this Country and her values are based on a Judeo-Christian beginning and that is LIFE, LIBERTY & the pursuit of HAPPINESS and those are GOD GIVEN!….as someone else said you are in the WRONG PLACE!

GREAT diary btw!

Come on, man. Jefferson believed in God – maybe not the God revealed in the Bible (although he did at least to some extent), but he did believe in a creator God and believed that God played some part in the world. Don’t twist Jefferson to fit your secular viewpoint.

Ayn Rand and her theories played no part in the founding of this country. No one will claim that you can’t be on the right side politically and be an atheist/agnostic. You can and we have some good ones here. However, the country wasn’t founded on that viewpoint and I will take the founders views over yours any day.

vinick, you say:

“Also, do you not see a contradiction in advocating against government invasivness, while at the same time saying that government should step in a restrict a woman’s rights over her own body? Or that they should step in a restrict what does and does not constitute a marriage? You rail against those people who claim to be conservative and yet vote for things like TARP, but how about those who claim to stand for limited government and yet can’t help but advocate its expansion into its citizens’ daily lives? The government has no business telling me or my family how to live our lives.”

First, abortion is beyond just a woman’s right to her body. It’s also about the unborn’s right to life. Your rights end when they infringe on someone else’s rights. An abortion infringes on the baby’s rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

As far as marriage goes: those who support gay marriage are trying to change the meaning of marriage. Changing the meaning of a word simply to keep certain people from having their feelings hurt isn’t conservatism.

I believe government does have a role in protecting those who can’t protect themselves, and the government shouldn’t change the meaning of a word simply because someones feelings are hurt. I think most conservatives would agree on those points.

And great post nedryun

…that in an abortion, another person’s body is viciously and deliberately killed and removed.

I’ve attended Planned Parenthood conferences where I’ve been chilled listening to doctors lecture on the best ways to kill those little lives and (in late term abortions) remove their body parts.

I will never vote for anyone who is careless about small, innocent, utterly defenseless lives. Never.

And neither should you.

the founders were not believers. When he mentioned the Creator, he was not talking about a monkey lol. Anyway, you should learn about the context of the time in which he wrote. You have to understand political thought, European history, the Enlightenment etc. And if you throw in Jefferson, someone else can throw in Adams.

This country was founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs and values. You can argue against reality, but you might as well say English was not the language at the time, reality is reality.

This does not mean everyone has to be Christian or that everyone must believe in God. But our nation has prospered because of the values of those that came before. If we steer too far away from those values, we might just wreck the whole thing.

Absolutely right vinick. And if somebody decides that you or some member of your family causes them inconvenience and kills you, well, just remember that the government has no business telling them how to live their lives.

“Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern, which have come under my observation, none appear to me so pure as that of Jesus.”

Jefferson had issues with the church and the teachings and superstitions of the church. Which church? you may ask… All of them. He once said:

“If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all.”

he like many others during the Age of Enlightenment refused to follow the superstitons imposed by organized religion, Deist’s. Deism is defined as: a religious and philosophical belief that a supreme being created the universe, and that this (and religious truth in general) can be determined using reason and observation of the natural world alone, without the need for either faith or organized religion.

When I spoke of Jefferson’s lack of belief in a Christian God, I was referring to his Deism. He believed in God yes, but not the personal God that can intervene in the lives of humans and who listens to prayers and performs miracles. I don’t imagine many Christians today would be comfortable with that conception of God. Jefferson disliked organized religion, and I think if he were alive today he would merely be reinforced in that belief. Like him however, I don’t think we can survive as a nation or a species without some form of morality to guide us. I just don’t think the Judeo-Christian model is the only one out there, or should be the only one promoted in our society. While it may be true that many of the founders subscribed to this, the fact remains that they lived in a different time than we do, and systems of morality grow and adapt with time. Just look at some of the ridiculous things that were considered “immoral” in the old testament.

As far as abortion goes, don’t think that I am in favor of killing babies or anything like that. Nobody is really pro-abortion; I think if you asked any pro-choice person if they’d like to see the number of abortions reduced they would say of course. I merely see criminalizing abortion as extremely problematic. I think late-term and partial birth abortions are correctly prohibited, but I just can bring myself to support all of the pro-life positions on abortion. I have to believe that the decision to have an abortion is one of the most agonizing that a woman could ever have to make, and no man can ever truly understand what it must feel like. Therefore as a man, I could never feel justified in imposing my views or beliefs on a woman and expect her to be legally bound to follow them.

With gay marriage, I can understand traditionalists who want to preserve the sanctity of marriage; I just don’t really care that much and don’t really see a reason why we should allow them to use the name marriage. They fear that merely allowing “civil unions” confers on them a sort of second-class designation and I think its legitimate. I would never say churches should be required to bless gay marriage; but as far as the legal definition of marriage goes why shouldn’t it be allowed? The arguments for the sanctity of marriage are entirely rooted in religion, and despite your claims that our society is Judeo-Christian or what have you, we cannot forget that there is (supposed to be) a “a wall of separation” between church and state in this country. So using religious arguments to support a legal restriction on gay marriage are not valid.

It is evident that your mental capacity is nothing to shake a rosary at. Who are you, a student at a premier Catholic university, and a graduate from a premier Catholic high school? Who do you think you are, citing common sense and logic? GET OUT OF HERE – WE WILL LIMIT YOUR FREE SPEECH AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE!!!!!!!!!!!!

for my comment.

TARP should never be conflated and conjoined with the other financial atrocities of the last two years. It was a different kind of animal, and there are plenty of real economists and finance experts who will tell you that TARP was necessary and did what it was supposed to do. They may be wrong, but they aren’t radical leftists. And there are very few ordinary people who really know that answer, either.

The worst thing about TARP was that the administrations didn’t use it the way they said it would be used. That isn’t the fault of any individual Senator or Congressman.

The other mistakes, yes, culpability is attached. I even go down to anybody who voted for little Timmy Geithner.

I actually agree with you on TARP, not to say that Sen. Coburn lost my trust when he voted for it, but I think his vote was incorrect. I was also extremely disappointed with him for voting for a bloated transportation bill a few years back (I think it was 2005, but I could be wrong).

That said, there is nothing at all wrong with him being friends with the President and defending Nancy Pelosi against personal attacks. Barack Obama is a person, as is Nancy Pelosi. Whatever party they belong to, office they hold, or politics they support, they are people first. It is toxic not only to our politics but also to us as human beings to say that we can only be friends with those with whom we agree. As nedryun says, we were all created by God, and there is good in all of us. We do all concerned a disservice when we ignore that.

TARP was unconstitutional.

and there are quite a few of them, even among the GOP. For example, some of the Reagan Democrats would be in this category. As would a large number of union members. A lot of older Catholics and evangelicals who were “New Deal Democrats” also would fit in this category.

Heck until recently, I’m willing to bet that a majority of people in PA-12 would be in this category.

The Progressives/Libertarians always seem to go after our defense budgets first. In the current world, of out of control radical islamists, even the homegrown, now known to be in the US, should be a wake-up call to both groups. Yes, our country is in dire straits economically, but, both groups believe that the money savings from Defense will solve our economic crisis, at the expense of the US security. What part of “they want to kill us” do they not understand? Oh, I forgot, if we talk nice to the radicals, they will leave us alone. Part of the Obama strategy, as well as the Ron Paul strategy. Obama apologies across the world for our exceptional position militarily, and, so does Ron Paul. When have you heard either speak positively about the United States of America? God in heaven, please don’t let Rand Paul go to the Congress and bring the same 20 year old history of his dad, especially as to foreign policy.

Sadly, I know you aren’t. Why should the government be the one to decide what is a “traditional institution”? Shouldn’t that be for individuals and local communities?

The hypocrisy of “social conservatives” (the greatest of oxymorons in its applied manner), is that they hate having the federal government dictate things in their life…..unless its things they agree with. Then they are fine with the federal government dictating ‘social policy’.

The main difference I see in what are today called “liberals” and “conservatives” is in what aspects of our lives they want to control. Liberals think your fiscal life must be firmly controlled because you are too stupid to support yourself. Conservatives think your moral life must be monitored because you are too evil to do it yourself.

You are a libertarian, quite possibly a libertine, but not a conservative. Your stated philosophy leaves nothing to conserve, because nothing is sacred. You have no tradition to lean on, and nothing to guide you forward because only your opinion counts. Check Burke and Kirk for some real conservative ideals.

You have a right to your opinion, and most of them are well enough expressed, but your taking shots at beliefs of other members who have every right to hold their own opinion. I strongly suggest you amend the third line of your last comment. By suggest, I mean the clip is pulled off the holster.

when did being a conservative stop being about standing for free markets and free people and start being about free markets and free people except when it contradicts the will of God as expressed in His most holy scripture?

Let us accept you point that being moral has nothing to do with religion.

On what then do you base your standard of right and wrong?

I am a Christians and Scripture provides my standard of what is right and wrong. It is the inspired Word of God and as such provides an objective standard.

Those who reject religion and Christianity as a standard often rely on their own understanding to provide the standard for what is right and wrong. Individual understanding is hardly an objective standard and results in anarchy rather than social cohesion.

You should not even be using the terms of right and wrong because you have no standard on which to make a distinction.

Why can’t goverment regulate gambling, sex, and drugs. How do you arrive a the view at laws instituted among, to secure rights that protect me from you have nothing so say about gambling, sex, and drugs.

How do we prohibit rape? Your statement is overly broad, Perhaps you mean the federal government,

If you’ve read any history of Europe, you would realize that the only thing that stopped Islamic armies from overrunning Europe was military force, a struggle that continued for nearly a millenium, culminating in the Battle of Lepanto.*

The Crusades proved nothing about defeating Islam by force. But Islam has been very effective at exterminating its competitors by force and executions.

Not to mention that providing for the common defense is one of the enumerated powers of the Constitution. I certainly share your concern about a tyrannical government, and militarism has been one historical path to tyranny.

The irony is that libertarianism cannot survive in an America surrounded by a world hostile to the Western and Christian cultural values that undergird our nation. And if we withdraw to fortress America and abandon the rest of the world to barabarism, we cannot hope to survive as a singular island – especially with the subversion that is infesting us internally.

Trade and commerce alone cannot convert the world to free markets without an underlying system of law and honoring contract, which begs the question that other powers will respect those agreements in the absence of a superior power that can enforce said agreements.

That is, ultimately the rule of law rests on the force of arms, and our ability to resolve this conundrum will determine whether our system of limited government, private property-rule of law, and individual rights can survive.

*Arguably, this struggle has resume today, after a couple hundred year of relative truce, with the rise of militant Islam.

don’t even know where to start here.

It is rare to find someone so uninformed on so many things.

but not always. David Vitter and John Ensign did not go, while Eliot Spitzer did.

My view is that if you can’t be faithful to your spouse, I can’t trust you to be honest in public office. That holds for all people of all parties, it *is* a big deal. These people should be role models for the rest of us, not the laughingstocks.

If I lived in Louisiana, I would not vote for Vitter, even though he has been a stalwart conservative.

Why not concede the point to progressives? Transfats similarly effect all members of the household who have to support an obese person’s lifestyle. Children die every day from accidental gun discharges. Is there any issue that, under this rubric, cannot be said to cause some stress? In the case of drugs, the same can be said of alcohol. Does it follow that Prohibition is the answer? IMO, and in the opinion of libertarians, no, it does not.

As a Christian, I find no mandate for central government to create laws with the intent of fostering widespread external morality in the Bible, even in the Old Testament. As far as i can tell, the only ones seriously arguing that there is one are Liberation Doctrine advocates and other progressive nominal Christians preying on their congregation’s ignorance in third-world countries.

Your statement relies on ignoring science, which is what NARAL et al are guilty of. At least in public. In private, actually, I’m certain they’re well aware of the science.

A human fetus is alive by any scientific measure, and is human by the same. Thus, abortion is the termination of a human life.

The abortion issue isn’t about a woman’s womb, but about a separate living being.

Nobody’s telling a woman she can’t have unprotected sex — just that if that sex results in the creation of new human life, she does not have the right to murder it.

It’s much in the same way I don’t believe the government should have the right to tell a business owner how to do business. But if he kills a person, even in that private property (into which the government, again, hasn’t the right to intrude), it IS the responsibility of government to investigate and, if necessary (as in, if it is found that it wasn’t a legitimate issue of safety or trespass), penalize the owner for doing so.

Maybe women who favor abortion rights should first start worrying about what gets into their vaginas.

The correct question should be how can you favor limited government and support abortion. In the 1970s an activist Supreme Court abetted by a liberal Congress suddenly found a new right within the U.S. Constitution. How can anyone claim to be a conservative in favor of limited government and support such unconstitutional activism?

Four decades later and abortion is now a million dollar industry with high paid lobbyists not only protecting the right but campaigning for tax dollars to fund more abortions and further their own economic greed.

The Government doesn’t force a pregnant woman to have a baby or have an abortion. It’s the womans decision to hire a doctor to murder her baby. One could question the intelligence of the State continuing to licence a degreed professional who is a psychopath, but ultimately it is the woman who is interfering with her own womb. If left alone, a baby will arrive whether the mother chooses to have a baby or not.

and have yet to respond to anyone’s responses to said comments.

Care to actually participate in debate, or did you want to just keep dropping off cliched arguments and running away?