Hot Air reader poll results: Fiscal issues trump social issues by … quite a lot

posted at 1:22 pm on November 17, 2010 by Patrick Ishmael

These are the results of the survey we took at the end of Allahpundit’s GOProud/Tea Party priority post. The eye-popper? Question 3.

Analysis follows.

Do these results mean social conservatism has no place in the present political environment? Absolutely not. However, what this survey does suggest is that in order to maximize economic and social conservative gains, conservatives and libertarians think it will require two distinct strategies — inter-related, but clearly bifurcated. Republicans and Tea Partiers are choosing two-track governance: a fiscal issue track at the federal level, and a fiscal/social issue track among the states.

This year’s midterm voters by-and-large cast their ballots to shrink government: to roll back the massive expansions of the past two years, and probably much of the expansion of government of the last decade. Economic issues were the foremost concern of voters, and on that question conservatism won nationally.

Republicans win when voters are convinced the GOP will make the federal government smaller and less invasive, and generally speaking lose when voters believe the GOP will enlarge the federal government’s power. Nationally-speaking, that applies as much to social issues as it does to fiscal issues. To me, enshrining social issue firefights at the highest level of government necessarily suggests an encroachment by the federal government on the local and state communities that are most intimately concerned with the resolution of those issues. My own preference, and the impression I take from this survey, is that Republicans/conservatives/libertarians would rather decentralize, than hyper-centralize, its government, especially now.

So, that was the survey.

In other news, I parsed the following Presidential primary map from the data for your enjoyment. Survey responses were very close to proportional by state, so… this is pretty representative of the country (of Hot Air) as a whole. “Winners” were almost uniformly by plurality, not majority. This map includes all the candidates polled, and will very likely change going forward.

Feedback welcome. I’m on Twitter.

This post was promoted from GreenRoom to HotAir.com.
To see the comments on the original post, look here.


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 3 4 5

we won the gay marriage vote in CA…, this time. I’m a dumba**

right4life on November 17, 2010 at 4:10 PM

FTFY. They’ll be back next year, and the year after that.

And if all they wanted was their unions, I’d be content to tell them “fine, have it, now go the hell away”.

Dark-Star on November 17, 2010 at 4:32 PM

ChristianRock on November 17, 2010 at 4:29 PM

Bibles have nothing to do with government in this country at any level! See Amendment 1 to the US Constitution.

MJBrutus on November 17, 2010 at 4:32 PM

Everytime I read a comment by right4life, I’m reminded of that one episode of The X-Files. Y’know… Home. =]

(c’mon I’m not the only one, surely)

Jeddite on November 17, 2010 at 4:14 PM

I’m thinking more of the Stargate Goa’uld: an ugly parasite in need of removal.

Dark-Star on November 17, 2010 at 4:33 PM

And don’t try to convince me that your bedroom police state ideas are important or popular. Hot Air’s poll shows that even among those of us here they’re not. But worse, is that they place those who we may get to join us on the important stuff will run screaming the moment they hear a candidate beating his god-book.

MJBrutus on November 17, 2010 at 4:13 PM

What do you know about my “bedroom police state ideas”?
Tell me one such thing I have said I want government to legislate. What I have said is that I don’t want the government to force political agendas on me, things like:
- Indoctrinating my children in public schools
- telling me what I can eat and how much I am allowed to weigh
- providing abortions for children without parental concern
- making politically incorrect speech a hate crime
- restricting my freedoms such carnying arms
- dictating that I must buy health insurance
-
this list of liberal social policies can go forever and I for one will not capitulate to them in the name of fiscal policy. The truth is that I don’t have to, because as it has been pointed out many times social and fiscal conservatism go hand in hand. This false dichotomy is nothing more than an attempt by liberals and libertarians to shut conservatives up. There is no proof that being silent (which is the same as capitulating) on social issues will win more elections. How many elections have been lost because a candidate mentioned any of the issues I listed?

neuquenguy on November 17, 2010 at 4:37 PM

Including that False Dilemma question (if pursing fiscal conservatism led to socially liberal …) in the original poll was probably forgivable as an oversight, but to post it here is remiss.

eforhan on November 17, 2010 at 4:15 PM

That wasn’t an oversight; that was the question AP posed in the original post. Moreover, the result in Question 3 is pretty consistent with the results of Question 2, with the former emphasizing personal priority, the latter emphasizing governmental prioritization.

I strongly doubt if the inverse were asked — if social conservatism led to fiscal liberalism — you’d see a similar 75-25 breakdown for social conservatism, but we could always poll it. Point being, at the federal level, there’s a clear fiscal priority not only for libertarians that read Hot Air, but for conservatives, as well.

Patrick Ishmael on November 17, 2010 at 4:37 PM

Bibles have nothing to do with government in this country at any level! See Amendment 1 to the US Constitution.

MJBrutus on November 17, 2010 at 4:32 PM

Well I can still vote for biblical values, right?
I really don’t understand your question.

ChristianRock on November 17, 2010 at 4:38 PM

I’m thinking more of the Stargate Goa’uld: an ugly parasite in need of removal.

Dark-Star on November 17, 2010 at 4:33 PM

Come on. Parasites have an important ecological niche to fill.
They are the spreaders of disease & they do help with natural selection (waits for Darwinist! blabber).

Badger40 on November 17, 2010 at 4:41 PM

True, but not as big as the moral problem of killing an innocent child though, wouldn’t you agree?

DarkCurrent on November 17, 2010 at 4:30 PM

No I wouldn’t agree. I think this is where the right to life runs up against a real counter-claim. No right is absolute and we choose to execute the guilty, we allow people to defend themselves with lethal force, we allow the military to prosecute wars where the innocent will die. We have safety standards that we know will result in the death of innocents.

I think a woman’s human dignity is of more value than the right to drive a car down for a hamburger. We give a pass to people using vehicles for personal use despite what we know will happen when they do.

There are limits to everything and any right taken too far becomes an injustice.

sharrukin on November 17, 2010 at 4:41 PM

I’m thinking more of the Stargate Goa’uld: an ugly parasite in need of removal.

Dark-Star on November 17, 2010 at 4:33 PM

glad to see you managed to roll to the keyboard!!

you must be tired and sweaty now having to move that tub o lard you call a body around!!

watch your blood pressure, wouldn’t want you to stroke out!!

right4life on November 17, 2010 at 4:42 PM

Bibles have nothing to do with government in this country at any level! See Amendment 1 to the US Constitution.

MJBrutus on November 17, 2010 at 4:32 PM

you do know Jefferson used federal money to build churches and send missionaries to the indians, right?

right4life on November 17, 2010 at 4:43 PM

neuquenguy on November 17, 2010 at 4:37 PM

The issues that you stated here are not objectionable to me. In fact, I don’t even consider them to be “social issues” per se, but rather limited government issues.

MJBrutus on November 17, 2010 at 4:44 PM

FTFY. They’ll be back next year, and the year after that.

And if all they wanted was their unions, I’d be content to tell them “fine, have it, now go the hell away”.

Dark-Star on November 17, 2010 at 4:32 PM

I wish there was a fix for your stupidity…it knows no bounds.

right4life on November 17, 2010 at 4:44 PM

But we also know that we cannot compromise with the
values of this world because once you open the gates,
you let the flood in. Either you stand for Christ and
biblical truth, or you don’t.
ChristianRock on November 17, 2010 at 3:11 PM

Badger40 on November 17, 2010 at 4:15 PM
Biblical truth has nothing to do with federalism vs federal government – absolutely nothing. I’ve said this all along, yet you insist with this fallacy. Federalism also has nothing to do with being or not being a Christian. How you got to that conclusion, I’ll never know.

ChristianRock on November 17, 2010 at 4:29 PM

IMHO you implied that me asserting state vs fed rights & powers that I may be less of or not a Christian.
If that is not what you meant by that narrative, then I apologize for taking that away from it.
But you seem to be insinuating that this ‘notion’ of ‘Federalism’ (since the ‘anti-Federalists basically lost their steam when the Const was signed, I’ll just call it Republicanism) is somehow a problem.
And I do not understand how it is a problem.
I was to understand that it was a good thing.
So sincerely, my apologies if that is not what you mean.

Badger40 on November 17, 2010 at 4:45 PM

right4life on November 17, 2010 at 4:43 PM

So how many churches do you want our government to build and how many missionaries would you like to see us sponsor?

MJBrutus on November 17, 2010 at 4:45 PM

So what liberties of people who oppose gay marriage would be taken away if gay marriage were made legal?

I don’t think anyone is going to force you to enter into, pay for, participate in, or approve of a gay marriage.

So, what liberty is being infringed?

Keith_Indy on November 17, 2010 at 4:25 PM

Will Same-Sex Marriage Collide With Religious Liberty?

* Sign In to E-Mail This
* Print
* Reprints
* Save

By PETER STEINFELS
Published: June 10, 2006

Correction Appended

Is same-sex marriage on a collision course with religious liberty? It wasn’t surprising that before the constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage died in the Senate this week, several senators supporting it raised that danger.

But when highly respected legal experts on civil liberties, including ones favoring same-sex marriage, raise the same possibility, their concerns cannot be dismissed as partisan debating points.

Marc D. Stern, whose many years handling religious freedom cases for the American Jewish Congress have made him an expert in the area, can hardly be identified as a conservative agitator. Yet he firmly believes that legal recognition of same-sex marriage will make clashes with religious liberty “inevitable.”

“No one seriously believes that clergy will be forced, or even asked, to perform marriages that are anathema to them,” Mr. Stern has written. But for other individuals and institutions opposed on religious grounds to same-sex marriage, its legal acceptance would have “substantial impact.”

He has in mind schools, health care centers, social service agencies, summer camps, homeless shelters, nursing homes, orphanages, retreat houses, community centers, athletic programs and private businesses or services that operate by religious standards, like kosher caterers and marriage counselors.

One example, which he did not anticipate when first undertaking his analysis, was the Boston Catholic Charities’ decision to withdraw from providing adoption services because the state license required placing children with gay married couples on the same basis as heterosexual married couples.

Chai R. Feldblum, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center and a proponent of same-sex marriage, agrees that permitting gay couples equal access to civil marriage will inevitably burden the religious liberty of those religiously opposed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/10/us/10beliefs.html

see the catholic charities in MA…the doctor in ca who was sued by lesbians…and lost…and the photographer in AZ…

right4life on November 17, 2010 at 4:45 PM

So how many churches do you want our government to build and how many missionaries would you like to see us sponsor?

MJBrutus on November 17, 2010 at 4:45 PM

as many as Jefferson did.

right4life on November 17, 2010 at 4:46 PM

And I notice the ones that do it here are the ones usually who come out guns blazing with the insults.

Badger40 on November 17, 2010 at 4:20 PM

talk about the pot calling the kettle black!! LOL

right4life on November 17, 2010 at 4:47 PM

There are limits to everything and any right taken too far becomes an injustice.

sharrukin on November 17, 2010 at 4:41 PM

So, bottom line, the innocent’s right to life is not absolute and doesn’t necessarily have a higher priority than everything else?

DarkCurrent on November 17, 2010 at 4:48 PM

So how many churches do you want our government to build and how many missionaries would you like to see us sponsor?

MJBrutus on November 17, 2010 at 4:45 PM

The point is that government is now used to drive religion from the public square whereas the framers envisioned the 1st Amendment as encouraging it.

darwin on November 17, 2010 at 4:49 PM

And this, my fellow HA readers/contributors is what we need fear from the religious right!

you do know Jefferson used federal money to build churches and send missionaries to the indians, right?

So how many churches do you want our government to build and how many missionaries would you like to see us sponsor?

MJBrutus on November 17, 2010 at 4:45 PM

as many as Jefferson did.

right4life on November 17, 2010 at 4:46 PM

Yes sirree Bob, let’s get the US in to the church-building and missionary biz. Thanks for playing r4l, you’ve served your purpose by illustrating just what is wrong with the religious right.

MJBrutus on November 17, 2010 at 4:50 PM

darwin on November 17, 2010 at 4:49 PM

The point is that we have a choice of winning elections or losing them. If Conservatives keep playing the religious victim card they will lose them.

MJBrutus on November 17, 2010 at 4:53 PM

IMHO you implied that me asserting state vs fed rights & powers that I may be less of or not a Christian.
If that is not what you meant by that narrative, then I apologize for taking that away from it.
But you seem to be insinuating that this ‘notion’ of ‘Federalism’ (since the ‘anti-Federalists basically lost their steam when the Const was signed, I’ll just call it Republicanism) is somehow a problem.
And I do not understand how it is a problem.
I was to understand that it was a good thing.
So sincerely, my apologies if that is not what you mean.

Badger40 on November 17, 2010 at 4:45 PM

Well the way you brought up the issue, which was regarding social morality, was to bring federalism into the question – which doesn’t add to the debate at all. The question seems to be, should the government legislate morality?

So you basically attacked me saying that it’s ok for the States to decide on all these things, but not the Federal Government.

Honestly, I could care less which government – state or federal, but that’s not the question I was discussing. I was debating the point 3 of this poll, which asked if I should be dismissive of social morality, if that would advance the cause of fiscal conservatism (the poll doesn’t imply federation or states, so I assumed it talks about both, especially with state amendments being clearly denounced by the defenders of gay marriage). I think both you and I would agree (with you having stated you are a Christian and you believe the Bible) that we should just not legislate morality at all, am I correct?
I think we cleared up this misunderstanding…

ChristianRock on November 17, 2010 at 4:53 PM

And in other news about surveys, racing people prefer race cars over racing engines two to one. What studidity(as if you can isolate morality from economics. Social issues are moral issues and to pretend that a sane and stable society can last without God (social issues and morality)is the soul of “liberals;” regardless what they call themselves(libertarians or fiscal consevatives)

Don L on November 17, 2010 at 4:54 PM

So, bottom line, the innocent’s right to life is not absolute and doesn’t necessarily have a higher priority than everything else?

DarkCurrent on November 17, 2010 at 4:48 PM

No that isn’t the bottom line.

There were babies in Iraq and we invaded anyway.

There were babies in the city of Hiroshima and we dropped the bomb anyway.

There are babies out with their mothers and the possibility exists that if you drive you may hit one of them so I assume that you won’t be doing that because their life is more important than you getting to where you are going right? What a babies life isn’t more important than your entertainment? Is that your bottom line?

sharrukin on November 17, 2010 at 4:54 PM

So….the Department of Education won’t be safe. Everything else will be though.

Caper29 on November 17, 2010 at 4:56 PM

The point is that we have a choice of winning elections or losing them. If Conservatives keep playing the religious victim card they will lose them.

MJBrutus on November 17, 2010 at 4:53 PM

Alrighty then. Let’s only play the secular card and tell all those church going folks to sit down and shut up. Nice.

darwin on November 17, 2010 at 4:57 PM

Republicans and Tea Partiers are choosing two-track governance: a fiscal issue track at the federal level, and a fiscal/social issue track among the states.

By god, if we keep this up we may achieve THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ace tomato on November 17, 2010 at 4:57 PM

And this, my fellow HA readers/contributors is what we need fear from the religious right!
Yes sirree Bob, let’s get the US in to the church-building and missionary biz. Thanks for playing r4l, you’ve served your purpose by illustrating just what is wrong with the religious right.
MJBrutus on November 17, 2010 at 4:50 PM

So. What makes you think most Christians would agree with r4l?
I sure don’t. I’m pretty sure most Christians don’t either – why would we want the government to do what Christ told us Christians to do? It doesn’t make sense.

ChristianRock on November 17, 2010 at 4:57 PM

The issues that you stated here are not objectionable to me. In fact, I don’t even consider them to be “social issues” per se, but rather limited government issues.

MJBrutus on November 17, 2010 at 4:44 PM

But those are the issues that that a social liberal politician is much more likely to push than a social conservative politician will, regardless of their fiscal policies. This is why I believe this dichotomy is false and that 72% of HT “conservatives” saying that they would support fiscal responsibility at the expense of becoming a more liberal society just doesn’t compute. Liberal policies lead to larger government, loss of freedom AND financial ruin. Thus, in my opinion, either the question is misconstrued or the 72% respondents are a little clueless (or they are actually closet liberals).

neuquenguy on November 17, 2010 at 4:59 PM

Honestly, I think abortion would be the litmus test for an experiment in rebranding the US as a collection of individual states banding together, instead of a federal government over some provinces.

Let the states wholly and completely determine if abortion, in their state, is legal, and if so, to what degree, etc. and how that works out with every sub issue. Let it be debated to death and voted upon.

If California ends up with late term abortion on demand and Kansas has no abortion at all, everyone will be happy. The end. You want an abortion? live where that is a lifestyle or travel to get one. Whatever. But don’t make the entire nation, one absolutely divided on the issue, live under one rule or the other as a whole.

If we cannot function like that, why even have states?

ace tomato on November 17, 2010 at 5:00 PM

darwin on November 17, 2010 at 4:57 PM

Sorry man, but that’s the way it is. A large majority of Americans have all come together to say that we demand smaller government and lower taxes. Enough to win 63 seats in the House. That’s what we can agree on and that’s what we need to campaign on and govern on. This is no time to splinter this huge consensus by chasing social hot buttons.

MJBrutus on November 17, 2010 at 5:00 PM

Liberal policies lead to larger government, loss of freedom AND financial ruin. Thus, in my opinion, either the question is misconstrued or the 72% respondents are a little clueless (or they are actually closet liberals).

neuquenguy on November 17, 2010 at 4:59 PM

Right … fiscal conservatism and social liberalism are impossible together.

darwin on November 17, 2010 at 5:01 PM

I bet we can find some common ground here. How about NO FEDERAL DOLLARS TO OR FOR:
1. Any entity/group that performs abortions.
2. Any group that actively pushes a Pro Gay Marriage agenda, such CPB/PBS/NPR.
The Left keeps asking, what would you cut?
3. Fill in the blank – I’m sure this crowd can come up with a good long list.

humdinger on November 17, 2010 at 5:02 PM

So. What makes you think most Christians would agree with r4l?
I sure don’t. I’m pretty sure most Christians don’t either – why would we want the government to do what Christ told us Christians to do? It doesn’t make sense.

ChristianRock on November 17, 2010 at 4:57 PM

I am glad that you’re more reasonable. Unfortunately, I’ve heard far too may say things that are not far from what r4l said to consider him very unrepresentative of the religious right.

MJBrutus on November 17, 2010 at 5:03 PM

If pursuing fiscal conservatism led to a more socially liberal culture, would you pursue fiscal conservatism?

Yes 2298 72%
No 798 25%

Says it all, conservatism isn’t just limited government and spending, its limited intrusion in personal lives too.

Speakup on November 17, 2010 at 1:51 PM

The question makes no sense. I don’t see how fiscal conservatism leads to social liberalism, for one thing. And if it did, then the social liberalism would most likely lead to another round of fiscal liberalism. As I asked in the other thread on this subject, can anyone point to me a society on the planet that is fiscally conservative/ socially liberal? They’re as rare as fiscal conservative/ social lib politicians. It makes for nice rhetoric, sure.

ddrintn on November 17, 2010 at 5:04 PM

Hmmm, looks like some people want government out of their bank accounts and in their bedrooms.

That brings a new meaning to, pizza night.

BTW is their really such a thing as a Christian swinger web cam site?
Maybe the government can just hack in.

Speakup on November 17, 2010 at 5:05 PM

Right … fiscal conservatism and social liberalism are impossible together.

darwin on November 17, 2010 at 5:01 PM

While not impossible, the fact is that it simply bad politics. It is no way to win elections, and now more than ever, winning elections so we can reduce government must be our priority.

MJBrutus on November 17, 2010 at 5:05 PM

I think we should ban the vast majority of abortions. I would make an exception in the case of rape, incest, and the life of the mother.

I think most people might support that.

sharrukin on November 17, 2010 at 4:10 PM

Why, sharrukin? I am usually right in there with you, but you lost me here. Are some lives “murderable” because they weren’t conceived in ideal circumstances? btw, pregancy resulting from rape occurs less than .01% of the time. And in those cases, the baby still is the mother’s child; abortion doesn’t undo rape, it only adds the fact that now the mother killed her child. Great. As for incest, studies have shown that the pregnancies that result in such circumstances are often the only thing that saves the young victim from additional years of abuse. The incest perpetrator loves abortion for it’s guarantee of covering the incest, providing for many additional years of enjoyment, and the victim now has to suffer the additional mental and physical damage of abortion(s). Great.

As far as “life of the mother”, you do realize that is a legal term of art that allows abortion in almost all circumstances and includes “health of the mother”. If you are referring to true life and death cases, the mother may always be treated by having the baby delivered, alive, not severed limb from limb (abortion is more dangerous than delivery) sometimes as early as five months. Neonatal tech is moving fast, and some survive even at 20 weeks now. With the baby delivered, whatever health issue the mother is facing may be treated. Famous and once infamous Dr. Bernard Nathanson, OBGYN, former abortionist and the man who pushed abortion on America, starting in NY in 1967 writes extensively on this, speaking of the fact that the mother’s treatment is never dependent upon direct abortion, that is, the willful destruction of the unborn child before or while removing it from the womb. When a live baby is delivered, all measures necessary to save the tiny life are deployed. Some infants will live and others will not, but the point is that no one has been murdered in order for another to receive medical treatment.

Peoples and governments who present the death of innocent human beings as the “solution” to problems such as the above have, and will continue, to present the death of human beings as the “solution” for just about any other problems that may come up.

The terms concentration camp and death panel comes to mind.

tigerlily on November 17, 2010 at 5:05 PM

There are babies out with their mothers and the possibility exists that if you drive you may hit one of them so I assume that you won’t be doing that because their life is more important than you getting to where you are going right? What a babies life isn’t more important than your entertainment? Is that your bottom line?

sharrukin on November 17, 2010 at 4:54 PM

I’m not following your logic. When I drive, I try very hard not to run over babies. I have a 100% success rate so far.

Is your point that if we allow driving, and Hiroshima happened, killing innocents is just a price we have to pay and so abortion in some cases is not necessarily immoral?

I don’t find it coherent.

DarkCurrent on November 17, 2010 at 5:06 PM

Sorry man, but that’s the way it is. A large majority of Americans have all come together to say that we demand smaller government and lower taxes. Enough to win 63 seats in the House. That’s what we can agree on and that’s what we need to campaign on and govern on. This is no time to splinter this huge consensus by chasing social hot buttons.

MJBrutus on November 17, 2010 at 5:00 PM

Get government out of our lives, dictating morals and there won’t be social issues. Society will naturally assume the role.

In the interim, although I’m not a “church goer” … I find myself becoming angry at how self professed Christians are treated, especially here. It’s certainly not unusual for some “enlightened” airhead to jump all over someone because they believe in God, yet turn around and expect their views to be accepted without question. The double standard is very noticeable.

darwin on November 17, 2010 at 5:06 PM

Hmmm, looks like some people want government out of their bank accounts and in their bedrooms.

Speakup on November 17, 2010 at 5:05 PM

So-cons couldn’t care less what you do in your bedroom. Just don’t insist that I approve.

ddrintn on November 17, 2010 at 5:07 PM

The question makes no sense. I don’t see how fiscal conservatism leads to social liberalism
ddrintn on November 17, 2010 at 5:04 PM

Why not, the ACLU has lead to 4 trillion in rapid spending.

Speakup on November 17, 2010 at 5:07 PM

I can’t believe so many people would actually want Christie when he doesn’t seem all the enthusiastic about getting rid of Obamacare. Sure he does well going up against government unions, but social issues matter.

clement on November 17, 2010 at 5:08 PM

People on here are being absurd pretending that question 3 means anything.

Having a socially liberal culture will force a fiscally liberal agenda. It’s impossible that a fiscally conservative agenda would encourage social liberalism. That’s because social liberalism requires the government’s imprimatur. People are naturally conservative in that they want to be left alone.

Other than the occasional Jehovah Witness, how often are people like AP preached to by devout Christians. Christians deserve to have themselves represented in the public sphere and we will make sure we support candidates that do so. But we also want the ability to raise our families and not allow the government to indoctrinate our children to believe their socially and economically liberal beliefs. Try and argue otherwise and we’ll continue to war amongst ourselves instead of against the socialists.

All socially conservative people want is the right to govern themselves. I don’t see people demanding the federal government ban abortion or force people to go to church. What I do see are people that want Roe v Wade overturned and return it to a state issue as it belongs and that people should be allowed to express their religious beliefs in the public square. If a town is Christian, they should be allowed to display a nativity scene without also displaying a Menorah, a festivus pole, etc.

And next month, make sure you wish people a Merry Christmas. What the hell does Happy Holidays mean anyway? Other than Jewish people celebrating Hanukkah, what other holiday is celebrated in December. Be serious.

njrob on November 17, 2010 at 5:10 PM

The question makes no sense. I don’t see how fiscal conservatism leads to social liberalism
ddrintn on November 17, 2010 at 5:04 PM

Why not, the ACLU has lead to 4 trillion in rapid spending.

Speakup on November 17, 2010 at 5:07 PM

Huh?

ddrintn on November 17, 2010 at 5:10 PM

darwin on November 17, 2010 at 5:06 PM

I like what you had to say here. I try to be tolerant of others’ religions, but here in internet land it seems impossible to read more than 2 posts in a thread such as this one without having to jump on someone who tells us how we need a Theocratic government, or how anyone who doesn’t share their version of their faith is an immoral dirt bag.

MJBrutus on November 17, 2010 at 5:10 PM

Having a socially liberal culture will force a fiscally liberal agenda.

njrob on November 17, 2010 at 5:10 PM

Yep, exactly.

ddrintn on November 17, 2010 at 5:12 PM

So-cons couldn’t care less what you do in your bedroom. Just don’t insist that I approve.

ddrintn on November 17, 2010 at 5:07 PM

That’s OK, keep your bedroom to yourself and conservatives have to get it through their thick skulls or we’ll be right back in the wilderness again, limited government means very limited in every aspect except those powers enumerated.

Speakup on November 17, 2010 at 5:13 PM

it seems impossible to read more than 2 posts in a thread such as this one without having to jump on someone who tells us how we need a Theocratic government, or how anyone who doesn’t share their version of their faith is an immoral dirt bag.

MJBrutus on November 17, 2010 at 5:10 PM

Oh, come off it. I read far more snarling at anyone who professes that religion in some way guides his/her political attitudes as “Theocrats!” It stretches the meaning of “theocracy” beyond all recognition.

ddrintn on November 17, 2010 at 5:15 PM

right4life on November 17, 2010 at 4:10 PM

Give it a rest. You are a ranting loon, not a Christian.

katy the mean old lady on November 17, 2010 at 5:16 PM

That’s OK, keep your bedroom to yourself and conservatives have to get it through their thick skulls or we’ll be right back in the wilderness again, limited government means very limited in every aspect except those powers enumerated.

Speakup on November 17, 2010 at 5:13 PM

OK, so is welfare reform also “getting into bedrooms”?

ddrintn on November 17, 2010 at 5:17 PM

but here in internet land it seems impossible to read more than 2 posts in a thread such as this one without having to jump on someone who tells us how we need a Theocratic government, or how anyone who doesn’t share their version of their faith is an immoral dirt bag.

MJBrutus on November 17, 2010 at 5:10 PM

I’ve never read any comments proclaiming the need for theocratic government. I have read comments accusing people of being “immoral dirt bags”, just as I have read comments accusing people of being “moral dirtbags”.

It cuts boths ways.

The bottom line is we’ve lost societal control over morals … however defined. That role is now the responsibility of the US government and it will tell us what is good or bad. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand that unless society can discipline itself, it won’t last very long.

darwin on November 17, 2010 at 5:19 PM

inter-related, but clearly bifurcated. Republicans and Tea Partiers are choosing two-track governance: a fiscal issue track at the federal level, and a fiscal/social issue track among the states.

Where is that clear bifurcation? I’m still looking for that politician/state that is fiscally conservative/ socially liberal.

ddrintn on November 17, 2010 at 5:21 PM

That role is now the responsibility of the US government and it will tell us what is good or bad. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand that unless society can discipline itself, it won’t last very long.

darwin on November 17, 2010 at 5:19 PM

It’s now the role of the Feds? Oh goodie. So when the D’s are in power you won’t mind Nancy Pelosi telling you what’s right and what’s wrong I take it. You won’t mind her providing the moral discipline that is now the job of of our betters in DC.

MJBrutus on November 17, 2010 at 5:25 PM

3% doesn’t sound like much, but still, how do phobes get 94 votes? It looks like their world is contracting …

Thanks for letting us know that social conservatism is definitely not welcome here anymore, so Christians can officially avoid this place.

ChristianRock on November 17, 2010 at 1:46 PM

That is so lame. Ed and AP have massive wingnut cred.

October was our best traffic month ever,…

Allahpundit on November 17, 2010 at 1:53 PM

Congratulations and thank you. You will never get as much appreciation as you deserve. Be assured that I have noticed your heroic efforts.

Also thanks to Patrick. You have opened my eyes to the potential of Google Docs. Don’t read anything significant into question 3. Non-sequiturs yield nonsensical responses. However, it’s overwhelming clear that Americans want theocratic control of our lives even less during hard times.

HelenW on November 17, 2010 at 5:25 PM

Interesting that only 800 respondents consider themselves “conservative” while double that number consider themselves “Tea Party-conservatives” or “libertarian-conservatives” perhaps that explains why 72% say that they would pursue fiscal conservative policies if they lead to a more liberal culture. Don’t know what it means, just find it curious.

neuquenguy on November 17, 2010 at 5:26 PM

lib·er·tar·i·an   /ˌlɪbərˈtɛəriən/ Show Spelled
[lib-er-tair-ee-uhn] Show IPA

–noun
1. a person who advocates liberty, esp. with regard to thought or conduct.
2. a person who maintains the doctrine of free will ( distinguished from necessitarian).
–adjective
3. advocating liberty or conforming to principles of liberty.
4. maintaining the doctrine of free will.

Now when it comes to the actual leanings of the libertarian party, I don’t tow their total line.

That’s why I vote socially locally.
Bcs that’s where the change begins. And sometimes ends.

Badger40 on November 17, 2010 at 5:28 PM

Christians who support the minimization of social issues clearly do not understand their biblical history. Every time society embraces sins like homosexuality, sexual immorality, and child sacrifice, those that stand firm to a moral framework based on the Bible suffer persecution. Do Christians really want to help bring about their own persecution by throwing social issues under the bus?

The political implications of the teachings of Jesus means that Christians should oppose the normalization of homosexuality and the indiscriminate murder of the unborn.

http://www.bluecollarphilosophy.com/2010/10/revolutionary-politics-of-jesus-love.html

There was a post today in Hot Air about the attack on pro-life Crisis Pregnancy Centers. So does this mean that we should just watch them be shut down by the Left? Because that is what will happen if you abandon social issues. Where are we going to get the moral basis to oppose the eugenic nature of ObamaCare if you throw the social issues under the bus?

The Republican Party will destroy itself if it follows the advice of those advocating abandoning the social issues.

Blue Collar Todd on November 17, 2010 at 5:29 PM

It’s now the role of the Feds? Oh goodie. So when the D’s are in power you won’t mind Nancy Pelosi telling you what’s right and what’s wrong I take it. You won’t mind her providing the moral discipline that is now the job of of our betters in DC.

MJBrutus on November 17, 2010 at 5:25 PM

No, no, no. I mean the government has enroached on our lives to the point they now tell us what’s right and wrong. Too much salt, bad. Fossil fuels, bad. Green anything, good. Abortion, good. Illegal immigrants, good. Patriotism, bad. Carbon dioxide, bad.

Get it?

darwin on November 17, 2010 at 5:29 PM

It’s now the role of the Feds? Oh goodie. So when the D’s are in power you won’t mind Nancy Pelosi telling you what’s right and what’s wrong I take it. You won’t mind her providing the moral discipline that is now the job of of our betters in DC.

MJBrutus on November 17, 2010 at 5:25 PM

No, it’s that when the moral foundations are rotted, you get Nancy Pelosis telling you what to do by default.

By the way, the rather meaningless Question 3 could also be rearranged: “If pursuing fiscal conservatism were to result in a more ‘traditional’ view of morality, would you pursue fiscal conservatism?”

ddrintn on November 17, 2010 at 5:31 PM

right4life on November 17, 2010 at 4:47 PM

You are the one that started with the flinging of poo yesterday & now here today.
I certainly have no problem replying in kind to that mode of treatment.
It is your chosen mode of communication from what I have gathered by yesterday & today.
And come to think of it, always.
Cheers & God Bless.

Badger40 on November 17, 2010 at 5:31 PM

Every time society embraces sins like homosexuality, sexual immorality, and child sacrifice

Blue Collar Todd on November 17, 2010 at 5:29 PM

So we should only sacrifice sexually immoral, homosexual children?

MJBrutus on November 17, 2010 at 5:31 PM

abandoning the social issues.

Blue Collar Todd on November 17, 2010 at 5:29 PM

Notice I do not advocate abandoning them.
I just don’t think the federal govt has any right to assume powers that are not enumerated to it via the Const.
That is a big difference.
That notion of Republicanism & States Rights does not mean that the Feds have a right to their decision in Roe vs Wade, have the right to take my tax $$ & fund the killing of babies, take my tax dollars & promote condom use etc., take my tax $$ & promote same sex marriage, etc.
I think you get the idea.

Badger40 on November 17, 2010 at 5:34 PM

Allahpundit on November 17, 2010 at 1:53 PM
Congratulations and thank you. You will never get as much appreciation as you deserve.
HelenW on November 17, 2010 at 5:25 PM

Ditto.
There are many things AP & Ed say I may not agree with, but I do respect their efforts to get the information out.
And to have this public forum in which to debate is a wonderful privilege.
Of course, if I want to talk about things I’d get banned for here, I have other avenues, like FB pages to be a part of.

Badger40 on November 17, 2010 at 5:37 PM

The Republican Party will destroy itself if it follows the advice of those advocating abandoning the social issues.

Blue Collar Todd on November 17, 2010 at 5:29 PM

If the Republican party is successful in shrinking government and getting it out of our lives then social issues go back to where they belong, society.

darwin on November 17, 2010 at 5:38 PM

ddrintn on November 17, 2010 at 5:04 PM

I just had to poke my nose in here again. There seems to be an arguement on if a fiscon can be soclib, or if one can occur/or not simutaneously.

Lets put it this way, however much, or little, the guv spends does not impact who’s bed your’re going to climb in or if you’ll cheat on your spouse or choose having a child. Period.

Morality cannot be legislated.

That said, I’m for defunding a laundry list of things federally funded, and yes that means abortions too. Cutting the funding, not outlawing it. That as has been stated earlier can be done by the states.

BUT small GOV’T, MEANS small GOV’T.

As in so small that they have not the means to enforce anyone’s religiosity on anyone. To enforce religious values would require a gov’t immensely larger gov’t than we currently have and that is already bankrupting us.

So it’s not a matter of should we, it’s a matter of we cannot.

Archimedes on November 17, 2010 at 5:41 PM

darwin on November 17, 2010 at 5:38 PM

Right on! I apologize in that I took your meaning in the opposite way that you meant it when I sent that Nancy Pelosi post.

I’m with you also, in that I may not always like the rules that our society sets, I do think that we in our communities (state and local governments) have a right to moral standards and laws (provided the Constitution is not violated).

MJBrutus on November 17, 2010 at 5:43 PM

Morality cannot be legislated.

Archimedes on November 17, 2010 at 5:41 PM

So any government saying that it’s “right” for you to keep more of what you earn is making ONLY an economic statement.

ddrintn on November 17, 2010 at 5:44 PM

Badger40,

I see two problems with your stance. One, you said yesterday that you “dearly loved” Jesus Christ, yet, upon your death, I wonder what you will tell Him about your approval of abortion if individiual states so legislate?
How will you explain to Almighty God that your understanding of “states’ rights” was justified in allowing even one of their murders, that their lives, which He created, and the Commandment proscribing their murder, were not more important that “states rights”?

Two, you state the Constitution doesn’t address abortion. Yet, the Fourth states that we are to be secure in our Person and property; the Fifth states that no one shall be deprived of life without due process; the Fourteenth guarantees equal protection of all persons under the law.
(Hope I got all those right because they are just off of the top of my head.)

Where the Roe v Wade court staked their claim for abortion was on the ugly assertion that an unborn child was not a “person” and that they didn’t know when life began. With the advent since 1973 of ultrasound, DNA and other medical advances, and thanks to Dr. Jerome LeJeune’s groundbreaking Nobel Prize winning determination that Life Begins at Conception, the humanity of the unborn and the ability to watch the little person within yawn, sleep, taste and dream, makes it impossible for any thinking person to hold onto the bad law that is Roe v Wade.

In sum, Badger, The Supreme Court in 1973 knew and recognized that the Constitution protected all persons right to life in states, so they de-personalized the unborn. Hitler also legally de-personalize Jews, Christians, Gypsys, Homosexuals, the handicapped, etc.

Also, and hardly least because it is last, The Declaration of Independence, which has as much significance to the Founding and foundation of our nation’s laws, and the relationship of this nation’s citizens to God through those laws, holds that ALL have a Creator given RIGHT to Life…No state can, according to our Founder’s imperatives, violate this FOUNDATIONAL principle; in other words, the Constitution and the Declaration do address abortion because abortion involves depriving the life of living human beings, unborn Amercian citizens.

THE CONSTITUTION AND THE DECLARATION SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATE THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN LIFE AS A FEDERAL AUTHORITY.

The violation of this prinicple through abortion has brought us to the brink of implosion. If we don’t restore respect for Life itself, we will not survive as a nation. Fiscal plans are tissue in the wind without the firm foundation of God and our Founders. We have lost both.

I found it interesting that you would support a Constitutional Amendment guaranteeing the Right to Life for unborn persons. Even though I believe our Constitution and Declaration already guarantee this and that horrific jurisprudence has brought us the wonders of abortion, I agree that an Amendment would be a wonderful thing.

I would like to see how many who have been posting here regarding making abortion legal state by state will support you in calling for a Constitutional Amendment protecting all unborn in this nation. I have a sneaking suspicion that your “friends” will not agree in any way to support this human life amendment.

Show of hands please.

tigerlily on November 17, 2010 at 5:44 PM

Lets put it this way, however much, or little, the guv spends does not impact who’s bed your’re going to climb in or if you’ll cheat on your spouse or choose having a child. Period.

Archimedes on November 17, 2010 at 5:41 PM

Ummmmm, I think that last part is open to question as well.

ddrintn on November 17, 2010 at 5:46 PM

I’m with you also, in that I may not always like the rules that our society sets, I do think that we in our communities (state and local governments) have a right to moral standards and laws (provided the Constitution is not violated).

MJBrutus on November 17, 2010 at 5:43 PM

Right, what may be accepted in San Francisco may not be in Small Town USA. If you don’t like it, you can always live where your values are more adequately represented.

darwin on November 17, 2010 at 5:49 PM

Morality cannot be legislated.

Archimedes on November 17, 2010 at 5:41 PM

Huh? Certainly the moral stance of many cannot in full (see the Bill of Rights), but we can certainly make laws with the purpose of enforcing some moral positions. For example, it is illegal for me to set my cat on fire. I am glad for this and would not want to live in a place where such actions were permitted!

MJBrutus on November 17, 2010 at 5:50 PM

Peoples and governments who present the death of innocent human beings as the “solution” to problems such as the above have, and will continue, to present the death of human beings as the “solution” for just about any other problems that may come up.

The terms concentration camp and death panel comes to mind.

I understand your point here and this is one of the reasons that it bothers me that ‘life’ alone is all that is being considered. There is more to life than just breathing. I think that men must be regarded as something more than just a creature capable of biological functions. If they are not then why is killing them of any more import than killing a chicken?

Human dignity must be preserved as some cost to society. Rape is an offense due to the affront to human dignity that it entails.

The Gulags, concentration camps tend to spring up when men are no longer seen as worthy in themselves. That worth springs from regarding men as more than just a life form.

Why, sharrukin? I am usually right in there with you, but you lost me here. Are some lives “murderable” because they weren’t conceived in ideal circumstances?

You are balancing two very important principles here. Human dignity vs human life.

If some insane neo-Aztec cult took over Mexico and demanded a 100 ten year olds as a yearly tribute to be sacrificed to their sun god are they would go to war would that be an acceptable deal? Far more of our own people would die in such a war and far more innocents, but it would be wrong regardless. Even if more innocents would die that is the decision you should make because agreeing to something like that would be dishonorable. Does that mean children should die for honor?

btw, pregancy resulting from rape occurs less than .01% of the time.

It is rare as are all the actual exceptions I listed.

And in those cases, the baby still is the mother’s child; abortion doesn’t undo rape, it only adds the fact that now the mother killed her child.

No it doesn’t undo the injustice. However at some point human dignity has to count for something. This is why the life of the child even matters. I think it is too much to ask a woman to bear a rapists child.

I understand the logic of what you are saying but logic only takes you so far with human beings. Men are not equal in any real way and logic was used to justify a great number of terrible things throughout history. In the absence of intangibles such as human dignity we are left in a cold mean society that will see individuals as disposable.

I do realize that respect for human life also leads to a better society but what is that respect based? If the right to life is taken too far it becomes destructive to the principles that make people worthy of preserving.

We are more than biological creatures and that must come into the question at some point. We are willing to execute criminals or outside attackers because we see them as forfeiting their right to life due to their actions. Obviously a baby has done none of those things, but the point remains that life itself is not the only value that we should consider. I think human dignity must be one of those values or we will be left the sort of society than none of us will care for.

As far as “life of the mother”, you do realize that is a legal term of art that allows abortion in almost all circumstances and includes “health of the mother”. If you are referring to true life and death cases, the mother may always be treated by having the baby delivered, alive,

tigerlily on November 17, 2010 at 5:05 PM

When I say the life of the mother I mean the her physical life. It isn’t a dodge. I mean true life and death.

sharrukin on November 17, 2010 at 5:50 PM

Darwin and Ddrintn are thinking logically.

The libertarians on here that are reflexively anti-Christian need to get over themselves. As a Christian I understand not everyone can be saved. It is my duty to speak the Word and try to bring others to Christianity, but that’s based on free will. God will never turn away from someone that gives his life freely to the Lord, but one cannot be forced to do so because your heart would deny Him.

Christianity is not the ‘religion of the sword.’ We are not the ones that are trying to dictate how people must live their lives. We are the people that will fight back if you try to force us to hide our beliefs in the public square. The 1st Amendment clearly grants us the right to freely practice our religion and to freely assemble. Allow us to practice our beliefs freely and I’m certain we’ll reciprocate in kind as long as your beliefs aren’t encouraging the destruction of our own.

njrob on November 17, 2010 at 5:54 PM

darwin on November 17, 2010 at 5:49 PM

And things are viewed differently in the Heartland, please refer to the 90 % red map posted on HA today.

kingsjester on November 17, 2010 at 5:54 PM

And next month, make sure you wish people a Merry Christmas. What the hell does Happy Holidays mean anyway? Other than Jewish people celebrating Hanukkah, what other holiday is celebrated in December. Be serious.

njrob on November 17, 2010 at 5:10 PM

Don’t tell me you forgot Kwanzaaaaaah?!

tigerlily on November 17, 2010 at 5:55 PM

njrob on November 17, 2010 at 5:54 PM

Well said.

kingsjester on November 17, 2010 at 5:55 PM

what laughable BS.

right4life on November 17, 2010 at 3:24 PM

Your posts typically are, yes.

Paul the Apostle would scoff at you. Laws do not prevent sin, they only define it. Only grace prevents sin.

You, sir, demonstrate none. You are an intolerant hater of people with open minds who welcome the overturning of Roe v. Wade so that the states can decide. And you swing your illogical phallus all over the place by saying “you want slavery!” It’s pathetic, really.

John the Libertarian on November 17, 2010 at 5:57 PM

njrob on November 17, 2010 at 5:54 PM

Nice post. You’re clearly a sincere and well-meaning person. I respect that and your freedom to practice your faith. I don’t share your belief, but I wish for you and those like you all of the peace of mind, comfort and hope that your religion offers.

MJBrutus on November 17, 2010 at 5:58 PM

My “other” vote was for Bolton.

Count to 10 on November 17, 2010 at 6:02 PM

So any government saying that it’s “right” for you to keep more of what you earn is making ONLY an economic statement.

ddrintn on November 17, 2010 at 5:44 PM

Oh puhleeze! Look certian things are universly considered wrong. Is rape merely a sexual preference statement? Don’t be an ass.

For the gazzillionth time morality is impossible to legislate bcuz no 2 people completely agree on what precisely that would be. That leaves having one person telling us all how to live, and that of course is a dictatorship and why we went war against king George.

Archimedes on November 17, 2010 at 6:08 PM

Oh puhleeze! Look certian things are universly considered wrong. Is rape merely a sexual preference statement? Don’t be an ass.

Archimedes on November 17, 2010 at 6:08 PM

There are other approaches to every law.

Ms. Mukhtar, 31, was gang-raped in June 2002 at the insistence of a local council in the farming village Meerwala, in southern Punjab Province. The rape was ordered as punishment because her younger brother was said to have had sex with a woman from a higher-caste tribe, the Mastoi.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/international/asia/28pakistan.html?fta=y

sharrukin on November 17, 2010 at 6:10 PM

Give it a rest. You are a ranting loon, not a Christian.

katy the mean old lady on November 17, 2010 at 5:16 PM

you know whats funny fat old lady?

is dumb-a**es like you can’t argue the issues with me…all you can do is call me names….because you don’t have the intellect, facts, or logic to keep up.

loser.

right4life on November 17, 2010 at 6:29 PM

When I say the life of the mother I mean the her physical life. It isn’t a dodge. I mean true life and death.

I believe you and addressed that a bit by referring you to Dr. Bernard Nathanson.

No it doesn’t undo the injustice. However at some point human dignity has to count for something. This is why the life of the child even matters. I think it is too much to ask a woman to bear a rapists child

Your argument, if I understand it, is that human dignity and human justice can be separated and compartmentalized. My stance is that when human justice is truly honored and administered, human dignity is protected by the very act of honoring true human justice. In fact, human dignity is brought into bold relief when a human acts justly.

If you think for a moment about a rape victim, you realize that another individual has unjustly violated his/her (I’ll use her to simplify from here on) person and attacked the dignity inherent in their humanity, but they have not deprived them of life.

When a pregnancy occurs as a result of the attack, the mother does not just “bear the rapist’s child”, her body in fact initiates countless processes of bonding and supporting the child. It was discovered not too long ago that a microscopic piece of every child’s DNA implants itself in the mother’s brain before birth. This gives a new dimension to the Scriptural question which attempted to describe an impossibility: “Can a mother forget her child?”

As well, the baby bears half of the mother’s DNA, is her child as much as any child conceived in any way could be, and the mother is physically and psychologically hard wired tto bond and protect it. Full stop.

Now, the rape presents complications in this process, but does not in any way eliminate it.

As well, why should a mother who was raped, but not killed,
allow this act of another to cause her to exceed the rapist’s violence, by becoming the executioner of her own child?

Now the rapist has really succeeded in dominating and owning her. Now she will always be raped, always be a mother, but will also be a mother who killed her baby because she did not get the support she needed to call upon the strength that most likely was in her to give life, which is our default switch, as it were.

Now, instead of overcoming the rape by learning how strong she can be in giving life to her baby, she becomes victimized again, in a worse way, be abortion.

I have spoken to a couple of women, grown with their own children now, who were “products of rape”. Funny, but I wouldn’t have known unless they told me. They seemed to be lovely women, with happy families. They did, though, share their undying gratitude to their mothers and those who supported their mothers in the trying times that led to their births.

Another woman (can’t remember her name now, I’ll call her Mary) wrote about her experience of being raped as a sixteen year old in Milwaukee in the 1970′s. Difficult as it was, she had the baby and put her up for adoption. Many years later, Mary had married, but unfortunately miscarried and was never able to have another child. Lo and behold, the child that she put up for adoption located her. They met, (look like twins in a photo enclosed with the story!)and Mary’s new found daughter has two children of her own.
Mary now has a daughter and two grandchildren that never would have existed if she had not done the hard, but right thing as a teenager.

A small study was conducted which showed that women who became pregnant through sexual assualt and then aborted did not have satisfactory recovery from the experience. They felt defeated by the entire tragedy, which, btw, some admitted feeling more evil than the rapist because the rapist let them live and they didn’t let the baby live.

Those women who became pregnant and had the baby, although still traumatized, were able to recover much more satisfactorily and felt that by overcoming the experience and giving and receiving the gift of life, they found an inner courage and strength that they were previously unaware of. They did not feel defeated, on the contrary the felt victorious; they had overcome.

This is a long way of saying that when justice is done by the mother to her innocent unborn child who was conceived through assault, then the mother’s honor as a human being and woman is also acknowledged and enhanced.

Without justice there is no honor, without honor, no justice. Doing the hard, almost impossible, but morally right thing is it’s own reward, and though you may think that it helps a woman to allow/encourage her to kill her own child, it dishonors all involved because the killing of the innocent is the ultimate injustice.

tigerlily on November 17, 2010 at 6:31 PM

Paul the Apostle would scoff at you. Laws do not prevent sin, they only define it. Only grace prevents sin.

You, sir, demonstrate none. You are an intolerant hater of people with open minds who welcome the overturning of Roe v. Wade so that the states can decide. And you swing your illogical phallus all over the place by saying “you want slavery!” It’s pathetic, really.

John the Libertarian on November 17, 2010 at 5:57 PM

hey dummy, I’d be happy to throw the issues to the states..why don’t you get a clue.. you make ASSumptions about what I believe because you have to set up straw men in order to argue with me…cause you sure can’t do it by sticking to the truth.

but then you lie so often I don’t think you can help it anymore.

right4life on November 17, 2010 at 6:32 PM

sharrukin on November 17, 2010 at 6:10 PM

Earlier in this thread I mentioned Islamic practices as not being part of universely recognized values. On Islam…don’t get me started. But just a point of fact there is is prime example of where you wind up mixing guv with religion, islamic regimes are dictatorial.

And in the classical sense, the original liberals (a label hijacked by the progressives in the 30′s) Hume, Smith, Acton etal; fought against christion dictators to bring about the great enlightenment ending intellectual repression to religious dogma. I cannot see how you can have liberty in a society where law is religiously based, not and have freedom of religion. Religious law is absoutist by it’s very nature, absolutism is dictatorial. The ecofascists are in a way trying to foist their beliefs on everyone with their pseudo-reglios dogma and we have seen their inclination to tyranny with the Crap & Tax non-sense.

Do we want to go back to burning witches at the stake, how is that religous freedom for wiccans?

Archimedes on November 17, 2010 at 6:32 PM

And you swing your illogical phallus all over the place by saying “you want slavery!” It’s pathetic, really.

John the Libertarian on November 17, 2010 at 5:57 PM

ok then smart-a** tell me why slavery shouldn’t be left to the states just like abortion? give me the logic…but we all know you can’t!! you’ll sputter…uh its the 14th amendment…duhhhhhhhh

right4life on November 17, 2010 at 6:33 PM

I just don’t think the federal govt has any right to assume powers that are not enumerated to it via the Const.
That is a big difference.

Badger40 on November 17, 2010 at 5:34 PM

slavery wasn’t given to the federal government was it now? do you think lincoln was a TYRANT like the wacko libertarians on lewrockwell.com??

right4life on November 17, 2010 at 6:36 PM

Oh puhleeze! Look certian things are universly considered wrong. Is rape merely a sexual preference statement? Don’t be an ass.

Archimedes on November 17, 2010 at 6:08 PM

Taxing you out the wazoo is considered to be the morally right thing to do by some. But I’m sure you’d say that that’s “theft” by the government. So much for your “universality”.

Religious law is absoutist by it’s very nature, absolutism is dictatorial. The ecofascists are in a way trying to foist their beliefs on everyone with their pseudo-reglios dogma and we have seen their inclination to tyranny with the Crap & Tax non-sense.

Do we want to go back to burning witches at the stake, how is that religous freedom for wiccans?

Archimedes on November 17, 2010 at 6:32 PM

So opposing abortion is “theocratic absolutism”? It’s now one of those “universally” held ideas that slavery is wrong. It was not always the case, even in “theocratic” societies. But yet abolitionism was essentially a Christian movement. Don’t get me started on this “empathy” stuff.

ddrintn on November 17, 2010 at 6:41 PM

You are the one that started with the flinging of poo yesterday & now here today.

Badger40 on November 17, 2010 at 5:31 PM

you’re a liar. you started calling me every name in the book…yeah how lady-like of you…right.

and you lied repeatedly about what I said…again because you don’t have the brains to argue the issues with me. you set up so many straw men it was laughable…

and you don’t have the guts, or integrity to admit it and apologize.

right4life on November 17, 2010 at 6:43 PM

Yes sirree Bob, let’s get the US in to the church-building and missionary biz. Thanks for playing r4l, you’ve served your purpose by illustrating just what is wrong with the religious right.

MJBrutus on November 17, 2010 at 4:50 PM

yeah thanks for making yourself look stupid…yeah Jefferson was a real THEOCRAT wasn’t he??? LOL

right4life on November 17, 2010 at 6:45 PM

For those theocrats that keep tying abortion to slavery, may I remind you god seemed perfectly okay with slavery.

Archimedes on November 17, 2010 at 6:45 PM

Sorry man, but that’s the way it is. A large majority of Americans have all come together to say that we demand smaller government and lower taxes. Enough to win 63 seats in the House. That’s what we can agree on and that’s what we need to campaign on and govern on. This is no time to splinter this huge consensus by chasing social hot buttons.

MJBrutus on November 17, 2010 at 5:00 PM

so tell me gomer, how many of the tea party candidates were those fiscal con/social lib types you LOVE so much?

I can’t think of any…they were all the dreaded SOCIAL CONS…

get a clue.

right4life on November 17, 2010 at 6:46 PM

For those theocrats that keep tying abortion to slavery, may I remind you god seemed perfectly okay with slavery.

Archimedes on November 17, 2010 at 6:45 PM

For those who equate “pro-life” with “theocrat”, I have two words: Nat Hentoff.

ddrintn on November 17, 2010 at 6:47 PM

For those theocrats that keep tying abortion to slavery, may I remind you god seemed perfectly okay with slavery.

Archimedes on November 17, 2010 at 6:45 PM

oh and who was it who ended slavery?? oh yeah WILBERFORCE…

it sure wasn’t atheists or muslims now was it?

hate to tell you but abortion and slavery are similar issues…they dehumanize a group….but then atheists never have a problem with that do they now?

right4life on November 17, 2010 at 6:48 PM

For those theocrats that keep tying abortion to slavery, may I remind you god seemed perfectly okay with slavery.

Archimedes on November 17, 2010 at 6:45 PM

Atheists were pretty cool with slavery as well, in the USSR.

ddrintn on November 17, 2010 at 6:48 PM

so tell me gomer, how many of the tea party candidates were those fiscal con/social lib types you LOVE so much?

right4life on November 17, 2010 at 6:46 PM

Tea party? Heck, I’d just like to see a few examples of such politicians period. And also examples of fiscally conservative/ socially liberal societies. Anyone?

ddrintn on November 17, 2010 at 6:52 PM

’ve heard far too may say things that are not far from what r4l said to consider him very unrepresentative of the religious right.

MJBrutus on November 17, 2010 at 5:03 PM

I consider you the typical brainless libertarian…mouthing talking points but unable to think for yourself.

right4life on November 17, 2010 at 6:53 PM

Tea party? Heck, I’d just like to see a few examples of such politicians period. And also examples of fiscally conservative/ socially liberal societies. Anyone?

ddrintn on November 17, 2010 at 6:52 PM

AUNULD advertised himself as a fiscal con/ social lib…

of course he turned out to be a total lib….which is what usually happens with the ‘libertarians’

right4life on November 17, 2010 at 6:54 PM

But I’m sure you’d say that that’s “theft” by the government.

Yup! I think confiscation is more accurate, but theft will do in a pinch.

So opposing abortion is “theocratic absolutism”?

Opposing it? Not at all. Dictating to others due to your opposition, most definately.

One question that I’ve posed has gotten no response from the theologically inclined in here. As we can see just in the HA threads, where most of us agree on most things, but none us on all of them, who are we going to elect/support that gets to dictate to us what our “morality” should be? And how would that be called freedom?

Anyone?

Archimedes on November 17, 2010 at 6:55 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5