi-consistent pattern of atheist states that don’t murder their own populace in large numbers.

I don’t think that’s a terribly demanding standard.

sharrukin on September 19, 2010 at 4:15 AM

Here’s a far more realistic one: Believe it when you find an atheist with a solid and consistent moral code, who is ethical.

It takes only one to prove the case that religion is not necessary for sound morals and ethics.

If you don’t know someone who meets that standard, start with me.

One of the critical requirements for maintaining the coherence of this union is pluralism. If you cannot tolerate the notion that religions other than your own, and atheism, need to be treated with the same deference that you want for your own, then I’d advise you to sit down and do some soul-searching as to whether you truly embrace the notions that went into the founding of this nation… and that includes the invaluable input of Jefferson.

I commend to you, and to downtown, Query 17 of “Notes on the State of Virginia”, in its entirety. There is wisdom there. Avail yourself of it.

You are free to have and practice your religion. I’m free to reject it. My doing so does not render me incapable of being a sound moral and ethical actor, nor at least as useful a member of our society as you.

My decisions with respect to religion, ethics, morality, politics and pretty-much all other aspects of my social interaction with others are tied directly to the moral and ethical choices that I have made. I’m not an atheist because I’m immoral (nor am I immoral due to being an atheist.)

I’ve made my religious choices because of morality.

VekTor on September 20, 2010 at 6:51 PM

Choice entries from Query 17 mentioned above (emphases mine):

“The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

“Reason and free enquiry are the only effectual agents against error. Give a loose to them, they will support the true religion, by bringing every false one to their tribunal, to the test of their investigation. They are the natural enemies of error, and of error only. Had not the Roman government permitted free enquiry, Christianity could never have been introduced. Had not free enquiry been indulged, at the aera of the reformation, the corruptions of Christianity could not have been purged away. If it be restrained now, the present corruptions will be protected, and new ones encouraged. Was the government to prescribe to us our medicine and diet, our bodies would be in such keeping as our souls are now. Thus in France the emetic was once forbidden as a medicine, and the potatoe as an article of food. Government is just as infallible too when it fixes systems in physics. Galileo was sent to the inquisition for affirming that the earth was a sphere: the government had declared it to be as flat as a trencher, and Galileo was obliged to abjure his error.”

It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself. Subject opinion to coercion: whom will you make your inquisitors? Fallible men; men governed by bad passions, by private as well as public reasons. And why subject it to coercion? To produce uniformity. But is uniformity of opinion desireable? No more than of face and stature. Introduce the bed of Procrustes then, and as there is danger that the large men may beat the small, make us all of a size, by lopping the former and stretching the latter. Difference of opinion is advantageous in religion. The several sects perform the office of a Censor morum over each other. Is uniformity attainable? Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth. Let us reflect that it is inhabited by a thousand millions of people. That these profess probably a thousand different systems of religion. That ours is but one of that thousand. That if there be but one right, and ours that one, we should wish to see the 999 wandering sects gathered into the fold of truth. But against such a majority we cannot effect this by force. Reason and persuasion are the only practicable instruments. To make way for these, free enquiry must be indulged; and how can we wish others to indulge it while we refuse it ourselves. But every state, says an inquisitor, has established some religion. No two, say I, have established the same. Is this a proof of the infallibility of establishments? Our sister states of Pennsylvania and New York, however, have long subsisted without any establishment at all. The experiment was new and doubtful when they made it. It has answered beyond conception. They flourish infinitely. Religion is well supported; of various kinds, indeed, but all good enough; all sufficient to preserve peace and order: or if a sect arises, whose tenets would subvert morals, good sense has fair play, and reasons and laughs it out of doors, without suffering the state to be troubled with it. They do not hang more malefactors than we do. They are not more disturbed with religious dissensions. On the contrary, their harmony is unparalleled, and can be ascribed to nothing but their unbounded tolerance, because there is no other circumstance in which they differ from every nation on earth. They have made the happy discovery, that the way to silence religious disputes, is to take no notice of them.

“But is the spirit of the people an infallible, a permanent reliance? Is it government? Is this the kind of protection we receive in return for the rights we give up? Besides, the spirit of the times may alter, will alter. Our rulers will become corrupt, our people careless. A single zealot may commence persecutor, and better men be his victims. It can never be too often repeated, that the time for fixing every essential right on a legal basis is while our rulers are honest, and ourselves united. From the conclusion of this war we shall be going down hill. It will not then be necessary to resort every moment to the people for support. They will be forgotten, therefore, and their rights disregarded. They will forget themselves, but in the sole faculty of making money, and will never think of uniting to effect a due respect for their rights. The shackles, therefore, which shall not be knocked off at the conclusion of this war, will remain on us long, will be made heavier and heavier, till our rights shall revive or expire in a convulsion.

VekTor on September 20, 2010 at 7:10 PM

Comment pages: 1 2