Explain Conservatism

[aCultureWarrior]

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
You and I both know that fundamentally (forming a necessary base or core; of central importance) that Holy Scripture is the core of conservatism.

I don't think that would have even been one of my first ten guesses.

Then what values are true conservatives 'conserving'?

Surely you must know that if conservativism is progressive, then it no longer 'conserves' certain doctrine and ideology.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Free speech in the Constitution was designed exactly for repulsive speech of which you wish to deny to people you call nazi ACW.

Make your case. Show how the Founding Fathers wanted immoral speech protected. Show how they would embrace speech/expression like pornography and LGBT rights today.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
Since you talked about a Nazi having some sort of supposed right to free speech, I figured someone as well read as you would know the history behind the ACLU defending supposed free speech by Nazi's.

ACLU History: Taking a Stand for Free Speech in Skokie
https://www.aclu.org/other/aclu-history-taking-stand-free-speech-skokie

From my reading on what happened at Skokie the Nazi's won in court because the shooting they did was return fire. Those who came to oppose them were armed, and the Nazi's knew they would come armed so they came armed, and they defended themselves. I think about any competent attorney would have won the case, so, even though I like neither white surpremecists nor the ACLU, they were both in the right in that particular court case. Shrugs, even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Even sleazebags have the right to defend their lives if they think they are in danger of being killed. It's one of those God-given rights, not a "right" that is handed out by government.

I see that you're moving the proverbial goalpost from the KKK/Nazi Party having some sort of right to 'free speech' to the right of protecting their lives.

Again: Show in the writings of the Founding Fathers where immoral behavior is protected under any free speech clause.

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
Assumed by who, your fellow Libertarians?

Now you're making giant leaps without a whole lot of foundation. I'm not a Libertarian, Democrat, or Republican. I'm a registered Independent. All of the political parties support things I don't agree with, therefore in good conscience I could not be a good party member of any of them. I suppose, if you must have a label, I'd call myself, politically, a Constitutionalist. Socially I'm a pretty conservative Christian.

You don't have to be a card carrying member of the Libertarian Party in order to agree with their doctrine/ideology. You'd used the word 'libertarian' numerous times in your posts, in fact you put it beside conservatism as many Libertarians do. Conservativism and Libertarianism are further apart in ideology than conservatism and liberalism are.

I'm not sure you're aware of the fact that until around the 1890s US law interpretation and practice was, for all intents and purposes, founded on Blackstone. I also don't suppose you know that Blackstone himself was a practicing Christian and derived all of his concepts of law out of the scriptures...

You do realize that you just defeated your own argument? Nowhere did Blackstone nor the Founding Fathers that embraced his writings acknowledge that immoral behavior is protected under 'free speech'.


Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
While the Founding Fathers didn't want to suppress speech by it's citizens when it came to criticizing government, please point out in the writings of any of the Founding Fathers where immoral behavior should be considered "free speech", i.e. where perverts like the late Hugh Hefner's trash or where sexual predator Donald Trump's rainbow flag waving should be allowed in society.

I think you're making another large stretch here. As far as I know porn was not the problem back then that it is now, because of the close ties that US society had back then to Christianity. So, if something did not really exist then in the same form it does now why would any of the founding fathers have written about it? I don't know of anyone who spends much time dwelling on things that aren't a problem, and the founding fathers had a lot of issues to deal with, so dealing with something like this wouldn't even have crossed their minds.

Homosexuality wasn't a big problem back then when (as you pointed out) our nation was Christian oriented. That's not to say that the Founding Fathers didn't address it.

From Blackstone:

'What has been here observed . . . [the fact that the punishment fit the crime] ought to be the more clear in proportion as the crime is the more detestable, may be applied to another offence of a still deeper malignity; the infamous crime against nature committed either with man or beast. A crime which ought to be strictly and impartially proved and then as strictly and impartially punished. . . . I will not act so disagreeable part to my readers as well as myself as to dwell any longer upon a subject the very mention of which is a disgrace to human nature [sodomy]. It will be more eligible to imitate in this respect the delicacy of our English law which treats it in its very indictments as a crime not fit to be named; "peccatum illud horribile, inter christianos non nominandum" (that horrible crime not to be named among Christians). A taciturnity observed likewise by the edict of Constantius and Constans: "ubi scelus est id, quod non proficit scire, jubemus insurgere leges, armari jura gladio ultore, ut exquisitis poenis subdantur infames, qui sunt, vel qui futuri sunt, rei" (where that crime is found, which is unfit even to know, we command the law to arise armed with an avenging sword that the infamous men who are, or shall in future be guilty of it, may undergo the most severe punishments).'" (Sir William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1769, Vol. IV, pp. 215-216).
http://lasalettejourney.blogspot.com/2009/07/founding-fathers-and-homosexuality.html

So much for immoral behavior being protected by 'free speech'.

The last stretch I see you making is that what I have said about the rights of political speech applies to things that destroys people. Remember, this is a thread about politics so everything I've said has been within that context. I'm no fan of pornography because of what it does to people.

Again: Either immoral behavior is protected under the free speech clause of the Constitution or it isn't. If you believe that it is, show evidence.

And to say that Trump is waving a rainbow flag is pretty ridiculous. That was Obama.

It's been well documented in my "Why Homosexuality MUST Be Recriminalized! Part 4" thread how Donald Trump is a LGBTQ activist.

You'll more than welcome to defend him, but come prepared.

http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?112309-Why-Homosexuality-MUST-Be-Recriminalized!-Part-4

 

[ClimateSanity]

Make your case. Show how the Founding Fathers wanted immoral speech protected. Show how they would embrace speech/expression like pornography and LGBT rights today.

It's right there in the bill of rights. Can you read?

 

[Gary K]

Culture Warrior,

I see that you're moving the proverbial goalpost from the KKK/Nazi Party having some sort of right to 'free speech' to the right of protecting their lives.

The only reason what happened in Skokie is still talked about is because it turned into a gunfight. If that had not taken place that demonstration would have long since been forgotten. It would have long ago been consigned to the dustbin of history. So, don't get hypocritical about your posting of that link.

I'm not defending anything. Everything I said was factual. And, if you will pause to remember, I called them both sleazebags and then said that even broken clocks are correct twice a day. So, if you think the broken clock analogy is a positive analogy in favor of the Nazis and the ACLU, it's you that has a reasoning problem. You act as if people have a right to go murder those they disagree with for that was what was planned against the Nazis that day. In that you're no different than antifa and the Nazis themselves for you're upset that the Nazis defended themselves and were found innocent for doing so. Don't pretend you aren't. You would never have posted that link if you weren't.

Again: Show in the writings of the Founding Fathers where immoral behavior is protected under any free speech clause.

Do you even see the contradiction in what you are saying? You're making a false equivalency between speech and action. They are two separate issues. I can talk about illegal or immoral behavior, but unless I actually engage in it I have not broken the law of the land, or even the laws passed by our founding fathers.

You don't have to be a card carrying member of the Libertarian Party in order to agree with their doctrine/ideology. You'd used the word 'libertarian' numerous times in your posts, in fact you put it beside conservatism as many Libertarians do. Conservativism and Libertarianism are further apart in ideology than conservatism and liberalism are.

You seem to have some pretty distorted views of both libertarians and progressives/liberals/socialists. Libertarians are by far more compatible with conservatives on economic issues than the left is. They believe in a balanced budget, in sound economic principles. A couple of the leading proponents of modern libertarianism are Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek, both of whom were very consistently in agreement with the founding fathers in their economic theories and ideas. They wanted the government to be as far out of the business of business as possible. That is a very conservative position. Progressives/liberals/socialists are at the opposite end of the spectrum. They think the government is to be constantly tweaking the economy and massively regulating business.

Conservatives pretty much align with libertarians on issues relating to the constitution. Both camps want the constitution enforced. The progressives/liberals/socialists want the constitution done away with.

Yes, the libertarians are aligned pretty much with the progressives/liberals/socialists on quite a few social issues. But the alignment is based upon different reasoning. The libertarians don't see the constitution saying government should enforce social issues. The progressives/liberals/progressives have a different agenda altogether. They want to separate the US from its roots through the separating of the US from all morality so they can remove the constraints of the constitution upon the power of government. The libertarians, in my view, do not understand that. They don't see underlying motivations of the left, and thus do not see the deliberate attack upon liberty. If they did, they would quickly abandon their views on social issues for they would understand that what they see as the bastion of liberty is under severe attack.

I'm a conservative Christian. I don't agree with either the libertarians or the progressives/liberals/socialists on the social issues. You seem to think that because I say people ought to be able to speak their mind that I agree with anything they say. Sorry, but that's just plain old stupid.

Your position is far different than that taken by Jesus. No where did He advocate using government power to enforce what He taught. He taught change of the heart, and change of the heart can only come through the willing change in someone's thinking. You cannot change someone's heart by throwing them in jail over what they think. All you do by doing that is create hatred and a settling further into the position you dislike. What you are basically advocating is doing exactly what those who killed Jesus did. They used the power of the government to punish those they disagreed with on spiritual issues. In my book, that puts you on exactly the wrong side of the fence.

You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink. That old saying contains a very important principle that you blatantly ignore.

You do realize that you just defeated your own argument? Nowhere did Blackstone nor the Founding Fathers that embraced his writings acknowledge that immoral behavior is protected under 'free speech'.

When are you going to get it through your head that speech and actions are two different things? There are already many laws addressing moral behavior on the books. Sodomy is already illegal. There are laws on the books against adultery. There are laws on the books against pedophilia. Almost all immoral activity is already against the law. The problem is the supreme court and justice system, and public opinion. They, the supreme court, began rejecting Christianity a long time ago: more than 100 years ago, and as such began rewriting the law of the land. The changes they have accomplished are massive. And they are unelected officials with life time term limits, and cannot be held accountable for their actions. And because of the actions of the supreme court most immoral behavior cannot now be prosecuted or made illegal through legislation. Get that through your head. Go read Gerald Whitehead's book "The Second American Revolution". The only way to change things is to get justices back on the court who don't believe that they themselves are the constitution, but will abide by the constitution in their rulings. The other thing that has to change is public opinion and you cannot change people's opinions by force of law or through punishment. Do you even begin to understand that?

From Blackstone:

'What has been here observed . . . [the fact that the punishment fit the crime] ought to be the more clear in proportion as the crime is the more detestable, may be applied to another offence of a still deeper malignity; the infamous crime against nature committed either with man or beast. A crime which ought to be strictly and impartially proved and then as strictly and impartially punished. . . . I will not act so disagreeable part to my readers as well as myself as to dwell any longer upon a subject the very mention of which is a disgrace to human nature [sodomy]. It will be more eligible to imitate in this respect the delicacy of our English law which treats it in its very indictments as a crime not fit to be named; "peccatum illud horribile, inter christianos non nominandum" (that horrible crime not to be named among Christians). A taciturnity observed likewise by the edict of Constantius and Constans: "ubi scelus est id, quod non proficit scire, jubemus insurgere leges, armari jura gladio ultore, ut exquisitis poenis subdantur infames, qui sunt, vel qui futuri sunt, rei" (where that crime is found, which is unfit even to know, we command the law to arise armed with an avenging sword that the infamous men who are, or shall in future be guilty of it, may undergo the most severe punishments).'" (Sir William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1769, Vol. IV, pp. 215-216).

And now you've gone from decrying Blackstone to loving him. LOL. Quite switch isn't it?

So much for immoral behavior being protected by 'free speech'.

I'm beginning to think you are brain damaged. You keep on insisting on equating speech and action. They are two separate issues.

Where in the Blackstone quote you gave above did he say it was illegal to talk about it? He didn't. He said the behavior, not the talking about it, should be illegal. Sodomy is already illegal in the US, but because of the way the supreme court has rewritten law those laws cannot be enforced, and because the US culture has been changed so much there is now a great deal of public support for not enforcing.

Again: Either immoral behavior is protected under the free speech clause of the Constitution or it isn't. If you believe that it is, show evidence.

Again, you do not seem to understand the difference between speech and action. No human law against murder criminalizes thinking or talking about it. You're just as much a totalitarian as the socialists/communists/fascists.

It's been well documented in my "Why Homosexuality MUST Be Recriminalized! Part 4" thread how Donald Trump is a LGBTQ activist.[/quote/

That's odd. Everything I have ever read on the subject reveals that the lgbt activists are at war with Trump by what they themselves say. And yet you say just the opposite what they themselves say, and protest against. They hate Trump, just like you do, but only because he has opposed their agenda. You're aligned with them in wanting Trump removed from office. Pretty strange group for a Christian to be aligned with.

You'll more than welcome to defend him, but come prepared.

So far as I can see, you're the one who hasn't come prepared.

One last thing I'll comment on in this post. History has shown very clearly that whenever the church uses the power of the state to enforce it's will that things end very badly. It not only leads to intense persecution of whomever disagrees with church doctrine, it ends badly for the church itself, for those who don't even agree with the church enter it for personal gain. That kills the spiritual power of the church and ends up completely corrupting it. That is the lesson history plainly teaches, and it doesn't appear that you understand that lesson in the least.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Make your case. Show how the Founding Fathers wanted immoral speech protected. Show how they would embrace speech/expression like pornography and LGBT rights today.

It's right there in the bill of rights. Can you read?

Explain what these words mean, specifically the part that is underlined.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
I see that you're moving the proverbial goalpost from the KKK/Nazi Party having some sort of right to 'free speech' to the right of protecting their lives.

The only reason what happened in Skokie is still talked about is because it turned into a gunfight. If that had not taken place that demonstration would have long since been forgotten. It would have long ago been consigned to the dustbin of history. So, don't get hypocritical about your posting of that link.

Now that I've moved the proverbial goalposts back where they belong, please explain where the supposed "right" to immoral speech comes from. As shown, it didn't come from my country's Founding Fathers whose founding documents are based on Holy Scripture.

http://www.faithfacts.org/christ-and-the-culture/the-bible-and-government

I'm not defending anything. Everything I said was factual. And, if you will pause to remember, I called them both sleazebags and then said that even broken clocks are correct twice a day. So, if you think the broken clock analogy is a positive analogy in favor of the Nazis and the ACLU, it's you that has a reasoning problem. You act as if people have a right to go murder those they disagree with for that was what was planned against the Nazis that day. In that you're no different than antifa and the Nazis themselves for you're upset that the Nazis defended themselves and were found innocent for doing so. Don't pretend you aren't. You would never have posted that link if you weren't.

I just want to know where those supposed rights come from. You mentioned in an earlier post that the local Nazi has some kind of "right" to his hate speech, please show me the basis of that supposed "right".

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
Again: Show in the writings of the Founding Fathers where immoral behavior is protected under any free speech clause.

Do you even see the contradiction in what you are saying? You're making a false equivalency between speech and action. They are two separate issues. I can talk about illegal or immoral behavior, but unless I actually engage in it I have not broken the law of the land, or even the laws passed by our founding fathers.

Immoral speech leads to immoral actions. Why do you think there are criminal conspiracy laws, laws that protect minors (CDOM: Contributing to the Delinquency of a Minor), laws that protect public decency, solicitation laws, etc.

Show me just one (just one) quote from a Founding Father where he supported immoral speech. Here, let me help (this is a Libertarian favorite) :

"If it neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket..."
-Thomas Jefferson

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
You don't have to be a card carrying member of the Libertarian Party in order to agree with their doctrine/ideology. You'd used the word 'libertarian' numerous times in your posts, in fact you put it beside conservatism as many Libertarians do. Conservativism and Libertarianism are further apart in ideology than conservatism and liberalism are.

You seem to have some pretty distorted views of both libertarians and progressives/liberals/socialists. Libertarians are by far more compatible with conservatives on economic issues than the left is.

Libertarians are perverts and barbarians on social issues and borrow off of Judeo-Christian doctrine on some economic issues.

They believe in a balanced budget, in sound economic principles. A couple of the leading proponents of modern libertarianism are Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek, both of whom were very consistently in agreement with the founding fathers in their economic theories and ideas. They wanted the government to be as far out of the business of business as possible. That is a very conservative position. Progressives/liberals/socialists are at the opposite end of the spectrum. They think the government is to be constantly tweaking the economy and massively regulating business.

For a supposed "Conservative Christian", you sure do speak highly of the perverts and barbarians of the Libertarian movement.

Your position is far different than that taken by Jesus. No where did He advocate using government power to enforce what He taught. He taught change of the heart, and change of the heart can only come through the willing change in someone's thinking. You cannot change someone's heart by throwing them in jail over what they think. All you do by doing that is create hatred and a settling further into the position you dislike. What you are basically advocating is doing exactly what those who killed Jesus did. They used the power of the government to punish those they disagreed with on spiritual issues. In my book, that puts you on exactly the wrong side of the fence.

So Jesus Christ/the Son of God/God in the flesh was some kind of anarchist who didn't believe in the rule of law? While the New Testament's main theme is repentance, it also talks about the purpose of government as seen in the writings of the Apostle Paul and Apostle Peter.

Romans 13:4
1 Peter 2:13-17

You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink. That old saying contains a very important principle that you blatantly ignore.

That's why we have laws: to help keep people from drinking the poison water and to punish those who poison it.


Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
Regarding Blackstone on the subject of homosexuality

So much for immoral behavior being protected by 'free speech'.

I'm beginning to think you are brain damaged.

Play nice Aaron. I'm impressed with your newest sock puppet and am having one helluva good time exposing you for the Libertarian that you always deny that you are.

You keep on insisting on equating speech and action. They are two separate issues.

Where in the Blackstone quote you gave above did he say it was illegal to talk about it? He didn't. He said the behavior, not the talking about it, should be illegal. Sodomy is already illegal in the US, but because of the way the supreme court has rewritten law those laws cannot be enforced, and because the US culture has been changed so much there is now a great deal of public support for not enforcing.

If you would kindly come over to my "Why Homosexuality MUST Be Recriminalized! Part 4" thread I will show you, as I've shown others, that it was speech that lead to the legalization of homosexuality, abortion and all kinds of other perverse and immoral legislation.

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
It's been well documented in my "Why Homosexuality MUST Be Recriminalized! Part 4" thread how Donald Trump is a LGBTQ activist.

That's odd. Everything I have ever read on the subject reveals that the lgbt activists are at war with Trump by what they themselves say. And yet you say just the opposite what they themselves say, and protest against. They hate Trump, just like you do, but only because he has opposed their agenda. You're aligned with them in wanting Trump removed from office. Pretty strange group for a Christian to be aligned with.

Again, play nice Aaron. You've libeled me by calling me a Clinton supporter under many of your other sock puppet accounts. If you continue, I'm afraid that you can no longer be my bestest friend in the whoooole wide world.

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
You'll more than welcome to defend him (Donald the Degenerate Trump, but come prepared.

So far as I can see, you're the one who hasn't come prepared.

Yet you haven't shown your face in the thread under your newest sock puppet account. Why is that?

One last thing I'll comment on in this post. History has shown very clearly that whenever the church uses the power of the state to enforce it's will that things end very badly. It not only leads to intense persecution of whomever disagrees with church doctrine, it ends badly for the church itself, for those who don't even agree with the church enter it for personal gain. That kills the spiritual power of the church and ends up completely corrupting it. That is the lesson history plainly teaches, and it doesn't appear that you understand that lesson in the least.

If the Church were government, you'd have a point, but it isn't. Using biblical based morality, as my Christian Founding Fathers did in their founding documents, is a far cry from the United States ever being a 'theocracy'.

 

[rexlunae]

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
You and I both know that fundamentally (forming a necessary base or core; of central importance) that Holy Scripture is the core of conservatism.



Then what values are true conservatives 'conserving'?

Surely you must know that if conservativism is progressive, then it no longer 'conserves' certain doctrine and ideology.

American traditional values such as different constitutional interpretations and economic notions, non-scriptural religious values, white supremacy, male dominance, straight privilege, any number of things could be conserved, and they have their own groups pushing them.

 

[Interplanner]

How is that on the day of another scandalous Allah Akbar attack as prophesied by their imams for a couple years now, Obamster shows up in Chicago and national radio announcing that he and great world leaders like Michelle are going to gather there to express great ideas for the city, as his "presidential center" is being opened or groundbreaking. Terrorists are never in business suits with bland verbosity, are they?

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
Then what values are true conservatives 'conserving'?

Surely you must know that if conservativism is progressive, then it no longer 'conserves' certain doctrine and ideology.

American traditional values such as different constitutional interpretations
and economic notions, non-scriptural religious values, white supremacy, male dominance, straight privilege, any number of things could be conserved, and they have their own groups pushing them.

Kindly point out these groups that are calling themselves "conservatives" and specifically where their supposed conservative ideology comes from. I'll guarantee you that their doctrine doesn't come from the Bible.

 

[Gary K]

Culture Warrior,

I'm not going to answer your every disputation. It's enough for me that you know you cannot show from the Blackstone quote evidence for your assertion that Blackstone was saying no one could talk about it. That quote supports the punishment of actions, and actions only, and if you could have proven what you were asserting, then you would have shown it.

Second, I have no idea who you think I am, but I am most definitely not some guy named, Aaron. I get a chuckle at your paranoia though. He must have given you fits when you would debate him.

That you think totalitarianism is the answer to all social ills places you on the wrong side of the issues, just as the far left is on the wrong side of the issues when they want to use government to enforce PC speech and behavior, as well as enforce their immorality on everyone. I see you as no different. You want to enforce your agenda just like they want to enforce their agenda.

I know you cannot support your government sponsored religion thesis from scripture and that's why you don't even attempt to show it. I can even show you from the OT that God told the Israelites to not "vex" the stranger, that they were to love the stranger as they loved themselves.

Deuteronomy 10: 18 He doth execute the judgment of the fatherless and widow, and loveth the stranger, in giving him food and raiment.
19 Love ye therefore the stranger: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.

So, God said he feeds those who do not know or love him, and that we are to treat those people the same way we would wanted to be treated. That this is the keeping of the law of God.

Matthew 7: 12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

Matthew 22: 35 Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying,
36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38 This is the first and great commandment.
39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Exodus 22:21 Thou shalt not vex a stranger, nor oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.

The Hebrew word tranlated as vex is defined by Strong's Concordance as:

3238 yanah yaw-naw' a primitive root; to rage or be violent: by implication, to suppress, to maltreat:--destroy, (thrust out by) oppress(-ing, -ion, -or), proud, vex, do violence.

The word translated as opress is defined as:

3905 lachats law-khats' a primitive root; properly, to press, i.e. (figuratively) to distress:--afflict, crush, force, hold fast, oppress(-or), thrust self.

God doesn't change. He's the same today as He was back then. Therefore, we are not to opress or maltreat those who are foreigners to the kingdom of God. You do know, don't you, that Egypt is symbolic of the kingdom of sin? Therefore, when we leave the kingdom of sin we are not to opress those who still live in it for we should know exactly what it is like to be enslaved that way. That's the moral lesson taught by the verse.

Your very apparent belief in the concept of God driving people by coercion rather than drawing by love tells me you have a very real misunderstanding of who God is. I've known God now for 4 decades and never once has He used coercion on me to get me to do as He wishes. He has always drawn me with lovingkindness. He leads, He does not drive by force. And, that is the foundation of His kingdom. It's the devil who uses those kinds of tactics. That is a foundational principle of his kingdom. I've been in both kingdoms, and have been ruled by both leaders, and the difference between God's methods and the devil's methods is vast. God never uses the devil's methods.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Culture Warrior,

I'm not going to answer your every disputation.

I do give Libertarians credit for one thing: when it comes to debate, they know their limitations.

It's enough for me that you know you cannot show from the Blackstone quote evidence for your assertion that Blackstone was saying no one could talk about it. That quote supports the punishment of actions, and actions only, and if you could have proven what you were asserting, then you would have shown it.

Cultural mores' along with laws that I'd shown in my previous post (criminal conspiracy laws, laws that protect minors (CDOM: Contributing to the Delinquency of a Minor), laws that protect public decency, solicitation laws, etc.) kept moral degenerate speech to a low whisper or they talked about such things in back alleys, not in mainstream society.

Again: If you would kindly produce one quote (just one) from any Founding Father where there is some sort of 'right' to immoral speech, please produce it. Surely there must be at least one quote (just one) where a Founding Father said "While I don't agree with his stance on the solicitation of immoral behaviors, he has every right to say it."

I'm surprised that you haven't used Jefferson's out of context quote "If it neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket...", as that is a Libertarian favorite.

Second, I have no idea who you think I am, but I am most definitely not some guy named, Aaron. I get a chuckle at your paranoia though. He must have given you fits when you would debate him.

He's my bestest friend in the whoooole wide world. Did you know that Aaron is such a great friend that he emailed my late pastor asking if he thought homosexuality should be recriminalized? I pray for Aaron on a regular basis and hope that he gets the help that he so desperately needs.

That you think totalitarianism is the answer to all social ills places you on the wrong side of the issues,

Would you explain how having laws against immoral behavior (abortion, homosexuality/adult-child sex, incest, bestiality, recreational drug use, prostitution, etc. etc.) amounts to "totalitarianism"?

Did you know that Libertarians, just like you, are anarchists?

 

[drbrumley]

Lol. Here we go again. I get a kick out of acw.

Sent from my SM-G920V using TOL mobile app

 

[annabenedetti]

Here's American-style conservatism, explained in one ad and exploited by the Kremlin, one of the many Facebook ads presented during ongoing congressional hearings:

Today is Day 2 of top officials from Facebook, Google, and Twitter being grilled by congressional committees about how their platforms played host to a disinformation campaign perpetrated by Russian state actors.

Facebook, which has conceded that Kremlin-backed ads might have been seen by as many as 126 million people, has been taking the biggest beatings in these hearings.

Today, the House Intelligence Committee finally, and officially, released some of the Facebook ads and the handles of several thousand fake Twitter accounts—all of which were designed to foment discord in the United States.

Here is a selected gallery of the advertisements, which bash Hillary Clinton before the election and cap on Donald Trump after he won the election. The ads touch on every hot-button topic, ranging from religion to gun rights, immigration, gay rights, and racial issues:

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...acebook-ads-designed-to-foment-discord-in-us/

 

[Rusha]

Here's American-style conservatism, explained in one ad and exploited by the Kremlin, one of the many Facebook ads presented during ongoing congressional hearings:

Ludicrous. Depicting Trump as Jesus. I don't consider EITHER one of them to be Christ-like ... the difference is only one of them is evil enough to try to destroy America. Putin helped him win.

 

[annabenedetti]

Ludicrous. Depicting Trump as Jesus.

It's depicting Trump as the chosen one - Jesus' candidate of choice - which is exactly how many evangelical fundamentalists saw (and still see) Trump, despite all his obvious deficits.

And many conservatives and most politically-conservative Christians see Clinton as being from Satan. We see that right here at TOL.

The Russians have a long history of psychological warfare, and they played on both evangelical fear and that evangelical need to know that God is protecting America.

 

[Rusha]

It's depicting Trump as the chosen one - Jesus' candidate of choice - which is exactly how many evangelical fundamentalists saw (and still see) Trump. And many conservatives and most politically-conservative Christians see Clinton as being from Satan. We see that right here at TOL.

This falls in the realm of calling evil good.

The Russians have a long history of psychological warfare, and they played on both evangelical fear and that evangelical need to know that God is protecting America.

Oddly enough,. Conservatives and evangelicals use to preach and stand against the evil known as Putin. America, thanks to Trump, is teetering on the edge of destruction.

FTR, I am not claiming Clinton is pure, but rather capable and ... sane.

 

[annabenedetti]

This falls in the realm of calling evil good.

Pretty much. Have you seen any of Trump's interview with Pat ("You inspire us all") Robertson?

Oddly enough,. Conservatives and evangelicals use to preach and stand against the evil known as Putin.

This is what has amazed me all along. Reagan conservatives and earlier - 1980s and earlier - would they have admired Putin and dismissed concerns about his intents? No way. Now? "Russia is our friend!"

FTR, I am not claiming Clinton is pure, but rather capable and ... sane.

Exactly.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

This is what has amazed me all along. Reagan conservatives...

Except that Ronald Reagan wasn't a conservative. The same people who drank Reagan's kool aid are drinking Trump's.

 

[Rusha]

Except that Ronald Reagan wasn't a conservative. The same people who drank Reagan's kool aid are drinking Trump's.

Oh please ... the two cannot be compared. While Reagan was not perfect, he was sane and did display decency. There is nothing decent, moral or sane about Trump.