FreeRepublic Policy Statement

The point I'm trying to make to you is that those social issues that are paramount to you and many here on FR do not represent the issues of importance to most Americans.

You are probably right at this stage of America's moral and cultural deterioration, but we are still numerous enough to hold the balance of power if enough of us refuse to follow the rest of you over the cliff edge. Four long years with any of the likely Democrat nominees in the Oval Office may be enough to return some degree of reality to the FR lemmings who seem to be eager to follow their idol of the moment over the precipice.

I think I can speak for at least a few of FR's social conservatives when I say that we will never vote for any nominee the other side can put up given it's stance on virtually every moral and social issue. But we, or at least I, will never vote for a carbon copy of what the the other side is selling just because he or she has the "right" political label on the wrapper. Talk about your truth in advertising law, Rudy breaks it open wide enough to drive an Abrams tank through.

The courtesy here is to include the person of whom you're referring in a post.

Neither of the gentlemen you posted to are included so I am not pinging them. That courtesy can be disregarded if you have not a modicum of respect for the 'person'.

Yeah, it's not that I'm mean, I just got a "mean streak" sometimes.

Fred who?

Absolutely untrue ... there's an underlying expectation of ethical conduct at FR ... we're NOT DU.

Fred Thompson. Scuttlebutt's around that he may toss his hat into the ring. The ex-senator from Tennessee, I believe.

OK, he's the guy on TV. I like him, but haven't followed his politics. I was previously talking about Rudy however.

You are probably right at this stage of America's moral and cultural deterioration, but we are still numerous enough to hold the balance of power if enough of us refuse to follow the rest of you over the cliff edge

And that battle should be societal, not political. Government's job is the protection of the rights of its citizens, the security of the nation, and the maintenance of a civil structure that permits the society to impact culture in any way it chooses. A government should be moral, but not impose morality.

Four long years with any of the likely Democrat nominees in the Oval Office may be enough to return some degree of reality to the FR lemmings who seem to be eager to follow their idol of the moment over the precipice.

If by FR lemmings you are referring to those of us who believe in conservative principles rather than a social right agenda, that may include more than you realize. We can likely agree though, that 4 years of Democrat leadership will not make any of us happy.

I think I can speak for at least a few of FR's social conservatives when I say that we will never vote for any nominee the other side can put up given it's stance on virtually every moral and social issue.

That being the case, they may find they are even more marginalized than ever. That the social issues are more important that the protection of the rights of citizens, the war on terror, immigration reform, tax and budget reforms, tells me that they have no civic interest, but merely some moral-religious agenda which will be ultimately rejected by this Country.

Talk about your truth in advertising law, Rudy breaks it open wide enough to drive an Abrams tank through.

I didn't think we were discussing a specific candidate, but rather political agendas, the FR policy, and the desires of the American people.

there's an underlying expectation of ethical conduct at FR

Don't go there, dude. Your slip is showing.

Truth is in the eye of the beholder.

A government should be moral, but not impose morality.

I agree that criminalizing the deliberate killing of human life in the womb is an imposition of a moral code, but then criminalizing the deliberate killing of innocent human life at a later stage is no less an imposition of a moral code. Most criminal laws originated in someone's or some culture's moral code. Moses' laws were not too dissimilar to Hammurabi's, and both sets of laws reflected the moral codes of their respective cultures and to a large degree our criminal laws reflect those same moral codes today.

I doubt that you or anyone else who approve the relatively recent decriminalization of acts such as abortion, adultery, sodomy, etc, that you consider to be immoral but victimless violations of the Judeo-Christian moral code would want to also decriminalize murder, rape, theft, perjury, etc, even though those acts are also violations of the same moral/criminal law codes as the first ones I mentioned. So how should government decide which moral laws should be imposed by criminalization and which should not be? By the will of the people as expressed through their representatives, or by unelected, unaccountable judges and Justices? I would criminalize violations of the traditional Judeo-Christian moral code that has been the standard for most of western civilization for 2 thousand years, and ask my representatives in government to vote in favor of my viewpoint. But I'm reasonably sure that we are 180 degrees apart on the correct answer to that question.

I agree that criminalizing the deliberate killing of human life in the womb is an imposition of a moral code, but then criminalizing the deliberate killing of innocent human life at a later stage is no less an imposition of a moral code.

That issue is in the courts where I believe it will be resolved, at least to the extent of returning it to the states where it belongs. If abortion at any stage is the deliberate killing of a human, then the Church condoned it for over 1200 years. Where was the morality? I don't believe the Church ever condoned the deliberate killing of innocent humans, unless they were convicted of heresy.

Most criminal laws originated in someone's or some culture's moral code.

Criminal laws should be for the protection of others. Criminal laws that existed in this Country for decades involved moral issues such as out of wedlock sex, making birth control illegal, criminalizing interracial marriage, and a host of "moral" laws. Laws that protect others have as their purpose the protection of other people, not simply the imposition of a moral value.

Moses' laws were not too dissimilar to Hammurabi's, and both sets of laws reflected the moral codes of their respective cultures and to a large degree our criminal laws reflect those same moral codes today.

To the extent that it is "moral" to protect other people and other people's property, fine. This involves the rights of all, not some arbitrary moral position.

I doubt that you or anyone else who approve the relatively recent decriminalization of acts such as abortion, adultery, sodomy, etc, that you consider to be immoral but victimless violations of the Judeo-Christian moral code would want to also decriminalize murder, rape, theft, perjury, etc, even though those acts are also violations of the same moral/criminal law codes as the first ones I mentioned.

Let's leave abortion out of it, because it does potentially involve the rights of the fetus as a person under the Constitution. Adultery, sodomy, and the other assorted victimless crimes are just that...victimless crimes. Murder, rape, assault, theft, etc. involve victims. Perjury is a crime against the justice system and cannot be permitted or we trash the justice system. Those laws make sense, because they do not look to any particular religious history. They exist because we live in a republic that cherishes the rights of all and will not tolerate the harm to others or to their property.

So how should government decide which moral laws should be imposed by criminalization and which should not be?

Very easy for me. No law should exist that does not involve crimes against people or property, or for the safe and secure functioning of society. Traffic laws, zoning laws, and contract laws come to mind.

By the will of the people as expressed through their representatives, or by unelected, unaccountable judges and Justices?

First, by the will of the people as expressed through their representatives. But if those laws violate the human rights of anyone or any group, then it is up to the judicial branch to find those laws unconstitutional.

I would criminalize violations of the traditional Judeo-Christian moral code that has been the standard for most of western civilization for 2 thousand years, and ask my representatives in government to vote in favor of my viewpoint.

Which is exactly why the social right is becoming marginalized. They do not care a whit for the rights of all, but only of their own. They would be the first to deny the existence of the 14th Amendment which guarantees the right to due process and equal protection of the law to all, not just Christians. And those rights always trump all of your moral laws...always.

Judging by what I've seen around FR, as well as a hysterical reply to a post I just got in my inbox, I think some people are willing to jump on the Rudy bandwagon just because they hear he's the most 'electable' and they want to win at all costs, and believe Rudy is the only way-- of course, it's absurd to think that this election is carved in stone 18 months out, or that any one candidate is the magic bullet and you have to support them RIGHT NOW.

You're correct. I'd like to add that people are forgetting about the MSM. They're building Giuliani up and reinforcing his golden pedestal so they can shred him after the primaries. They're hoping conservatives will ignore Rudy's liberal tendencies until *after* he's given the GOP torch.

I will not vote for Rudy, but I'm not going to trash him. The MSM will, all in good time. I'd bank my 401(k) on it.

Indeed, did not say they did not. But Ruddy was THERE when it happened.

I am NOT a Ruddy or Mitt or Etc. supporter. I AM against John McCain for violating the Rules of Regan. It is too early. Maybe if Newt or Haley Barbour declared I could get excited. Until then we are beset with a host of Me Too candidates.

I support Newt and I'm neither liberal or a troll, at least I don't consider myself a troll.
Just looking through some of your older comments and got a kick out of this one.
You sure seem to have a lot to say but you don't link to much of anything do you.
It's just all commentary all of the time so far.