Is the modern conservative movement defensible when it comes to civil liberties? National Review answers that question

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
To answer the topic question, yes, since they defend the right to life of unborn children. There is no greater civil liberty currently infringed.

Except that outlawing abortion and forcing all pregnant women to carry to term would impinge on women's civil liberties. So a balance needs to be found, and most rational people can find a middle ground where a 2 day old group of undifferentiated cells doesn't deserve the protection of an 8 month old fetus, and most women would be accomodating to that structure.

Gay marriage doesn't compare since allowing gays to marry hurts no one. So being against it is just for spite really.

 

[Elfear]

Originally posted by: jonks

Gay marriage doesn't compare since allowing gays to marry hurts no one. So being against it is just for spite really.

Maybe people don't want society to change into something that feels gay marriage is an acceptable alternative lifestyle. It has nothing to do with spite (well, maybe for some people it does). You vote at the polls to shape society into your idea of what it should look like. Conservatives do the same. If you were told to stop voting your conscience because it went against what others believed, would you just shrug and say "Ok"? Of course not. Works the same for people who believe that gay marriage is wrong.

No matter which way you vote you are stepping on people's ability to live in the society they want. You just have to decide what you want society to look like and vote accordingly.

 

[marincounty]

Originally posted by: OCguy
Interesting that gay marriage bans are in place in some of the most liberal states in the union.

What about the minority (D) base that has homophobic tendencies? Or do you just want to ignore that fact and blame it on the mormons? Or pretend that it was all a bunch of red-neck hilbillies in California.

Actually, it was a bunch of redneck hillbillies along with a bunch of religious conservatives that passed prop 8.

A county by county breakdown of the vote shows:

liberal counties: Marin 25% for prop 8, San Francisco 24.8% for, Los Angeles 50.3% for

hillbilly counties: Amador 64% for, Butte 56% for, Calaveras 63% for, Fresno 68%,
Kern 75%, Madera 73%, Merced 71%, Placer 59%, Stanislaus 68%

religious consevatives: Orange 57.9% for, San Diego 53%, San Bernardino 67%,
Sacramento 53%, Riverside 64% for

Text

Yes, many Mexican immigrants vote very conservatively, yet another reason to stop the invasion by illegals.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Elfear

Originally posted by: jonks

Gay marriage doesn't compare since allowing gays to marry hurts no one. So being against it is just for spite really.

Maybe people don't want society to change into something that feels gay marriage is an acceptable alternative lifestyle. It has nothing to do with spite (well, maybe for some people it does). You vote at the polls to shape society into your idea of what it should look like. Conservatives do the same. If you were told to stop voting your conscience because it went against what others believed, would you just shrug and say "Ok"? Of course not. Works the same for people who believe that gay marriage is wrong.

No matter which way you vote you are stepping on people's ability to live in the society they want. You just have to decide what you want society to look like and vote accordingly.

The 'spite' thing was a bit of a joke, but no, we don't empower the courts to rule and the legislature to pass laws on what people "like". There must be rational basis for it, and when denying equal treatment that basis must be compelling. This is why laws are not based solely on religious prescription. People can feel in their gut that gay marriage is "wrong" as much as they want, just as they can feel that blacks shouldn't mix with whites, or that women aren't smart enough to vote, or anything else they like. But those feelings cannot be enforced into law without a logical reason.

 

[Elfear]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Elfear

Originally posted by: jonks

Gay marriage doesn't compare since allowing gays to marry hurts no one. So being against it is just for spite really.

Maybe people don't want society to change into something that feels gay marriage is an acceptable alternative lifestyle. It has nothing to do with spite (well, maybe for some people it does). You vote at the polls to shape society into your idea of what it should look like. Conservatives do the same. If you were told to stop voting your conscience because it went against what others believed, would you just shrug and say "Ok"? Of course not. Works the same for people who believe that gay marriage is wrong.

No matter which way you vote you are stepping on people's ability to live in the society they want. You just have to decide what you want society to look like and vote accordingly.

The 'spite' thing was a bit of a joke, but no, we don't empower the courts to rule and the legislature to pass laws on what people "like". There must be rational basis for it, and when denying equal treatment that basis must be compelling. This is why laws are not based solely on religious prescription. People can feel in their gut that gay marriage is "wrong" as much as they want, just as they can feel that blacks shouldn't mix with whites, or that women aren't smart enough to vote, or anything else they like. But those feelings cannot be enforced into law without a logical reason.

What if people have a very different view of what "logical" means? Many of the liberal posters feel that there is NO logical argument that religious people can make. They are just a bunch of delusional lemmings, right?

I do agree with you that a logical argument needs to be made but finding common ground on what "logical" means is going to be very difficult.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Elfear

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Elfear

Originally posted by: jonks

Gay marriage doesn't compare since allowing gays to marry hurts no one. So being against it is just for spite really.

Maybe people don't want society to change into something that feels gay marriage is an acceptable alternative lifestyle. It has nothing to do with spite (well, maybe for some people it does). You vote at the polls to shape society into your idea of what it should look like. Conservatives do the same. If you were told to stop voting your conscience because it went against what others believed, would you just shrug and say "Ok"? Of course not. Works the same for people who believe that gay marriage is wrong.

No matter which way you vote you are stepping on people's ability to live in the society they want. You just have to decide what you want society to look like and vote accordingly.

The 'spite' thing was a bit of a joke, but no, we don't empower the courts to rule and the legislature to pass laws on what people "like". There must be rational basis for it, and when denying equal treatment that basis must be compelling. This is why laws are not based solely on religious prescription. People can feel in their gut that gay marriage is "wrong" as much as they want, just as they can feel that blacks shouldn't mix with whites, or that women aren't smart enough to vote, or anything else they like. But those feelings cannot be enforced into law without a logical reason.

What if people have a very different view of what "logical" means? Many of the liberal posters feel that there is NO logical argument that religious people can make. They are just a bunch of delusional lemmings, right?

I do agree with you that a logical argument needs to be made but finding common ground on what "logical" means is going to be very difficult.

I don't think it's as complex as you make it, and logic has fairly well defined rules and fallacies.

I don't think liberal posters feel that religious people can't make a logical argument. It's simply that a logical argument for or against a law cannot be based solely upon a person's religious convictions without a corroborating empirical reason. In this country, matters of faith are not codified without secular purpose. And frankly, for all the handwringing over same sex marriage by religious organizations, they have yet to postulate any damage that has resulted or can result, unless you view acceptance of homosexuality itself as damage. How will gay marriage "tear apart the family" or "usher in a decline in morality" or any other hyperbolic pronouncement? Only those who view homosexuality as a "wrong" can reach those conclusions, and it seems the vast majority who reach that conclusion have no close association with any gay people whatsoever, making their judgment on the issue somewhat suspect.

 

[manowar821]

Originally posted by: OCguy
Interesting that gay marriage bans are in place in some of the most liberal states in the union.

What about the minority (D) base that has homophobic tendencies? Or do you just want to ignore that fact and blame it on the mormons? Or pretend that it was all a bunch of red-neck hilbillies in California.

Then they're not really socially permissive, are they?

 

[Elfear]

Originally posted by: jonks

I don't think it's as complex as you make it, and logic has fairly well defined rules and fallacies.

I don't think liberal posters feel that religious people can't make a logical argument. It's simply that a logical argument for or against a law cannot be based solely upon a person's religious convictions without a corroborating empirical reason. In this country, matters of faith are not codified without secular purpose. And frankly, for all the handwringing over same sex marriage by religious organizations, they have yet to postulate any damage that has resulted or can result, unless you view acceptance of homosexuality itself as damage. How will gay marriage "tear apart the family" or "usher in a decline in morality" or any other hyperbolic pronouncement? Only those who view homosexuality as a "wrong" can reach those conclusions, and it seems the vast majority who reach that conclusion have no close association with any gay people whatsoever, making their judgment on the issue somewhat suspect.

If you consider homosexuality wrong, then it is easy to see the link between a society more accepting of gay marriage and a gay lifestyle and "ushering in a decline in morality". If you believe that the basic social unit is a family made up of a man and woman then it isn't much of a leap to see that families based on anything else would be "tearing the family apart".

In regards to evidence, I don't know if middle ground can be found. The strongest kind of evidence to you may be what you can measure, weigh, count, see, etc. Scientific evidence if you will. Many consider that secondary to evidence found searching out answers through prayer and contemplation. I'm sure a bunch of people will jump in here and laugh at that but that's the reality of it. People have different ideas of what the strongest kind of evidence is.

As a side note, two members of my immediate family are gay and two of my close friends are gay. I don't have any ill will towards them at all. I love them very much but that doesn't mean we see eye-to-eye on each other's lifestyles or beliefs.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: Elfear

Originally posted by: jonks

Gay marriage doesn't compare since allowing gays to marry hurts no one. So being against it is just for spite really.

Maybe people don't want society to change into something that feels gay marriage is an acceptable alternative lifestyle. It has nothing to do with spite (well, maybe for some people it does). You vote at the polls to shape society into your idea of what it should look like. Conservatives do the same. If you were told to stop voting your conscience because it went against what others believed, would you just shrug and say "Ok"? Of course not. Works the same for people who believe that gay marriage is wrong.

No matter which way you vote you are stepping on people's ability to live in the society they want. You just have to decide what you want society to look like and vote accordingly.

It isn't them deciding.. it is a 2000 year old book that imbeciles follow as something relating to a god. It is NOT THEM deciding ANYTHING.

 

[Elfear]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Elfear

Originally posted by: jonks

Gay marriage doesn't compare since allowing gays to marry hurts no one. So being against it is just for spite really.

Maybe people don't want society to change into something that feels gay marriage is an acceptable alternative lifestyle. It has nothing to do with spite (well, maybe for some people it does). You vote at the polls to shape society into your idea of what it should look like. Conservatives do the same. If you were told to stop voting your conscience because it went against what others believed, would you just shrug and say "Ok"? Of course not. Works the same for people who believe that gay marriage is wrong.

No matter which way you vote you are stepping on people's ability to live in the society they want. You just have to decide what you want society to look like and vote accordingly.

It isn't them deciding.. it is a 2000 year old book that imbeciles follow as something relating to a god. It is NOT THEM deciding ANYTHING.

Sorry but I think you're wrong there. The precepts and doctrine may come from a 2000+ year old book but people verify it's contents through other means or at least they should.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: Elfear

Sorry but I think you're wrong there. The precepts and doctrine may come from a 2000+ year old book but people verify it's contents through other means or at least they should.

Interesting. If you could verify a talking snake, or an old man building a big ship and placing 2 of every animal on it, I would like a PM.

 

[Elfear]

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: Elfear

Sorry but I think you're wrong there. The precepts and doctrine may come from a 2000+ year old book but people verify it's contents through other means or at least they should.

Interesting. If you could verify a talking snake, or an old man building a big ship and placing 2 of every animal on it, I would like a PM.

Like I told Jonks, people gather evidence in more than one way. Just because you don't agree with the method of gathering evidence, doesn't invalidate the conclusion.

 

[Vic]

No. Conservatism in America left civil liberties in the dust somewhere back in the 60s.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: jonksIt's simply that a logical argument for or against a law cannot be based solely upon a person's religious convictions without a corroborating empirical reason. In this country, matters of faith are not codified without secular purpose.

Disagree heavily here. There's no empirical reason to outlaw polygamy, or beastiality, or quite a few sexual crimes.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: marincounty
yet another reason to stop the invasion by illegals.

Nice one, racist.

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: Phokus
A resounding "NO" should be coming out of everyone's mouths after reading this piece.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlan...view-then-and-now.html

Comparing NRO's conservative view about blacks and civil liberties back in the 50's and gays and civil liberties in the new millennium, it's just sad to see conservatives making the same bigoted mistakes that they made over 40 years ago.

The funny thing is, NRO's founding father (and founder of the modern conservative movement) William F Buckley , later denounced his own views and finally admitted that it was probably a good thing that the Government legislated civil rights, quite a 180 from what he was writing for NRO back in the 50's.

Best part of the article is this:

If worse comes to worst, and the federal courts sweep aside the marriage laws that most Americans still want, then decades from now traditionalists should be ready to brandish that footnote and explain to generations yet unborn: That is why we resisted.

If i had to make a guess, in 40 years from now, conservatives who wrote this drivel will be making yet another 180 backtrack and apologizing profusely for their bigoted ways (although i'm sure they'll find another group of minorities to oppress by then).

As a slight derail, WFB also later denounced the Iraq war and excessive CEO pay, so i guess as you gather old age and wisdom, you realize modern conservativism is basically a philosophy for children.

I am still trying to find an example that contradicts my following statememt:

US "Conservatives" tend to be against minorities (except for the rich) and the economically and politically disadvantaged having the same rights and privileges they have.

Can anyone give an example that contradicts that statement?

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Siddhartha

Originally posted by: Phokus
A resounding "NO" should be coming out of everyone's mouths after reading this piece.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlan...view-then-and-now.html

Comparing NRO's conservative view about blacks and civil liberties back in the 50's and gays and civil liberties in the new millennium, it's just sad to see conservatives making the same bigoted mistakes that they made over 40 years ago.

The funny thing is, NRO's founding father (and founder of the modern conservative movement) William F Buckley , later denounced his own views and finally admitted that it was probably a good thing that the Government legislated civil rights, quite a 180 from what he was writing for NRO back in the 50's.

Best part of the article is this:

If worse comes to worst, and the federal courts sweep aside the marriage laws that most Americans still want, then decades from now traditionalists should be ready to brandish that footnote and explain to generations yet unborn: That is why we resisted.

If i had to make a guess, in 40 years from now, conservatives who wrote this drivel will be making yet another 180 backtrack and apologizing profusely for their bigoted ways (although i'm sure they'll find another group of minorities to oppress by then).

As a slight derail, WFB also later denounced the Iraq war and excessive CEO pay, so i guess as you gather old age and wisdom, you realize modern conservativism is basically a philosophy for children.

I am still trying to find an example that contradicts my following statememt:

US "Conservatives" tend to be against minorities (except for the rich) and the economically and politically disadvantaged having the same rights and privileges they have.

Can anyone give an example that contradicts that statement?

US "Liberals" hate freedom.

Can anyone give an example that contradicts that statement?

:roll:

You have to prove your assertion, not the other way around.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: jonksIt's simply that a logical argument for or against a law cannot be based solely upon a person's religious convictions without a corroborating empirical reason. In this country, matters of faith are not codified without secular purpose.

Disagree heavily here. There's no empirical reason to outlaw polygamy, or beastiality, or quite a few sexual crimes.

Do we have to have this discussion again??

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: OCguy
Interesting that gay marriage bans are in place in some of the most liberal states in the union.

What about the minority (D) base that has homophobic tendencies? Or do you just want to ignore that fact and blame it on the mormons? Or pretend that it was all a bunch of red-neck hilbillies in California.

didn't prop8 barely pass?

Why should it have passed at all? This state has San Francisco, San Diego, West Hollywood....and more.

It also has many "younger" people, like myself, who may be conservative on many things, but dont really care who is screwing who in thier homes.

There is homophobia on both sides of the aisle. Pinning it all on the Republicans is the easy way out, because that is where the fundamentalist Xtian base is.

However, this leaves out the Catholic Mexican/South Americans, and the African Americans who are behind others in accepting gays. And you can bet most of them vote (D).

How quickly you forget that the Republicans are anti-gay in both speech and action. The Democratic party has no such platform, yet here you are playing the race card, or really, I have no idea what you're doing, as usual.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Elfear

Originally posted by: jonks

I don't think it's as complex as you make it, and logic has fairly well defined rules and fallacies.

I don't think liberal posters feel that religious people can't make a logical argument. It's simply that a logical argument for or against a law cannot be based solely upon a person's religious convictions without a corroborating empirical reason. In this country, matters of faith are not codified without secular purpose. And frankly, for all the handwringing over same sex marriage by religious organizations, they have yet to postulate any damage that has resulted or can result, unless you view acceptance of homosexuality itself as damage. How will gay marriage "tear apart the family" or "usher in a decline in morality" or any other hyperbolic pronouncement? Only those who view homosexuality as a "wrong" can reach those conclusions, and it seems the vast majority who reach that conclusion have no close association with any gay people whatsoever, making their judgment on the issue somewhat suspect.

If you consider homosexuality wrong, then it is easy to see the link between a society more accepting of gay marriage and a gay lifestyle and "ushering in a decline in morality". If you believe that the basic social unit is a family made up of a man and woman then it isn't much of a leap to see that families based on anything else would be "tearing the family apart".

In regards to evidence, I don't know if middle ground can be found. The strongest kind of evidence to you may be what you can measure, weigh, count, see, etc. Scientific evidence if you will. Many consider that secondary to evidence found searching out answers through prayer and contemplation. I'm sure a bunch of people will jump in here and laugh at that but that's the reality of it. People have different ideas of what the strongest kind of evidence is.

Anyone who considers evidence obtained through scientifically established means to be secondary to evidence obtained through revelation is not being reasonable or logical. And that's the reality of it. Where science and religion directly conflict, i.e. heliocentrism, ID vs evolution, etc. and a person chooses to accept the word of faith over established facts, they are being deliberately obtuse, not spiritually enlightened.

Heliocentric theory is a moot point today, and same sex marriage will be a moot point in 20 years or so. Everywhere but Muslim countries and the Vatican anyway.

Back to homosexuality being "wrong", you skipped the part about a basis for such a feeling. People used to feel interracial relations were "wrong" and talked about how it "tore up families" and would "undermine the fabric of america." The same exact talking points are being used now wrt gays. No, homosexuals are not treated like the slaves were, but they are being denied equal treatment under the law without compelling reason. "Believing" the family unit should be one mom, one dad, doesn't mean you get to deprive other family type units from existing unless you can prove there is some harm that results, other than that to your sensibilities. "Considering" homosexuality wrong is your right, but enforcing that personal feeling into law is not acceptable, and the laws are now changing to reflect that.

 

[Elfear]

Originally posted by: jonks

Anyone who considers evidence obtained through scientifically established means to be secondary to evidence obtained through revelation is not being reasonable or logical. And that's the reality of it. Where science and religion directly conflict, i.e. heliocentrism, ID vs evolution, etc. and a person chooses to accept the word of faith over established facts, they are being deliberately obtuse, not spiritually enlightened.

Again that would be your definition of reasonable or logical. Are you saying that all people need to ascribe to your definition or they are obtuse? For people who believe in a higher power, it isn't much of a stretch to understand why they would place more emphasis on evidence gathered from that source then from any other. I think most people would react the same way. If looking for knowledge on linear algebra do you ask the freshman taking Math 101 or do you ask the linear algebra professor?

Back to homosexuality being "wrong", you skipped the part about a basis for such a feeling. People used to feel interracial relations were "wrong" and talked about how it "tore up families" and would "undermine the fabric of america." The same exact talking points are being used now wrt gays. No, homosexuals are not treated like the slaves were, but they are being denied equal treatment under the law without compelling reason. "Believing" the family unit should be one mom, one dad, doesn't mean you get to deprive other family type units from existing unless you can prove there is some harm that results, other than that to your sensibilities. "Considering" homosexuality wrong is your right, but enforcing that personal feeling into law is not acceptable, and the laws are now changing to reflect that.

If the laws of the country changed to allow gay marriage then the law should be followed and I would hope anyone who was initially against it would not ignore that. Until that point, it behooves every citizen to vote their conscience.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Elfear

Originally posted by: jonks

Anyone who considers evidence obtained through scientifically established means to be secondary to evidence obtained through revelation is not being reasonable or logical. And that's the reality of it. Where science and religion directly conflict, i.e. heliocentrism, ID vs evolution, etc. and a person chooses to accept the word of faith over established facts, they are being deliberately obtuse, not spiritually enlightened.

Again that would be your definition of reasonable or logical. Are you saying that all people need to ascribe to your definition or they are obtuse? For people who believe in a higher power, it isn't much of a stretch to understand why they would place more emphasis on evidence gathered from that source then from any other. I think most people would react the same way. If looking for knowledge on linear algebra do you ask the freshman taking Math 101 or do you ask the linear algebra professor?

No, I don't define what is logical. Reasonable is a subjective standard, so I'll drop that word. But logic has rules, and I didn't make them up. If someone argues that A is larger than B, and B is larger than C, but C is larger than A because god said so, then they are being illogical because the conclusion makes no sense when given those facts. That's not me telling them it's illogical, it's reality.

If I know something is true, and deliberately tell someone the opposite meaning to mislead them, it's not an opinion that I've told a lie, it's a fact. Don't use semantics to strip away ascertainable truth, unless you want to play the "truth is unknowable and we are all living in a someone else's dream" card, because I'm not playing that game.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: OCguy
Interesting that gay marriage bans are in place in some of the most liberal states in the union.

What about the minority (D) base that has homophobic tendencies? Or do you just want to ignore that fact and blame it on the mormons? Or pretend that it was all a bunch of red-neck hilbillies in California.

didn't prop8 barely pass?

Why should it have passed at all? This state has San Francisco, San Diego, West Hollywood....and more.

It also has many "younger" people, like myself, who may be conservative on many things, but dont really care who is screwing who in thier homes.

There is homophobia on both sides of the aisle. Pinning it all on the Republicans is the easy way out, because that is where the fundamentalist Xtian base is.

However, this leaves out the Catholic Mexican/South Americans, and the African Americans who are behind others in accepting gays. And you can bet most of them vote (D).

Oh, and by the way, San Deigo is not liberal. (much to my dismay)

 

[cubby1223]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: jonks
About 52% of Democrats favor gay marriage compared to 22% of Republicans. The parties are closer together on ABORTION than gay marriage.

A whole 52% of the liberal party favor equal civil rights?

Yea, how far we've come.

As you said, liberal != democrat. Get rid of the religious and the elderly dems and the number will jump another 30 percent. And way to ignore that about 80% of reps are against civil rights.

You're one of those who think the way run a democracy is to not let anyone who disagrees be allowed to vote?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: cubby1223

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: jonks
About 52% of Democrats favor gay marriage compared to 22% of Republicans. The parties are closer together on ABORTION than gay marriage.

A whole 52% of the liberal party favor equal civil rights?

Yea, how far we've come.

As you said, liberal != democrat. Get rid of the religious and the elderly dems and the number will jump another 30 percent. And way to ignore that about 80% of reps are against civil rights.

You're one of those who think the way run a democracy is to not let anyone who disagrees be allowed to vote?

'Get rid of' does not refer to gassing the religious and elderly in death camps. 'Get rid of' refers to removing them from the statistical pool for analyzing Democratic party voting patterns.

Jesus, man.