I’m not asking anyone to agree with me, but I’d like to say a few words about this subject. To in a small way give a conservative perspective. Thanks, C is for…for asking this question.
I agree with the Black Sheep that the issue should be that our religion should inform our political beliefs, which don’t necessarily go along with a particular political party at any given point in time.
The conservatives (which I will take as a body which holds political beliefs similar to mine) – and relates directly to the question—do NOT want the government dictating national morality, contrary to what Hobbes said. They want the government’s protection from those who DO want to impose their morals on the rest of us. Conservatives want protection from those who would assert, over our objections, that we must give equal value and respect to a relationship—gay marriage—we consider immoral. Conservatives don’t believe, whether you agree or not, that they are dictating national morality in this issue, they are trying to prevent liberals from dictating their morality. Conservatives are trying to protect themselves from liberals who would force us to keep quiet when we wish to teach our beliefs in our own churches. You can pooh-pooh the concerns conservatives have, but we are only interested in protecting ourselves from those who wish to force their morality down our throats, and would indoctrinate children in liberal beliefs.
Yes, conservatives do tend to favor the protection of what they view as Christian values, and they do believe the nation will fare better if it adheres to the laws of God. But they do not favor laws which in any way attempt to force others to accept those values or laws, except laws which can be viewed as non-religious. Conservatives believe, on the other hand, that liberals are trying to force their morals and values on us, in environmentalism, charity giving, education, the right to life, capital punishment, and the like.
I don’t know why the Board seems to have such a problem presenting real conservative points of view. I respect that you are just giving your opinions; I’d just like to see someone do justice to both sides of the questions.
#56097 Poltical differences
Moderator: Marduk
-
vorpal blade
- Posts: 1750
- Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2008 5:08 pm
- Location: New Jersey
That is quite the different perspective from conventional wisdom. That doesn't mean it is wrong, just different from what we are used to. How would you apply this to, say, abortion? Or drug control issues? Or pornography? Or strip club laws? Or any other variety of things that most Christians would consider immoral, and in need of strict regulation if they are even allowed to exist at all?
I actually agree that all of these things need to be restricted in how they are accessed. But to suggest that so doing is "proctecting those (from) ... impos(ing) their morals on the rest of us" is a bit of a stretch.
I actually agree that all of these things need to be restricted in how they are accessed. But to suggest that so doing is "proctecting those (from) ... impos(ing) their morals on the rest of us" is a bit of a stretch.
-
vorpal blade
- Posts: 1750
- Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2008 5:08 pm
- Location: New Jersey
I think what I said is different from the bitter stereotype some people have of conservatives, but it is definitely the way conservatives think of themselves and the world.
A conservative is not thinking about placing restrictions on what a woman can or cannot do with her body when she contemplates abortion. The conservative is thinking about protecting the life of the unborn child. A woman may feel she has a moral right to terminate her pregnancy, but the conservative believes she does not have the moral right to take the life of another, innocent person, even if that person is inside of the woman. So, in making laws restricting abortion the conservative sees himself as protecting the innocent in our society from the moral values of women who think it is permissible to take the life of their unborn. The conservative believes the abortionist is imposing his or her values on the unborn, and he sticks up for the moral values of the unborn and the right to life.
In some ways a conservative like me believes in a lot less drug control than do liberals. I would allow people to try drugs that have not yet been approved or tested by the U.S. government. I would allow people to buy “prescription drugs†over the counter. Libertarians would allow people to freely use any drug they wanted, but a Libertarian can be either left wing or right wing.
In my mind a conservative allows people to use whatever drug he wants, unless it can be clearly shown that the drug has no beneficial use, and taking the drug makes that person a threat to society. There are those who believe that they have a moral right to take whatever recreational drug they want, “as long as they don’t hurt anyone.†And, of course, they seldom see who they are hurting. The conservative believes this moral value imposes on the rest of us unnecessary risks and costs. So, to protect ourselves from the behavior of those who believe it is okay to blow their minds with drugs, we impose boundaries. These laws have an additional side benefit of educating people as to what they should avoid. Too many people have the opinion that if it isn’t illegal it must be okay to use it.
A conservative doesn’t outlaw pornography, but he does make it more difficult to obtain. The conservative believes that people who become addicted to pornography are not just hurting themselves. They are hurting their families. They are hurting others who interact with them and are harmed by the distorted views of sex and gender that they get from pornography. It is harmful to those in the pornography industry. For these reasons conservatives attempt to make it more difficult to obtain pornography. It is not that conservatives want to impose their standards on others, it is that they want to protect themselves, their children, and their friends from the sick and evil influence of pornography. They are trying to protect people from the values of others who think it is okay to make sex slaves, to pervert children, to bring women into bondage, and to make people addicted to your product so that they will hopelessly continue to buy it against their best interests and what they realize on a higher plane is evil. They are trying to protect children from those whose values say that it is desirable to undermine society’s sexual moral values, and do so in a sneaky, subversive manner.
A conservative doesn’t make laws regarding strip clubs because he is offended by strip clubs. He does it to contain the well-known evil influences of such establishments. Which protects us from harm from those with different values.
I hope these examples help. To a conservative, it is the liberal who is trying to impose his will on the rest of us, usually through judicial activism, but often through laws which restrict our personal behavior and dictate what the “proper†moral values should be, i.e. modern liberalism.
A conservative is not thinking about placing restrictions on what a woman can or cannot do with her body when she contemplates abortion. The conservative is thinking about protecting the life of the unborn child. A woman may feel she has a moral right to terminate her pregnancy, but the conservative believes she does not have the moral right to take the life of another, innocent person, even if that person is inside of the woman. So, in making laws restricting abortion the conservative sees himself as protecting the innocent in our society from the moral values of women who think it is permissible to take the life of their unborn. The conservative believes the abortionist is imposing his or her values on the unborn, and he sticks up for the moral values of the unborn and the right to life.
In some ways a conservative like me believes in a lot less drug control than do liberals. I would allow people to try drugs that have not yet been approved or tested by the U.S. government. I would allow people to buy “prescription drugs†over the counter. Libertarians would allow people to freely use any drug they wanted, but a Libertarian can be either left wing or right wing.
In my mind a conservative allows people to use whatever drug he wants, unless it can be clearly shown that the drug has no beneficial use, and taking the drug makes that person a threat to society. There are those who believe that they have a moral right to take whatever recreational drug they want, “as long as they don’t hurt anyone.†And, of course, they seldom see who they are hurting. The conservative believes this moral value imposes on the rest of us unnecessary risks and costs. So, to protect ourselves from the behavior of those who believe it is okay to blow their minds with drugs, we impose boundaries. These laws have an additional side benefit of educating people as to what they should avoid. Too many people have the opinion that if it isn’t illegal it must be okay to use it.
A conservative doesn’t outlaw pornography, but he does make it more difficult to obtain. The conservative believes that people who become addicted to pornography are not just hurting themselves. They are hurting their families. They are hurting others who interact with them and are harmed by the distorted views of sex and gender that they get from pornography. It is harmful to those in the pornography industry. For these reasons conservatives attempt to make it more difficult to obtain pornography. It is not that conservatives want to impose their standards on others, it is that they want to protect themselves, their children, and their friends from the sick and evil influence of pornography. They are trying to protect people from the values of others who think it is okay to make sex slaves, to pervert children, to bring women into bondage, and to make people addicted to your product so that they will hopelessly continue to buy it against their best interests and what they realize on a higher plane is evil. They are trying to protect children from those whose values say that it is desirable to undermine society’s sexual moral values, and do so in a sneaky, subversive manner.
A conservative doesn’t make laws regarding strip clubs because he is offended by strip clubs. He does it to contain the well-known evil influences of such establishments. Which protects us from harm from those with different values.
I hope these examples help. To a conservative, it is the liberal who is trying to impose his will on the rest of us, usually through judicial activism, but often through laws which restrict our personal behavior and dictate what the “proper†moral values should be, i.e. modern liberalism.
Again, it depends on how you view it. In a sense, any immoral behavior affects those around us. We can certainly see, for example, that a parent becoming angry or frustrated with a child, who then yells at that child out of anger, has engaged in immoral behavior that has had a negative impact on those around said parent. But it would seem totalitarian to try and legislate against said behavior, to say the least. You don't make a new argument in asserting that we affect those around us with our actions.
Obviously we need to legislate morality. Behavior exists on a continuum; our parent example is probably close to the extreme of one end, with perhaps taking an innocent life at the other end. Almost everyone would consider prohibiting the former excessive, as almost everyone would consent that there is a need to disallow the latter. However, it is wrong headed to think "I am only legislating against this behavior because it will affect me." We are all affected to an extent by all behavior of those around us. The question becomes to what extent we are willing to allow it.
Obviously we need to legislate morality. Behavior exists on a continuum; our parent example is probably close to the extreme of one end, with perhaps taking an innocent life at the other end. Almost everyone would consider prohibiting the former excessive, as almost everyone would consent that there is a need to disallow the latter. However, it is wrong headed to think "I am only legislating against this behavior because it will affect me." We are all affected to an extent by all behavior of those around us. The question becomes to what extent we are willing to allow it.
-
vorpal blade
- Posts: 1750
- Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2008 5:08 pm
- Location: New Jersey
I agree.
The best book I have read about pornography and legislating against it is "Where do you draw the line?" by Victor Cline. The author goes into detail about this continuum of behavior of which you speak. Almost everyone will agree that drawing the line near one end or the other is not right, but there is plenty of room for debate between the extremes. People like to criticize conservatives as if conservatives are the only ones who would ever draw a line and say, "stuff worse that this must be prohibited." In reality, liberals would also draw a line somewhere. The issue is not whether conservatives draw the line and liberals do not. The issue is where do you draw the line?
Conservatives believe that we are not that far from the situation where Big Brother government will dictate that you can't yell at your kids. There is a very real threat in our minds that a kid today will call Social Services about the verbal abuse he is suffering (his parent yells at the child in anger), and Social Services will permanently take that child away from the family. All in the name of protecting the child, of course, and what is in the best interests of the child. Conservatives believe it is not conservatism, but liberalism that believes that the state can better raise your child than you can. And the liberal based Social Services currently has the power to enforce their values and beliefs. But, of course, there should be some line drawn where we all agree that a child should be taken away from the parents. Liberals would probably be a lot less tolerant of parental failings than a conservative would be—or so conservatives believe.
The best book I have read about pornography and legislating against it is "Where do you draw the line?" by Victor Cline. The author goes into detail about this continuum of behavior of which you speak. Almost everyone will agree that drawing the line near one end or the other is not right, but there is plenty of room for debate between the extremes. People like to criticize conservatives as if conservatives are the only ones who would ever draw a line and say, "stuff worse that this must be prohibited." In reality, liberals would also draw a line somewhere. The issue is not whether conservatives draw the line and liberals do not. The issue is where do you draw the line?
Conservatives believe that we are not that far from the situation where Big Brother government will dictate that you can't yell at your kids. There is a very real threat in our minds that a kid today will call Social Services about the verbal abuse he is suffering (his parent yells at the child in anger), and Social Services will permanently take that child away from the family. All in the name of protecting the child, of course, and what is in the best interests of the child. Conservatives believe it is not conservatism, but liberalism that believes that the state can better raise your child than you can. And the liberal based Social Services currently has the power to enforce their values and beliefs. But, of course, there should be some line drawn where we all agree that a child should be taken away from the parents. Liberals would probably be a lot less tolerant of parental failings than a conservative would be—or so conservatives believe.
here is how i feel about legislating abortion:
when the government is more willing to help people who give birth and need child care so they can go to work, but can't afford it, or all the pro-life people adopt one of the unwanted children who is born and given up for adoption, i will take their whole "trying to save an innocent life" argument more seriously.as of right now, it seems like people who don't know me or my situation want to decide what i do with my body and life. i would personally never have an abortion, but i'm not going to infringe on someone else's right to do it, because i don't know their reason. maybe their partner sabotaged their birth control to try and force the woman to stay in the relationship. maybe she was raped. maybe she has 3 children at home and is barely making ends meet even though she works and she truly can't afford another child. maybe she's selfish. who knows. the reasons don't matter. i'm not privy to her life, and so won't tell her she can or can't do something that could be best for her.
when the government is more willing to help people who give birth and need child care so they can go to work, but can't afford it, or all the pro-life people adopt one of the unwanted children who is born and given up for adoption, i will take their whole "trying to save an innocent life" argument more seriously.as of right now, it seems like people who don't know me or my situation want to decide what i do with my body and life. i would personally never have an abortion, but i'm not going to infringe on someone else's right to do it, because i don't know their reason. maybe their partner sabotaged their birth control to try and force the woman to stay in the relationship. maybe she was raped. maybe she has 3 children at home and is barely making ends meet even though she works and she truly can't afford another child. maybe she's selfish. who knows. the reasons don't matter. i'm not privy to her life, and so won't tell her she can or can't do something that could be best for her.
beautiful, dirty, rich
-
vorpal blade
- Posts: 1750
- Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2008 5:08 pm
- Location: New Jersey
Please consider this: (http://speeches.byu.edu/reader/reader.php?id=6647):
Every woman has, within the limits of nature, the right to choose what will or will not happen to her body. Every woman has, at the same time, the responsibility for the way she uses her body. If by her choice she behaves in such a way that a human fetus is conceived, she has not only the right to, but also the responsibility for that fetus. If it is an unwanted pregnancy, she is not justified in ending it with the claim that it interferes with her right to choose. She herself chose what would happen to her body by risking pregnancy. She had her choice. If she has no better reason, her conscience should tell her that abortion would be a highly irresponsible choice.
What constitutes a good reason? Since a human fetus has intrinsic and infinite human value, the only good reason for an abortion would be the violation or deprivation of, or the threat to the woman's right to choose what will or will not happen to her body. Social, educational, financial, and personal considerations alone do not outweigh the value of the life that is in the fetus. These considerations by themselves may properly lead to the decision to place the baby for adoption after its birth, but not to end its existence in utero.
The woman's right to choose what will or will not happen to her body is obviously violated by rape or incest. When conception results in such a case, the woman has the moral as well as the legal right to an abortion because the condition of pregnancy is the result of someone else's irresponsibility, not hers. She does not have to take responsibility for it. To force her by law to carry the fetus to term would be a further violation of her right. She also has the right to refuse an abortion. This would give her the right to the fetus and also the responsibility for it. She could later relinquish this right and this responsibility through the process of placing the baby for adoption after it is born. Whichever way is a responsible choice.