Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

Michael, in a nutshell, I could never vote for a party that attempts to legislate morality as much as the Republicans. For me, loss of liberty is a far greater issue than paying higher taxes. As I see it, it is the opposite with many Republicans. They may hate the social agenda of their party, but they dread that less than the fear of higher taxes. It’s a question of priorities. Add to that the fact that Republicans don’t couple fiscal restraint with tax cuts, and it’s hard not to see it as a party comprised of many who have no problem taking a short term gain at the expense of their children and grandchildren, all the while wrapping themselves in the flag and yelling patriotic rah-rahs. Meanwhile, anyone who objects is a communist or terrorist sympathizer. I appreciate, Michael, that you don’t engage in that, but many in your party do. Some post here.

Posted by: Trent at December 11, 2006 12:37 AM

Michael, your entire article is rendered bogus by the following sentence: “The external locus of control can be seen reflected in the liberal Democrat’s reflexive turn to government for solutions to life’s challenges.”

You see, the government is the people in our country, the government is how 300 million people decide on things without warring with each other like Hatfield’s and McCoys, or dare I say it, Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq.

So to ascribe this as external is fallacious on its face. Additionally, to ascribe it to Democrats, after Republicans just used government for every manner of exploitation and resolution to desires frustrated is, well, laughable to say the least.

Know a person or group by their deeds, not their rhetoric. Then you may begin to write articles about reality instead of wishful constructs born of fantasy designed to prop up one’s artificially constructed prism through which the world can be made to appear other than it is.

Your article appears to seek fundamental differences between the Democratic and Republican parties. But, in reality, they are few and far between. Face reality square on. It is the only way to gain control of reshaping it.

The philosophy closest to rugged individualism and self-reliance is Anarchy. I don’t see that philosophy exhibited by either Democrats or Republicans, though Libertarians talk it up like a religion in other words.

Posted by: David R. Remer at December 11, 2006 12:53 AM

David, I’ve heard the “we the people” argument before, but can’t accept that we went to the trouble to write the Bill of Rights, only to have the majority impose whatever they wish. The Constitution outlines boundaries to the power of government and when either party violates those under cover of “we the people” or “providing for the common good,” it’s an infringement on the individual.

Yes, both parties are guilty. As a member of the Republican Party I’m trying to address an obvious disparity with my Party’s stated philosophy. I don’t see any such disparity in the Democratic Party’s philosophy, so I assume they’re beyond hope.

Posted by: Michael Smith at December 11, 2006 01:15 AM

Michael, the majority may indeed impose whatever they wish outside of the limitations of the Bill of Rights and any other amendments protecting minority rights. Them’s just the facts. It is a democratic republic.

Your argument of infringement on individual rights only applies to those rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights or Amendments to the Constitution protecting other individual rights. Outside these, there is no infringement of individual rights. Our nation was never meant to be ruled by individuals, but, by representatives of the people and representatives of the Constitution (i.e. the Courts).

Yep, it is the Democrat’s position of being beyond hope which made them the majority in Congress. Your comments like this one don’t make sense, nor do they address reality.

Republicans would do well to shelve their ideologies and rhetoric which they proved they are not willing to live up to, and attend to the practical problems the nation faces, like saving Soc. Sec., preventing either the safety nets or the economy from sinking as a result of the other, and securing our nation against attacks without compromising American guaranteed freedoms and liberties in the Bill of Rights.

Stick to those practical issues with some practical solutions, and your party just might find a backbone and respect amongst the people again, though winning back trust will take some time, for sure.

Posted by: David R. Remer at December 11, 2006 01:27 AM

A lot of fancy rhetoric and you just became the run of the mill Republican.

I had read what you wrote in the past with some interest. Too bad.

This is second only to the prebate, which has to be the stupidest idea yet.

Posted by: womanmarine at December 11, 2006 05:04 AM

Trent, if we don’t “legislate morality” then immorality is the rule? Whatever we base our legislation on it must not be the “moral” stand? Why are you so proud to stand for any law as long as it has no basis in moral thinking?

Is it ok to kill others? No? How dare you legislate YOUR morality and make it “wrong” to kill? Is it ok to steal? Why not? What moral code tells you though shall not kill? How dare you legislate a MORAL thou shall not steal?! Thou shall not steal? Though shall not lie in your business affairs? Thou shall not kill? How dare you sneak in a moral code to your humanistic legal philosophy?

Trent, If we don’t legislate morality we might end up with a nation that butchers 45 million babies in the womb by abortion! Oh, we have that! I guess your happy now. It’s ok to kill 45 million before they are born because it’s been deemed “constitutional” by men who essentially rewrote the constitution…a power they do not have!

Does anyone here in their wildest state of denial pretend that the often and inconveniently (for the left) Christian founding fathers with their respect for life would have sanctioned a 45 million baby genocide! Get real! Do you think those 5 people who voted to rewrite our constitution (a power they don’t have) would have done so if they realized they were voting to kill 45 million babies? I suspect most would not have done it. It’s a national genocide and the fact that 5 people on the supreme court violated the law and rewrote the constitution does not make it “constitutional”. Congress should have done their job and forced them down for subverting the constitution.

I’m so sick of this crap being put forward by the left that republicans try to “legislate morality” all the while they are out there legislating immorality and pushing for genocide of the unborn! Laws must have a base. And that base can be moral or immoral. They can lead to life and justice or they can lead to death and injustice.

How dare Republicans try to base laws on morality and be opposed to murder, theft, etc! I’m all for having a bit of morality in my JUSTICE system because justice itself is at least in part a MORAL concept. Otherwise, I think we are all doomed.

Michael, Conservatives are Republican. Conservatives are Democrats. Yes, the radical left agenda and amoral political correctness may CONTROL the democratic party but it does not define individual democrats or that vast middle ground that swings the elections. A part of the cultural war is realizing that there are a lot of people in the middle in both parties that will vote for a moderate, a man not entire radicalized left or radicalized right.

Look at Lieberman. He spoke truth to power, he refused to bow down to political correctness and refused to take a stand that the far left dictated he take. And the far left nearly defeated him, but they failed in the end.

Interesting that the same far left is about to run Hillary who also voted for the war in Iraq and has refused to renounce it!

Posted by: Stephen at December 11, 2006 10:32 AM

Michael Smith wrote: Or do we believe that we make our own luck, control our own fate by the choices we make, and able to exercise our free will to shape our place in the world? Do we have an external or internal locus of control?

In a voting nation, we are ALL in control.
In a voting nation, an educated electorate is paramount.
Unfortunately, when the majority is wrong, the minority (that is right) must suffer with them.
But, that is an incentive for the minority to work harder at education of the majority.

Voters like to blame politicians, but voters keep rewarding them by repeatedly re-electing them.

Michael Smith wrote: The external locus of control can be seen reflected in the liberal Democrat’s reflexive turn to government for solutions to life’s challenges. The internal locus of control is more evident in the entrepreneurial spirit and small government approaches that Republicans profess.

What a bunch of gobbledy-gook.
That statement is nothing more than partisan spin, and an attempt to fuel partisan warfare.

While there are some minor differences between what Democrat and Republican politicians say, there is little difference between what they do.
The proof of it is staggering.
While politicians of both parties talk a lot, they accomplish little.
And what they do accomplish belies what they say (e.g. “Read my lips”, “I did not have sex with that woman”, “that depends on what the definition of ‘is’ is”, “I voted for it before I voted against it”, etc.).
That’s why the call it the Do-Nothing Congress.

But, voters keep rewarding them by repeatedly re-electing them.
So, we all get what we deserve.
That’s how we learn.
The hard way, mostly.

But, on the bright side, things are improving.
It is 2.000 steps forward and 1.999 steps backward.
Yes, it is too slow.
It could and should be faster.
Better decisions require education.

But, don’t worry.
Our education comes from consequences, and that education is already in the pipeline.
We will get it one way or another.

One thing that voters need to learn to do is become educated enough to recognize things like your statement above that is mere partisan spin designed to fuel the circular, distracting, divisive partisan warfare to pit voters against each other.

That partisan warfare is extremely effective, because it taps the inherent laziness in most people by letting THEIR party do their thinking for them, and some voters are all too fond of wallowing in the circular, distracting partisan warfare.

In the past, it was class, race, color, gender.

Not it is party.

Voters will catch-on eventually.

Perhaps we saw a bit of it in the last election?

So, when does logic and reason prevail, and a lesson is finally learned?
When the pain of our laziness becomes too great.
So, in a voting nation, as long as we have the right to vote and get an accurate vote-count, there is hope we will get our education.

2.000 steps forward, 1.999 steps backward.
If you’d like to speed it up, learn to recognize and ignore those that try to tap-into and use your laziness to fuel the circular, distracting, divisive, destructive, petty partisan warfare.

The internal locus of control is more evident in the entrepreneurial spirit and small government approaches that Republicans profess.

Really? Ha ! What a crock of [explicative] ! What we have witnessed in the past six years is anything but smaller government. In fact, the federal government has grown by several hundred thousand (which is probably part of a strategy to prop up poor employment numbers).

And what you call “entrepreneurial spirit” has been more like corpocrisy, corporatism, and global pillage.

Especially starting unnecessary wars for nefarious reasons (i.e. false/trumped-up intelligence), as Americans continue to sell each other out in every way possible.

Especially as politicians pit Americans and illegal aliens against each other, and voters against each other (via circular, distracting, divisive, petty partisan warfare).

But, we keep rewarding them by repeatedly re-electing them.

Posted by: d.a.n at December 11, 2006 10:45 AM

Michael,

So, which one do you view yourself as? Also, I’m curious how providing government resouces in support of those less well off is an “infringement on the individual”?

I’m trying to rediscover a link to a recent (I believe from Baylor University) study that investigated this subject quite deeply.

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at December 11, 2006 12:42 PM

Dave, I believe we shape our own fate through our choices and that the vast majority of “those less well off” are where they are through their choices in life. As such, I don’t think government owes them much. To tax those who have made good choices to subsidize those who make poor choices is a definite infringement.

I do believe in a safety net for those who encounter illness, or have diminished capacity, or just temporarily fall on bad times. We owe something to those who can’t fend for themselves.

Posted by: Michael Smith at December 11, 2006 01:01 PM

Stephen, being against legislating morality is not the same as being against legislation for which there are moral arguments. Of course there should be laws against murder or theft; everyone has a legitimate interest in not being killed or in not being robbed.

One can believe abortion laws are too permissive without legislating morality. I see the abortion issue as a conflict of interest between the right of the mother for self determination and the right of the fetus to exist.

I am NOT saying that people should ignore their morality in the exercise of their citizen rights. I am NOT say that you should ignore your beliefs in deciding how to vote.

What I object to, which is not the same thing as saying I want it to be illegal, is government telling me behaviors I cannot engage in when there is not direct harm to someone else. For example, I love to play poker. I studied the game very thoroughly, have read many books, etc. I’m not terrific at it, but I am good, and consistently win more than I lose. It’s a game of skill. But I can’t play online anymore because of legislation pushed through by Bill Frist. That’s B.S. Oh, I can still gamble — I can play the stock market or buy lottery tickets, but I can’t play the game I love without breaking the law. Feh.

Sodomy laws are another example. What business of it is mine what consenting adults do in the house next door? Why should I care if they are homosexual lovers who want to formalize their union? It has no affect on my own relationships. As long as they respect my property, don’t steal my mail, or harass me, I couldn’t care less what they do in the privacy of their own homes.

The Democrats aren’t innocent of this stuff, either, of course. Not that I’ve researched the issue, but I wouldn’t be surprised if Democrats were behind the ban in NYC agaisnt restaurants using trans fat. Good grief. I might support posting notices because information is a good thing, but banning? Might as well ban parachuting.

You know, 1 out of every 32 Americans is behind bars, and much of that is because of our drug laws. Our prisons are a mess — prison rape is a commonplace, brutality is a commonplace, etc., etc. What the hell are we doing? If my neighbors light up a jay in their house, why should I care? As long as they don’t give it to minors, why the hell should I care? It might be stupid to get stoned all the time, and of course for public safety reasons I support the laws against driving etc while stoned, but why should I care if they get stoned or snort coke? We shouldn’t try to ban stupidity as long as that stupidity does not have a direct effect on others. Raise a stoner’s insurance premiumns; I have no objections against that. If you say that stoners or coke addicts or alcholics through neglect endanger their children, fine, bust them for that.

I disaprove of many behaviors but I don’t try to impose my beliefs on others. We have a secular government, not a religious one. We’ve seen in the middle east the restrictions placed on people in the name of morality. I also still hear, though not as much as I used to, clergy in this country who wish to curtail the role of women. I doubt seriously, Stephen, that you wish to restrict the roles of women, but the fight for women’s liberation did involve a fight against “morality.”

Posted by: Trent at December 11, 2006 01:12 PM

believe we shape our own fate through our choices and that the vast majority of “those less well off‎ are where they are through their choices in life…Posted by: Michael Smith at December 11, 2006 01:01 PM

To me that is the ultimate cop out from responsibilty towards your fellow human beings; simpy state “it’s your own fault”. How is choosing to major in Painting the same as being born to a carck addicted mom and a sexually abusive father? No food for baby, sorry, you shouldn’t do drugs…Too bad you became an addict, America has nothing for you. Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at December 11, 2006 02:15 PM

Trent,

You position is inconsistent. First you indicate that individuals can use there moral code as a part of their decision making process then indicate that you should never impose your moral code on others.

Sorry, if you oppose murder because you simply think it’s wrong, immoral, you have just imposed your code, your religion, whatever on others. What if I said murder is good, it’ helps the strong oppose the weak. It creates a society of people who can stand up and fight and win and removes those who cannot defend themselves? What if I am for murder and can get enough of my fellow citizens to support murder that murder becomes legal? Then is it wrong? It’s legal, we all agreed to it! Tough luck, you’re dead!

I believe our founding fathers felt that certain rights were given to use by our creator. That law had a basis in morality. To deny this is to remake America into something it was not intended to be. To forget this heritage leads us to such things as a mass genocide. 45 million abortions. Something our found fathers never would have agreed to nor tolerated. Something too horrible to contemplate we are told the founding fathers gave us as a ‘right’ in the constitution. How absurd. No, I want to live in a legal system that has a sense of morality, that knows it’s wrong to murder, even to murder the innocent unborn.

Posted by: Stephen at December 11, 2006 02:38 PM

michael,

i’m not sure exactly what others are reading into your article. i see it as yet another in your line of calls for a return to traditional republican values, and i applaud both your message and your consistency. i, for one, will not blame you for the numerous shortcomings of the republican party which you, yourself, condemn.

i disagree that we owe nothing to those who have made poor choices - as a fellow member of our society, we owe them another chance. there are better ways of helping them than either giving them a handout or dismissing them, outright.

…after all, it can be argued that those who make bad decisions have been raised poorly - is this their fault?

of course if a person cannot be held to account for their own decisions, then accountability, responsibility, accomplishment, and choice cease to hold any real, substantial meaning…

…so let’s remove blame from the equation. we need neither blame, nor excuse them. if a person makes bad choices, we should educate them as to how to make better choices in the future. we should not simply provide them the means to make more bad decisions (handouts).

…provide them with ongoing education and a chance at a better life - and thereby help them to help themselves. it will benefit us all immeasurably in the long run. short-term payout, long-term payoff.

good post.

Posted by: Diogenes at December 11, 2006 02:52 PM

Have you seen the HBO miniseries, “ROME?”

Some things never change.

The reality of politics among us began to reveal itself to me when I started looking at what WASN’T real.

Such as issues like gay-marriage and immigration, for instance.

The only father Karl Rove ever knew and the one from whom KArl derives his last name, was a gay man. HE died literally days before Karl ignited the whole evangelical community behind the anti-gay marriage movement that was the major motivator behind evangelical support for Bush in ‘04. Karl Rove himself, is actually agnostic/atheist. Stunning isn’t it? the whole gay marriage debate is realy just a manipulative distraction in order to dupe people into supporting republicans. Thank God the american people are beginning to see through it.

Their are significantly large entities out there who build homes, employ cheap labor and who also support party politics who are quite literaly invested in the status quo. That is why Bush supports only half a fence and a guest worker program. It’s a farce. Worse yet, it doesn’t matter what party is in power! Entities like DR Horton Homes, Centex etc. are large enough to just shift their allegiances. Now that Democrats are the rising star, you can still bet that nothing will change significantly with regard to immigration. It’s a shell game. The American public is being manipulated and distracted from the reality.

Our politicians are interested in personnal gain and influence peddling, not effective solutions to anything!

Free market? HA! Nafta is nothing but an elaborate scheme to screw Mexico! We produce far more than we need in this country with respect to grain and various produce/grocery items. So, we pay money to our farmers to produce some things anyway and to not produce somethings as well. The surplus overproduction is then given or auctioned to investors who then can sell at waaaay below the market price in Mexico thus driving out any attemt at stable agri-business down there. It’s crap. It is not free-market. Any who think Nafta is helping Mexico at our expense, has not spent enough time in Mexico, clearly.

All this said, Mr Smith, quite a bit of what you say sounds reasonable and sounds like it makes sense…
However, it most certainly does NOT sound republican.

It does sound like you have latched on to ‘distraction’ issues and are now trying to run with them. By doing so, you are just playing into the hands of those who absolutely do NOT have your best intersts, or the best interests of this country, at heart.

Posted by: RGF at December 11, 2006 02:57 PM

Stephen, ah well, you know what they say about consistency. I could take your position to extremes and justify much that is atrocious, and you could do the same with mine. Would it help if I say that I believe murder is wrong also, and I of course want laws against it? There is a very clear non-religious reason why society should not tolerate murder. I also believe there is a very good non-religious reason to try to stop wholesale abortion.

I think you may have misunderstood my comment that I think individuals should be permitted (indeed, how could you prevent?) to vote according to their sense of morality. In my opinion, you should not object to my behavior as long as it doesn’t directly affect you. If I play poker, that’s my business, not yours. But that statement is not the same as saying you should be prohibited from voting against gambling. Look, our Constitution is pretty spacious; I never claimed that prohibiting poker is un-Constitutional. But you should vote as you think is right, just as I should. And if I think your party seeks to control what I consider innocuous behavior, I don’t have to support it.

As a Christian, I assume you worship on the sabbath. I have no problem with that. I do have a problem if you coerce me to worship on the Sabbath.

In a nutshell, I think there should be a good civic reason for legislation.

Posted by: Trent at December 11, 2006 03:00 PM

I believe our founding fathers felt that certain rights were given to use by our creator. That law had a basis in morality. To deny this is to remake America into something it was not intended to be.

Stephen,

Dude!, you have some warped conceptions about the thinking process of our founding fathers. A good read for you would be Notes on the State of Virginia, by Thomas Jefferson. The paper is mostly about Virginia itself, but also talks quite a bit about the Constitutional convention and the thinking of the founders. Religion’s role in the state gets quite the lashing.

Posted by: JayJay at December 11, 2006 03:26 PM

Diogenes,

I see the beginning of a great thread. It sounds like we both agree that we can’t assign “deservedness” by determination of “fault” for a persons need. But, you also said “

we should educate them as to how to make better choices in the future. we should not simply provide them the means to make more bad decisions (handouts)”

Among others, a debate I see from this is:
What is a “bad choice”? This sounds like a sort of “nanny state” solution with behavior modification. (Surprising for a conservative). Sometimes things are just bad luck. Doesn’t this start a blame roundabout?

Maybe I’ll have more time to discuss this later, meeting time…

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at December 11, 2006 03:59 PM

It is far more accurate to think of power as being stratified rather then some sort of vertical structure. The notion of “getting the government off of our backs” should be examined more closely. Many groups that fight regulation, restrictions on wilderness use, limits on monied influence on government are nominally composed of individuals but heavily backed by corporate money. The individuals in the group serve as fronts for the interests of the big money. If the government were really removed from power who would fill the void? The individual?
When you hear the phrase “let’s get the government off of our backs” just remember, they are not talking about YOUR back!!! Regards

Posted by: charles Ross at December 11, 2006 04:23 PM

Does anyone here in their wildest state of denial pretend that the often and inconveniently (for the left) Christian founding fathers with their respect for life would have sanctioned a 45 million baby genocide!

Stephen,

I get so sick of hearing that the founders of this country where Christians. The reality is that most were deists. (Hence, the use of the phrases “your creator,” “nature’s creator”, “your God”) You are correct to say that our country has roots in Christianity and that Christianity did indeed have much influence on the law. That is until October 1776, when the founders changed all that.

This is a summary view of that religious slavery, under which a people have been willing to remain, who have lavished their lives and fortunes for the establishment of their civil freedom. The error seems not sufficiently eradicated, that the operations of the mind, as well as the acts of the body, are subject to the coercion of the laws. But our rulers can have authority over such natural rights only as we have submitted to them. The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

[snip]

Reason and free enquiry are the only effectual agents against error.

[snip]

Reason and experiment have been indulged, and error has fled before them. It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself. Subject opinion to coercion: whom will you make your inquisitors? Fallible men; men governed by bad passions, by private as well as public reasons. And why subject it to coercion? To produce uniformity. But is uniformity of opinion desireable? No more than of face and stature. Introduce the bed of Procrustes then, and as there is danger that the large men may beat the small, make us all of a size, by lopping the former and stretching the latter.

[snip]

What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth.

[snip]

They are not more disturbed with religious dissensions. On the contrary, their harmony is unparalleled, and can be ascribed to nothing but their unbounded tolerance, because there is no other circumstance in which they differ from every nation on earth. They have made the happy discovery, that the way to silence religious disputes, is to take no notice of them. Let us too give this experiment fair play, and get rid, while we may, of those tyrannical laws.

Thomas Jefferson even correctly predicted what is happening today:

Besides, the spirit of the times may alter, will alter. Our rulers will become corrupt, our people careless. A single zealot may commence persecutor, and better men be his victims. It can never be too often repeated, that the time for fixing every essential right on a legal basis is while our rulers are honest, and ourselves united. From the conclusion of this war we shall be going down hill. It will not then be necessary to resort every moment to the people for support. They will be forgotten, therefore, and their rights disregarded. They will forget themselves, but in the sole faculty of making money, and will never think of uniting to effect a due respect for their rights. The shackles, therefore, which shall not be knocked off at the conclusion of this war, will remain on us long, will be made heavier and heavier, till our rights shall revive or expire in a convulsion.

Thomas Jefferson nullifies your argument that laws against murder, theft, etc. were based on a code of morality when he states that “the legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others.” They were based, rather, on a code of reciprocity.

Interesting that the same far left is about to run Hillary who also voted for the war in Iraq and has refused to renounce it!

Do you have supporting evidence that the far left supports Hillary? It was my understanding that the far left cannot stand her because of her two-faced positons. The far left generally believes in an infallible doctrine of beliefs, much the same way the far right and neocons do. The far left would never support someone who changed their views simply to become more mainstream, as Hillary has. When you use the label “far left,” I have a feeling that you are painting with too broad a brush.

As far as abortion goes we will never make one inch of progress towards saving the lives of these children until we stop wasting time throwing venom at each other. It makes no difference whether the practice is legal or illegal. The only way to effect change is to address the root cause. IMO, the root cause is social conservatism itself. When we are only willing to see sexual issues as one of conformity to a set way of behavior (or morality), and not as a natural and powerful human need, we are bound to failure. We can preach abstinance and use fear tactics all day long, but in the end it is the human need for sexual contact that will win out. Providing the tools to make that contact safe is the only way to save lives.

Posted by: JayJay at December 11, 2006 05:01 PM

RGF

You are wrong on the queer marriage issue. That has been debated on here before.

Trent

If sodomy is ok, then when your child goes next door where they practice sodomy, and they want to educate your child on sodomy and its many benefits, you would be all for that since it is the neighbors house where we should not interfere. If that summation is wrong, when where does one draw the line where sodomy is right but wrong?

Posted by: tomh at December 11, 2006 05:13 PM

Yes, Michael, I think that you’ve put it concisely. Your philosophy is a pat on your own back for being responsible for your own condition, and assuming that those less well off are responsible for theirs. One can maintain this position only in two ways: 1) insulate yourself from the reality faced by the less well off, by walling yourself into a homogeneously middle-class community and never reading anything besides National Review and looking at anything besides Fox News, or 2) live in a fantasy world. Your summary, that folks not doing well have necessarily made bad choices, flies in the face of every known study of poverty. Although people in poverty often make bad choices, it is usually because of their limited opportunities.

It is no accident that your philosophy provides the well-to-do selfish with a rationale to deny the needy help from their resources. How uncharitable and unChristian this attitude is! Yet it is cloaked in pseudo-ethics, in some cases the proponents declaiming that they are mostly concerned about the moral state of the would-be recipients of aid funded through their taxes. This is horribly hypocritical. At the bottom, folks with your philosophy mostly resent having their money taken by the government and redistributed where it will do some good. This good is for all of society; whether you are a Christian, Jew, Buddhist, Hindu, or Muslim, a Capitalist or a Communist, a society where no one is left to rot and where all children are safe, housed, fed, and educated will make us all wealthier and healthier.

But, you already know that. What your philosophy reduces to is an ardent child screaming “Don’t take my money!” It is a retrograde attitude that we, as a country, abandoned a long time ago. The latter half of the 20th century was a golden era precisely because we decided to distribute the wealth a little more evenly. As that process is being undone by the current regime, we are returning to the meanness of an earlier era. Please don’t support that return.

Posted by: Mental Wimp at December 11, 2006 05:19 PM

Who in the history of this world determined that rape, murder, etc. were wrong? Just where did someone determine this? It was not our founding fathers. It was not the Romans or Greeks or Assyrians. It was no manner of man. Well, then who did? I will leave this open for further discussion.

Posted by: tomh at December 11, 2006 05:20 PM

I love how the right loves buidling these “what if” strawmen, instead of discussing their differences point by point.

“what is a monkey lived next door and your child went over there and the monkeys taught your child the benefits of throwing feces”

I can understand not agreeing with a lifestyle or a hobby or habit but if it doesn’t directly affect you then why does it bother the right so much?

Posted by: tony CO at December 11, 2006 05:27 PM

You are wrong on the queer marriage issue.

tomh,

You are really going out on a limb tonight using homophobic epithets. You should be truly ashamed of your hatred, yet I know you are not.

If sodomy is ok, then when your child goes next door where they practice sodomy, and they want to educate your child on sodomy and its many benefits, you would be all for that since it is the neighbors house where we should not interfere.

Now why in the hell would anyone do that? That is the most ignorant thing I have ever seen written on this blog. Would you be any less offended if your child went next door and was all educated up on the joys of straight sex by a straight couple?

If that summation is wrong, when where does one draw the line where sodomy is right but wrong?

That summation is absolutly wrong, and idiotic to boot. I would draw the line at any neighbor, whether gay or straight, discussing sexual practices with my children. The fact that you do not see that is truly disturbing.

Posted by: JayJay at December 11, 2006 05:35 PM

tomh

Where’re you goin’ with this, buddy? You thinkin’ some supernatural being (or ghost, in plain language) wrote up some rules and handed them over? If so, why ain’t that ghost a tellin’ us anything quite that directly now? Lose his touch, or what?

Well, you did open it up to discussion, so here goes.

You do realize that the word “murder” hasn’t been interpreted the same way at different times and in different places, right? What we call murder others would justify as necessary killing, and vice versa. Many cultures have spelled out the wrong that one must do another to justify being killed by the victim or the victim’s family, reasons we would abhor. Likewise, we send our boys over to Iraq to invade that country and kill folks over there, many of them innocent, but just in the way. We don’t consider it murder, whereas I’m betting some of the Iraqis do. You can spin a similar tale about rape. Check out, oh, I don’t know, the Bible maybe to see how the treatment of women and sex varies over times and situations.

The point is that the idea of rape or murder is not some absolute that was handed down by some magical being. It took people forming societies and recognizing the mutual benefit of observing boundaries of behavior, and the eventual encoding of these recognitions into rules and, finally, laws. That some societies required fables about magical beings in order to get the less reflective to give it consideration (and these fables were often reinforced by fairly brutal sanctions; for example, see the Old Testament or the Inquisition) led to the development of religion. Nowadays, children are indoctrinated from the time they are able to understand spoken language, and some of them grow up still believing the magic. They tend to intone things with sort of a hushed sense of awe, hoping that such deference will prevent anyone from actually debating the issues. “It was no manner of man…” Oooh, that sounds pretty indisputable. The problem is that no evidence exists that it was anything but people who created our moral and legal systems. Unless of course you consider fables as evidence.

Posted by: Mental Wimp at December 11, 2006 05:35 PM

Who in the history of this world determined that rape, murder, etc. were wrong? Just where did someone determine this? It was not our founding fathers. It was not the Romans or Greeks or Assyrians. It was no manner of man. Well, then who did?

tomh,

Well it sure as hell wasn’t your man Jehovah, if that is what your are trying to infer. He didn’t seem to have any problems with rape or murder, as long as it was committed in his name. He sure as hell had no problem with the mass genocide of children as we see from several passages.

Who determined that those acts were wrong was man. If it were legal for me to kill someone then it would also be legal for someone to kill me. Who wants to live in a society where you can be raped or killed at any moment for any reason? That is just common sense, dude.

Posted by: JayJay at December 11, 2006 05:43 PM

It was JubJub, speaking through his prophet Wubba Wubba, who told man that rape and murder were wrong. Everyone knows that.

Posted by: Trent at December 11, 2006 05:49 PM

Mental Wimp,

You stated that much better than I. Unfortunatly, I let people’s unwarrented hatred get the best of me.

Posted by: JayJay at December 11, 2006 05:55 PM

Well, at least there is agreement that murder is wrong. But, why is it wrong? On what standard is it wrong?

Some of you mockingly made reference to magic or ghosts or something else. The simple question is why and by whom is murder wrong.

God of course determined that. But, there again if you do not believe in God our Creator, then someone made the reference that murder is wrong within your belief system. The questions are elemental.

Posted by: tomh at December 11, 2006 05:58 PM

tomh — you should scroll back up and reread Mental Wimps post and you’ll get your answers.

Posted by: tony CO at December 11, 2006 06:03 PM

tomh,

Which part of Mental Wimp’s answer didn’t you understand? Or is it that you simply will not accept any answer except the one you seek?

Posted by: JayJay at December 11, 2006 06:03 PM

tomh

Did you read what was written? Your response sort of implies you didn’t. Or maybe you just chose to ignore JayJay and me. In any event, we gave an evolutionary and functional explanation of why within a society it is good to mutually agree not to attempt to kill or rape each other. Most people don’t really have a problem seeing that, since it is very logical. If someone believes that it isn’t obvious and you need a powerful ghost to tell you it’s bad, then the problem is with that person.

Also, note that the prohibition usually only extends to those within the same society. We’ve made strides in trying to extend it to all people, but as Iraq demonstrates, some countries or their leaders often feel it is okay to kill those in another country, even without provocation, if a powerful ghost tells them it’s the right thing to do.

I saw a bumper sticker the other day that said:

Humankind - be both.

Posted by: Mental Wimp at December 11, 2006 06:09 PM

Mental-

“At the bottom, folks with your philosophy mostly resent having their money taken by the government and redistributed where it will do some good.”

In the hands of beaurocrats? Sorry, but that is utterly laughable. There are literally a million ways to do good for others in America today. That is one of the things that makes this nation great. We don’t need the K Street Lobbyists to make the decisions for us as to what is and what is not an important cause or an efficient or effective means of spending money. Only where there is a clear universal need not being addressed locally should government get involved.

And the heartless claims? Its heartless to shell out more money in taxes so that a small minority of people can be encouraged to contribute less than others. No one is saying to marginalize people. Only that it is a much more honest and effective system to say that government will only provide that which is universal in nature. And federal government should only serve the federal interests. Rather than paying off societal bullies so they stay away (welfare, buying people homes, etc.), we should be using government only to strengthen the systems already in place which are proven to benefit society as a whole.

For example, making charitable donations tax deductible. And when a sudden need develops, people can use their own money in a more targeted way, and when corruption pops up, people react to it faster than government (which usually fosters and then perpetuated it). Providing for a stable monetary and banking system, regulating securities to prevent fraud, building and maintaining infrastructure, etc…these are valuable roles for government. NOT making decisions so as to help shape the future of society. That is for people to decide based on their own ever evolving common morality, and is simply a product of billions of individual actions being reconciled individually with their results.

Tomh-

I’m starting to really believe you are just a caricature. Is there such thing as political tourette’s syndrome?

If I could just ask you to please stay off my side.

Posted by: Kevin23 at December 11, 2006 06:27 PM

You guys are not thinking. Someone, somewhere in your belief system someone said “Killing is wrong”. Who was that person? These things do not evolve. They are absolute. Fables, Mythology, ghosts, etc are not an explanation. If you believe that they evolve, then where did that idea of not killing start; it had to start somewhere?

BTW—I read JayJay and Mental Whimp’s posting twice before you requested that I reread it again.

Posted by: tomh at December 11, 2006 06:34 PM

dave1

“What is a ‘bad choice’? This sounds like a sort of ‘nanny state’ solution with behavior modification. (Surprising for a conservative). Sometimes things are just bad luck. Doesn’t this start a blame roundabout?”

surprising perhaps because you have misunderstood my proposal? a bad choice is one that lands a person in a box on the corner (or anywhere near that). we can argue all day long about whether this sad circumstance is entirely one of their own making, or conversely, somehow solely due to society (or more realistically, some mix of the two) - which is why i would dispatch blame altogether.

…ultimately, it does not matter whose fault it is - this is an unproductive, (likely) unhappy individual, yet also a fellow member of society whom we should endeavor to assist… for our own benefit as well as theirs.

by education, i did not mean to imply some form of re-education, rehabilitation program. i simply mean education… training programs to provide them with marketable skills… and then a job. after this is done, they will be employed - and we will have another productive, content citizen to help better our society. everyone wins.

even should some prove abject failures, every one we ‘convert’ should more than offset countless who fail to achieve any significant success. our goal is a tax payer instead of a tax liability, an employee rather than a potential criminal. far better to pay for education now than pay for prison later…

Posted by: Diogenes at December 11, 2006 06:42 PM

tomh,

We’ve only have recorded (that is, written) history for a few thousand years. No one can answer your question as you ask it. No one can give you a name of the first guy who said killing was wrong.

I’m not an anthropologist, but I would imagine the notion that you don’t kill your children, your family, your clan, your tribe, etc. existed before language. With some exceptions, herd animals don’t kill each other. Yes, they fight over mates or to establish dominance, but generally not to the death. If I had to guess, I’d say the prohibition against murder started in some pre-literate way with instinctuals feelings toward family. These extend to larger families, then clans, etc., etc. It’s generally the other we seek to kill. Look at war propaganda — one technique is to make your enemy appear less human and thus make it easier to hate and kill them.

I know you are looking for some truth sayer or God to have laid down the first prohibition against murder. I don’t think it worked that way.

I didn’t read MW’s or JJ’s comments in their entirety, so I probably repeated things they said.

Posted by: Trent at December 11, 2006 06:50 PM

Tomh-

Wild animals don’t kill members of their group either. Maybe it is just one of those obvious things. After all, it fits the evolutionary model literally perfectly. Those species which reach some higher level of consciousness regarding factors which directly affect the future success of their species (not killing each other is a seminole example) will flourish, while those who care only for their own individual safety will come to an innevitable dead end unless it can reproduce without a partner.

This is really not rocket science here. Why accuse people of “not thinking”?

Posted by: Kevin23 at December 11, 2006 06:56 PM

Kevin23

I agree that this is not rocket science.

So you say a “higher level of consciousness” has brought us to a point that makes murder wrong. Then why is it that sodomy is no longer wrong? Is this also a “higher level of consciousness”?

You see, there has to be a moral authority. It was not, is not, nor ever to shall be man.

Posted by: tomh at December 11, 2006 07:09 PM

You guys are not thinking. Someone, somewhere in your belief system someone said “Killing is wrong”. Who was that person? These things do not evolve. They are absolute. Fables, Mythology, ghosts, etc are not an explanation. If you believe that they evolve, then where did that idea of not killing start; it had to start somewhere?

tomh,

Ok, lets build off this. You seem to be saying that there is a universalism to the belief that murder, rape, etc. are wrong regardless of religiosity. That humans, for some unknown reason, could not simply have come to that conclusion using their own reason and logic. You seem to be claiming that this universal belief must have been instilled in people by some deity.

How did the deity come to the conclusion that murder, rape, etc, were wrong? What was the reasoning behind that conclusion, or does the deity not use reason? Does he simply make up rules arbitrarily? Does the deity simply know because he is divine or does the deity feel emotions like humans? The Bible describes the deity as having very human emotions including jealousy, compassion, anger, wrath, love, patients, impatients, etc., etc., etc. Why is it so illogical for you to believe that humans could have come to the same conclusion using the same emotions and the same reasoning that moved the deity? What about people in this world who believe that they will be rewarded by a deity if they do kill. Is it the same deity that instilled the opposite message in others? Or are there many deities? Or is it a fake deity? If you say it is a fake deity, then who are you to determine that? Who knows for sure? No one.

Don’t get me wrong, I do believe in a deity, although probably not the same deity you believe in. There is no way humanly possible for anyone here to give you a definative answer to your question without being a deity themselves. We can guess all night long, but we will not arrive at an answer that cannot be blown full of holes.

Posted by: JayJay at December 11, 2006 07:20 PM

Once as a plant manager, I had a secretary who was very religious. She was quite surprised when, several years into our professional relationship, she found that I was an agnostic. To her, all law must be based on moral codes. She said (and I paraphrase here) - if you don’t believe in God, why then you could just kill and steal and rape and do whatever you want to anyone.

My response of course was that if that was how her mind worked, then I was certainly glad that she believed in God.

As hard as it may be for some to believe, our civic laws are based on a social contract of behavior. I vote for no killing and promise not to kill you, just as I hope that the contract will reduce the chances that you will kill me. This works. With or without a ‘moral’ basis.

A strong argument could be made that there is utterly no difference in Christians who want to base laws on moral code and the Taliban who also want to base laws on their moral code.

Posted by: LibRick at December 11, 2006 07:35 PM

So you say a “higher level of consciousness” has brought us to a point that makes murder wrong. Then why is it that sodomy is no longer wrong? Is this also a “higher level of consciousness”?

You see, there has to be a moral authority. It was not, is not, nor ever to shall be man.

tomh,

Well there it is, the million dollar question, finally. If a deity brought us to universal belief in right and wrong, then why does that same universal belief not ring true with homosexuality? Why has that belief not been universal thoughout history? Why have some societies not only accepted homosexuality but also showed great respect towards homosexuals? Some tribes, including Native American tribes, elevated those called “two-spirits” to spiritual leadership roles within the tribe. Homosexuals were also high priests in some pagen religions, and there is evidence that some eunuchs in the bible were in fact homosexuals who were put in positions of trust and authority. Homosexuals also held positions of authority in the Roman empire. It was not until Christianity became accepted on a widespread bases that homosexuals were looked down upon.

So if what you are saying is true then homosexuality should have been seen as wrong throughout history, not just after the introduction of Christianity. If I am understanding what you are saying, it was the moral authority of man, not of a deity, that declared homosexuality as wrong. I agree.

Posted by: JayJay at December 11, 2006 07:38 PM

My response of course was that if that was how her mind worked, then I was certainly glad that she believed in God.

LibRick,

lol, Great response!

Posted by: JayJay at December 11, 2006 07:43 PM

Tomh-

huh? Did you miss the part about the “higher l;evel of consciousness” being a product of the evolutionary model? That was the whole point.

Posted by: Kevin23 at December 11, 2006 07:44 PM

What does sodomy have to do with anything?

Talk about trying to confuse issues.

Posted by: Kevin23 at December 11, 2006 07:46 PM

Kevin23,

I hate to break it to you, but that is tomh’s M.O. It is an old ploy that he uses on different threads. He makes a point about one issue he believes he knows something about and will be an easier issue for him to tackle, then ambushes you at the last minute using that same line of reasoning to feed his hatred of homosexuals. He has used the technique several times here b4.

Posted by: JayJay at December 11, 2006 08:01 PM

diogenes said “i see it as yet another in your line of calls for a return to traditional republican values…”

But don’t see “traditional republican values” in this: “Social conservatives need to recognize that by banning internet gambling, regulating foul language on TV, or tapping phones without warrants, they are limiting the fertile ground of liberty, not enhancing it.”

Gambling has been regulated by the government for a long time. Most conservatives and liberals see the need to regulate gambling. Television also has been regulated for a long time and there are very good social (and moral) reasons for doing so. Both conservatives and liberals see the need for those regulations. The phones issue is much newer… and I believe it did not come from conservative values, in any case.

So, thanks for the straw-man. As a traditional conservative, I find that I disagree with most of what Mr Smith writes.

Posted by: Don at December 11, 2006 08:34 PM

don,

“So, thanks for the straw-man. “

i haven’t a clue what you mean. to what straw man, exactly, do you refer?

so you wish to regulate gambling, television, phones… anything else? everything else? in the name of what? socially conservative values?

so you want to raise taxes to pay for the enlarged federal government required for such heavy regulation? cuz ‘borrow and spend’ doesn’t work…

should they monitor every aspect of our lives? or just the ones *you* deem necessary (read: sinful)…

i do not consider those values anywhere near traditional conservatism. you want to legislate your morality. traditionally, there was a separation of church and state… remember? i think you may be confused about what it means to be a traditional conservative.

i would describe you as a social conservative - that’s a different thing, and simply doesn’t mesh well with a fiscal conservative (that’s a traditional value). legislating morality costs money… lots of money.

smaller, more effective, less intrusive government. now, i believe some regulation is necessary… but it should be as minimal as possible, while preserving sufficient affect.

it should also center around local government - where i would support heavy regulations, if and when necessary; regulations which cater to the specific needs/desires of the community, and can be carefully administered by those within the community (not by a large, expensive, and ineffective bureaucracy in dc).

you want regulations? pursue them within your community, for your community… *that* is a traditionally conservative belief…

…and save the morality for church (i’ve got my own, thank you).

Posted by: Diogenes at December 11, 2006 09:58 PM

JayJay

Get off that kick about me hating homosexuals. I have told you many times I do not hate homosexuals. This is the last time I will repeat it to you.

BTW—On Thanksgiving Day at our family gathering there was in attendance a homosexual. Our family gratefully and cheerfully asked him to participate with us for dinner.

You people refer to a deity. JayJay says his deity is not the same as mine. My moral authority is The Lord Jesus Christ who is above all men. Men in the past, as well as the present, have tried to allow sin to rule their lives. Man is basically an evil creature. That is why we need laws, rules, regulations. The purpose is to put boundaries on man and his behavior. Why do some people decide to obey the speed limit? They would go faster, except they choose to obey the law. These boundaries are found throughout history and throughout all countries. Who was the first murderer? Or course Cain, Able’s brother was.

One parting comment. JayJay, you should confess that you don’t have me figured out. I am of a stripe that few know.

Posted by: tomh at December 11, 2006 10:42 PM

tomh, um, no — you sound utterly conventional to me. Sorry to bust your little mysterious bubble. Let me guess. You hate the sin but love the sinner, right?

Posted by: Trent at December 11, 2006 10:53 PM

Adam Smith wrote of enlightened self-interest as the prime mover of behavior which seeks the best for oneself by treating others with the best, since behavior is largely reciprocal in chimps, apes and humans. It is how all their young are raised, through mimicry and copying.

Some cannibals drew a rule long before the first Rabbi or Jesuit priest visited them, eat the enemies of the clan, not members of the clan. Enlightened self interest! No doubt the thought of one’s ma and brother munching down on Pa’s remains did not seem fitting tribute or honor.

And before that early man had a rule about procreation amongst siblings within the family, based on long experience with horrid deformities in new borns brought forward in this manner which threatened the strength of the clan. Of course such taboos were expressed and conveyed in stories about gods and demons, but, the stories reflected experience and knowledge of the generations preceding who saw the benefit of marrying and procreating between members of differing clans - and many they were, not just genetic, but economic and diplomatic, as well.

Rape is still taught to aboriginal tribes observing none of the major religions as wrong and not to be condoned. You see, you can’t control incest without taboos against rape, which disciplines young men to make careful selection in the choice of the mother/s of their children. All manner of blood lines taboos and mythos predate modern religions depicting rape and incest as wrong by many tribal societies before their conversions.

Of course religions, many of them, also called for child and virgin sacrifices too, to appease the gods who controlled the events of the natural world around them. So, religion never was a guarantor of morality as morality is defined today by Christians and Jews.

Most Christians pick and choose their moral transgressions accepting and rationalizing that they are not perfect, couldn’t be if they tried, therefore, immoral acts are OK provided you couldn’t help yourself and you seek salvation afterward. So they lie to their children about Christmas, (Santa and where presents come from) and lie to their bosses when they don’t feel like going to work, and many cheat on income taxes though Christ said give unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar’s, etc. etc. etc.

Religion is no guarantor of morality anymore than laws are. But both laws and religious morals have the same rationality, do unto others as you would have them do unto you, and for the most part, society will be a better place for all. A rule which predates Judaism and Christianity by millenia. One need not be religious to choose an ethical life. One need not obey the government’s laws to live a moral life. But enlightened self interest are the reason for choosing either, as Adam Smith so eloquently points out in his book, Theory of Moral Sentiments.

BTW, This book of Smith’s is the precursor to Wealth of Nations, and Wealth of Nations is rampantly misunderstood by students of economics who are almost never required to read Theory of Moral Sentiments, which provides the underpinnings for society, and justification for government, taxes, laws, endorsed and complied with by an enlightened self interest.

Posted by: David R. Remer at December 11, 2006 10:54 PM

Get off that kick about me hating homosexuals. I have told you many times I do not hate homosexuals. This is the last time I will repeat it to you.

tomh,

All I will say about this is ye shall know them by their fruits:

You are wrong on the queer marriage issue.

Those are the fruits of hate my friend. God did not plant the seeds of hate in the hearts of man.

My moral authority is The Lord Jesus Christ who is above all men.

And what was Jesus’ moral teaching on homosexuality? He didn’t have one. His only teaching on the subject was that homosexuals are indeed born that way and those who can accept it, should accept it. (Matthew 19:10-12)

Man is basically an evil creature.

I disagree, man is inherently good, all carrying the same inner light, but born into a world influenced by evil. The whole world lies in the power of the evil one. (1 John 5:19)

One parting comment. JayJay, you should confess that you don’t have me figured out. I am of a stripe that few know.

Well, you have said little to make me believe that. I find nothing unique about your stripes, in fact they seem to be pretty cookie cutter to me.

Posted by: JayJay at December 11, 2006 11:39 PM

BTW—On Thanksgiving Day at our family gathering there was in attendance a homosexual. Our family gratefully and cheerfully asked him to participate with us for dinner.

There was a homosexual in attendance at a family dinner?! Boy have I had you pegged all wrong. You’re a regular Archie Bunker!

BTW, there is a homosexual in attendance at all my family gatherings. It’s no big whoop.

Posted by: JayJay at December 12, 2006 12:08 AM

JayJay

Matthew 19:10-12 talks about eunuchs. Eunuchs have no testicles or non-functioning testicles. That has absolutely nothing to do with homesexuals. You are stretching and bending to fit whatever you want it to mean.

I John was misquoted and out of context. The whole chapter is about obeying and understanding God and his commandments.

If man is basically good, then why does immorality happen? It is because man is basically evil and needs the rules and laws as I mentioned above. If man is basically good he does not need rules and laws to keep himself moral.

Your comprehension of man and his makeup should be re-examined. But, pride will keep you from that probably.

Posted by: tomh at December 12, 2006 12:49 AM

diogenes -

“to what straw man, exactly, do you refer?”
I’m refering to the straw man that Smith builds to define conservative values (regulation of gambling & TV and warrantless phone taps). My point is that these things do NOT define conservative values, but they make a nice punching bag for conservative values.
—-

“so you wish to regulate gambling, television, phones… anything else?”
NOT!
I have no wish to regulate anything other than what most people (both conservative and liberal) already agree should be regulated. All I was saying was that gambling and television have already been regulated for good reasons (and should continue to be regulated). These are not conservative issues, these are family and cultural issues. You, as one whom, I think, believes more in state and local rights than in federal rights, may have trouble seeing the need for these regulations at a federal level. But they have benefited society! And in a time when about anything can be done by internet, defining rules and regulations for localities makes less and less sense. Patchwork regulations are not only impossible to police, but could be considered harmful. (The Soviet Union found out the hard way that they could not keep their people isolated.)
—-

“should they monitor every aspect of our lives? or just the ones *you* deem necessary (read: sinful)…”

I don’t know what you’re talking about! I didn’t say that the government should monitor every aspect, nor did I say that the government should monitor “sinful” activities. The items I was talking about should be monitored, not because they are “sinful”, but because they present social and societal problems. Others (such as alcohol and drug use) should be monitored and restricted due to health and safety issues. This has been recognized by both conservatives and liberals.
—-

“…and save the morality for church (i’ve got my own, thank you).”

First, true morality cannot be kept in church. That is an oxymoron. If that’s the only place *you* are moral, then *you* aren’t moral.
Second, the values to which I have referred are not religious in nature. There are a great many “moral” issues which benefit society tremendously. Regulating these things doesn’t cost as much as you seem to think, since they can help prevent disease, accidents, bankruptcy, delinquency, etc. They define for our society a set of values which are fairly universal in scope. For example, many non-religious people see the necessity of regulating gambling.

There is no way to deal with social and safety issues without appearing to regulate “sin.” In the same way, there is no way to de-regulate those issues without appearing to be anti-religious. But that doesn’t mean that these are religious values. As David Remer says (above) “One need not be religious to choose an ethical life.”

Posted by: Don at December 12, 2006 02:00 AM

Matthew 19:10-12 talks about eunuchs. Eunuchs have no testicles or non-functioning testicles. That has absolutely nothing to do with homesexuals. You are stretching and bending to fit whatever you want it to mean.

tomh,

It may appear that way when you try to interpret the Bible using a modern context. The only way interpret the Bible is in the context of when it was written. Today, we recognize the word eunuch to mean a castrated male or as you say a male with non-functioning testicles. The problem is that up until the 4th century CE that was not what defined a eunuch. Eunuch was a general term to describe any male, that for whatever reason, lacked sexual desire for women.

In the Roman Digest of Laws, Roman jurist Ulpian says: “If a woman marries a eunuch, I think that a distinction must be drawn whether he has been castrated or not, because in the case of a castrated man, there is no dowry; if the person has not been castrated, then there can be a marriage, and so there is a dowry, and a claim on it.”

Therefore we know that not all eunuchs were castrated. Furthermore Ulpian states that “to me it appears the better view that a eunuch is not diseased or defective, but healthy, just like a man with one testicle who is also able to procreate.” Another Roman jurist Paulus states right afterward: “If someone is a eunuch in such a way that he lacks a necessary part of his body, even internally, then he is diseased.”

Therefore, some eunuchs were considered healthy, not lacking body parts and retained the ability to procreate. We also know that the man with one missing testicle was not considered a eunuch. So what made them eunuchs?

2nd century church father Clement of Alexandria tells us what made them eunuchs when he warned Christians against the evils of eunuch servants being placed in charge of women and states “the true eunuch is not unable, but merely unwilling to have sex.” He further relates his interpretation of Mathew 19:12 to the followers of Basilides, a Gnostic leader, “Some men, from their birth, have a nature to turn away from women; and those who are naturally constituted in this way do well not to marry. These, they say, are the eunuchs from birth.”

So, some eunuchs were healthy with all body parts intact, retained the ability to procreate and were only considered eunuchs because they were unwilling to have sex with women.

It is interesting to note that none of the 47 places that the Bible talks about eunuchs does it mention any type of physical defect or castration. But in the one place where the Bible does talk about castration (Deuteronomy 23:1) the word eunuch is never used.

Furthermore, Deuteronomy 23:1 clearly states that castrated males shall not enter the congregation of the Lord. Isaiah 56:4-5, on the other hand, states that eunuchs who keep the sabbath will be given a name better than sons and daughters and will be given an everlasting name that will not be cut off. If a eunuch was indeed a castrated male then these two passages seem to contradict each other.

The meaning of words change over time and a modern meaning of a word may not fit an ancient meaning of that same word. Such is the case with the word eunuch. Contrary to what your modern day Bible may say, the word Homosexual actually appears nowhere in the Bible. The word that is sometimes translated as Homosexual is actually a word that Paul made up and appears nowhere in Greek texts prior to it’s use by Paul, exactly what Paul meant by it’s use is unknown. What is known is that Homosexuals were included under the umbrella term eunuch.

I John was misquoted and out of context. The whole chapter is about obeying and understanding God and his commandments.

Ahh, the ol’ Christian standby- your taking it out of context! Yet it is ok for Christians to take a few passages out of context to condemn homosexuality. Funny how that works.

If man is basically good, then why does immorality happen? It is because man is basically evil and needs the rules and laws as I mentioned above. If man is basically good he does not need rules and laws to keep himself moral.

Why? Because a lot of people are brought up in Churches and households that tell children this shit. Of course people are going think of themselves as evil and in need of a savior when it is drilled into their head from an early age. It comes along with the ignorance inherent in this world.

Your comprehension of man and his makeup should be re-examined. But, pride will keep you from that probably.

No, not pride. My faith will keep me from it though. If you sleep better at night believing that man is inherently evil then that is all on you.

Posted by: JayJay at December 12, 2006 03:50 AM

As I recall it, locus of control hinges on whether we see ourselves as controlled, or in control. Do we see ourselves as pawns of the universe, destined by fate, and primarily controlled by forces beyond our control? Or do we believe that we make our own luck, control our own fate by the choices we make, and able to exercise our free will to shape our place in the world? Do we have an external or internal locus of control?

False dichotomy. Such binary distinctions about life denies the gradient aspects of the universe, life in all of its manifestations and all of the components within those manifestations. Such distinctions might be fine for a novice to get their logical bearings when approaching an unfamiliar subject but trying to use it in crafting or advocating public policy is weak.

An American factory worker who is laid off and his job shipped off to Vietnam has no “internal locus of control” over this situation. Obviously his subsequent actions are a product of his own will, but these actions are no guarantee to recovery or future success. The liberal approach to this situation is to provide safeguards for such times as market forces put these persons’ well-being at risk. An expanded approach is to provide retraining and job placement services. The conservative approach is merely blind faith in capitalist markets and convenient indifference, i.e. “[…] the vast majority of “those less well off‎ are where they are through their choices in life. As such, I don’t think government owes them much.”

It’s obvious to anyone who has just a basic understanding of large systems, statistics, and basic economics that capitalist systems will produce unintended consequences that adversely affect significant portions of the populace despite their best efforts. An enlightened, liberal society does not stand indifferent in the face of this. Or try to blame those affected. Only those afflicted with lingering medieval thinking believe people get what they deserve, misinterpret Christian principles to mean, “god helps those who help themselves,” and believe that the wealthy have “blessings from god” for their hard work and perseverance. They have the lazy predilection to ignore the realities of a situation and instead spout platitudes about what should have been done, or could have been done.

This glorified “internal locus of control” argument is merely a means to cripple government’s role in providing for the welfare of the state and gives no real insight into either the human condition or public policy.

Posted by: Joseph Briggs at December 12, 2006 09:40 AM

Who in the history of this world determined that rape, murder, etc. were wrong? Just where did someone determine this? It was not our founding fathers. It was not the Romans or Greeks or Assyrians.

What a simpleminded question. Do you know anything about the existence of homo sapiens? Do you realize that human history represents only about 6% of all of human existence? So typical of those blinded by faith: when the answers aren’t apparent, blame god! So unless you have video of this event where you believe some invisible alien superhero decreed that man should behave in very specific ways contrary to natural inclination then you have no argument, only an opinion based on blind faith. Meanwhile, it’s clear to everyone else that laws forbidding things such as rape or murder are merely practicalities intended to maintain social order. We don’t need some invisible alien to tell us not to murder or rape each other because it’s obvious to anyone who can put some thought into it.

Posted by: Joseph Briggs at December 12, 2006 10:09 AM

JayJay

The gnostic approach is not a widely accepted approach. You are in a very small minority. You are entitled to your beliefs. I will leave it there. I stand by what I have stated above, absolutely.

BTW—words do change in meaning over a course of time. The word “gay” can no longer be used by people who once thought it to mean free and happy. Some people have hijacked the word to fit their lifestyle. That is sad.

Posted by: tomh at December 12, 2006 10:17 AM

If man is basically evil, laws of conduct and rules of morality would be a waste of time.

God helps those who help themselves. Mother baked six cookies, one for each of her children to be eaten when they awaken from their nap. One child awoke early and diligently devoured 5 of the cookies. God praised the one child and glorified for his abilities to help himself and God promised the child that he would always be by his side to help and guide him through life. God chastised the other children for their laziness. The other children cried out to God saying, we understand your glorification of our brother. we were not diligent in the pursuit of our share. Am I the one that misunderstands the meaning of the words—God helps those who help themselves.

God helps those who help each other and God will know you by your good deeds.

Posted by: jlw at December 12, 2006 11:34 AM

surprising perhaps because you have misunderstood my proposal?…Posted by: Diogenes at December 11, 2006 06:42 PM

Hi Diogenes, No, I believe I understood your position. As a social liberal, I agree with most of your statements (the last paragraph especially excluded). Also, as a social liberal, I think the derisive “wingnut” term of “Nanny State” plays on ignorance and, as I stated before, a need to jusitfy some sense of self righteousness by making it “their fault”.

If man is basically evil, laws of conduct and rules of morality would be a waste of time. Posted by jlw at December 12, 2006 11:34 AM

Wouldn’t the purpose then of rules of conduct and morality be to ensure an adequatly diverse gene pool? Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at December 12, 2006 12:43 PM

Joseph Briggs

You attribute a blind faith to believe the things I do.

Yours also would fall into the same rationale. What proof do you have for your statements above?

You people are not opening up to the very basic things of life and death. You speak of ghosts, gnosticism, myths, among other ideas.

There is basic understanding that eludes you. You have grown to adults knowing that it is against the law to rape, kill, steal, etc. The elementary question is who decided that these things are right or wrong. People today are trying to change whether moral laws are right or wrong. Babies are being killed. Sodomy is legalized. Marriage between one man and one woman is being challenged. These are all fundamental changes being made by radical and immoral people and or organizations. But, back to the elementary question, who first determined the rightness or wrongness of moral codes? None of you have answered this. Instead you make claims that it has always been that way, or it is just common sense. Well to some it is not that easy. So a few of you are on a quest to try to find that answer. God Bless and I hope you find the truth. This is my last statement on this posting.

Posted by: tomh at December 12, 2006 01:36 PM

kevin23

Yes, your theory works great if everyone is healthy mentally and physically, has been brought up in a healthy home with involved parents and access to adequate resources and education, or is embedded in a community largely made up of such people who care for and support them. Unfortunately this idyllic situation has never, ever occurred. There were some times when the existence of people not in this situation wasn’t widely known, as mass communication was in its infancy and isolated communities and those bereft of visibility by existing communication media that focused only on the middle class interests were not part of the general concept of America. But we know now that they existed then and do so now. It is only with great effort or willful ignorance that one can assert that they don’t exist today. If you and your fellow travelers really felt the way you state, that is, that private giving should address the needs of such individuals, then the coffers of charities would be overflowing and would dwarf the power of taxation to accumulate funds for such relief. The fact that they don’t gives lie to your assertions that your approach would work. Again, the position you take is simply a way of organizing political thought around the central concept of “Don’t take my money.” It doesn’t demonstrate that you give a rip about those in need, but that you want to pretend that they all just deserve their plight and it’s someone else’s burden to address their need. Your response didn’t really say anything to counter this, it just repeated the same canard.

Posted by: mental wimp at December 12, 2006 01:56 PM

Tomh:

For many of us it is just plain common sense, and as a species learning what works, perhaps even by trial and error.

Posted by: womanmarine at December 12, 2006 03:00 PM

You attribute a blind faith to believe the things I do. Yours also would fall into the same rationale. What proof do you have for your statements above?

Anthropological and historical study does not equal blind faith. Certainly there won’t ever be any absolute proof either way since we have no record of events over 150,000 years ago, but what certainly cannot stand to reason is the claim that some invisible alien initiated moral codes when there is no evidence of this invisible alien. Meanwhile there is evidence of evolving legal systems circa 3000 BCE down to Hammurabi, circa 1750 BCE. It also makes for a sound theory that humans evolved systems of social control in order to maintain order in ever increasing populations. It does not make for sound theory to postulate that an invisible alien came down and told us stoopid humans how we shouldn’t rape and murder each other.

You admit that the question is elementary and despite evidence that humans can solve extremely complex problems (even so far as to organize into towns and cities, invent cheese, wine and beer, domesticate grains, create irrigation systems, develop systems of trade and bureaucracy, and build massive structures that we can barely replicate today) we are still somehow unable to figure out for ourselves that random and rampant murder or rape within the community is a bad thing. Amazing.

Posted by: Joseph Briggs at December 12, 2006 03:29 PM

dave1 -

ha! i mean no offense… i just had a sneaking suspicion that the paragraph which you mention would not settle well with you. :)

i was attempting to explain why this approach is both necessary and desirable from any perspective (liberal or conservative), for anyone who values society and the obligations which being a member of a society entails.

that particular paragraph provides better justification for me than merely ‘help them because they require it,’ which naturally leads one to question *why* they require it… and then we’re right back at assessing blame.

it’s mutually beneficial, (as well as somewhat obligatory). we are helping them help themselves, and in the process, helping them help ourselves. i see nothing wrong with this - it is only fair that they should return the favor, by becoming a positive, productive part of society (as is their responsibility).

“I think the derisive ‘wingnut’ term of ‘Nanny State’ plays on ignorance and…a need to jusitfy some sense of self righteousness by making it ‘their fault’. “

perhaps. but it can also justly serve to remind us to be duly cautious… i do not believe anyone desires a true ‘nanny state,’ yourself included… and it was you who utilized the term.

let us not quibble about the reasoning behind such a pursuit, when we appear to otherwise agree - let’s just agree that it’s a good idea, and leave it at that.

Posted by: Diogenes at December 12, 2006 03:29 PM

don,

you read into michael smith’s post what you wanted to see; as many here apparently did.

“They… look to government to provide control to those whose choices they find objectionable.

Rather than amendments embodying more freedom, they propose “protections” from offensive expression and committed relationships…

Social conservatives need to recognize that by banning internet gambling, regulating foul language on TV, or tapping phones without warrants, they are limiting the fertile ground of liberty, not enhancing it. Republican and conservatives need to embrace the internal locus of control and the traditional support for smaller, less intrusive government.”

i’m not sure it will help for you to read the post over, but perhaps you should focus some attention on the above. these *are* traditional conservative values, whether or not you agree with them. he is calling for a return to them…

i don’t know that michael smith would agree — but if you want regulations on these things, pursue them at the state or local level. i believe my previous post allowed for a degree of federal involvement, where absolutely necessary, but certainly as minimal as possible (which is not currently the case).

“First, true morality cannot be kept in church. That is an oxymoron. If that’s the only place *you* are moral, then *you* aren’t moral.”

sorry for the confusion… what i meant was, save your *thoughts* on morality for church… but since you claim your statements don’t stem solely from your morality, i guess it didn’t apply.

“You, as one whom, I think, believes more in state and local rights than in federal rights, may have trouble seeing the need for these regulations at a federal level. But they have benefited society!”

what’s that? benefited society? well why didn’t you say so?! who cares if there’s a better (constitutional) way! let’s just do-away with states, altogether! we can have a unitary government, with all power vested in one branch (executive)! it’s just a goddamn piece of paper, anyway, right?

seriously though — i hate to be the one to break it to you, but that is not a traditionally conservative view. you are pursuing a socially conservative agenda (not a traditional one), and are using a liberal line of reasoning (i’d call it neocon) — or at least one that is a far cry from that of a traditional conservative.

of course, we could just leave ‘traditional’ out of the conversaton, and say that the constitution does not allow for such an overarching, invasive federal government.

Posted by: Diogenes at December 12, 2006 04:44 PM

Joseph,

Very well said.

Posted by: Trent at December 12, 2006 05:23 PM

A nation truly sets up its fall when it destroys its morals. Read the Art of War. Take homosexuality for example: sooner or later, some judge will automatically declare it legal in all states instead of letting the people vote. When homosexuality is legalized, the madness will not stop there. Polygamy will be next. Then PETA will step in and say “Why can’t someone marry their dog?” That is why the homosexuality issue is bigger than people want you to believe.

Diogenes:

People don’t need to be religious to be for morals. Religion just endorses it. I’m a Christian Capitalist Traditionalist Conservative. Conservative means to “preserve the ways of old.” Morals are have been in the past. The movement to wipe morals out is roughly 50 yrs old. Conservatives try to conserve morals.

Read Bill O’Reilly’s Culture War. It has info on this topic.

Posted by: stubborn conservative at December 12, 2006 06:49 PM

Mental Wimp-

Just because there are exceptions to a rule does not make the general point untrue. You are really stretching truth by saying I only believe in what I said because I am greedy or stingy with my money. You pretend to know much more than is possible. And it is condescending.

When a person knows they will be supported, they give less effort. Period. And generally speaking, in the real world if someone has no network of support, they have probably brought it on themselves. It is NOT for government to step in and try to replace societal or emotional bonds. Or to pretend to know what is “best” for a person, etc. It is crazy to me that government could even begin to substitute for genuine personal attachments. Government, through express action, does not change people’s behavoir. People bow to informal pressures, not formal ones. So, you see that I believe your means to your desired ends are counterproductive. Please stop accusing me or anyone else of caring less until you can show me a concrete evidence of government sponsered welfare actually working…and I need more than just an exception to the rule.

My experience (some first hand, some second, etc.) is almost all pointing in the direction that the best way to help someone is to keep government OUT of their life and just help them yourself, or find someone who specialized in the type of support you find satisfactory. Mandating a certain kind of aid, and one that is developed only by the most untrustworthy people in Washington, is just plain retarded.

Or you can just keep closing your ears and eyes to what I’m ACTUALLY posting, and call me greedy again. Either way, it doesn’t change the fact that my method promotes individualism while your method breeds corruption, innefficiency, lack of accountability over results, and good luck ever getting rid of it once it is created.

Posted by: Kevin23 at December 12, 2006 07:24 PM

SC,

Polygamy has the sanction of antiquity and your religion’s sacred texts.

I fail to see how homosexuality threatens America. The gay marriage movement is a movement that celebrates rather traditional values, including stable family units. If there were good evidence that homosexual couples make poorer parents than heterosexual ones, then I might be opposed to the idea. But there isn’t. This is rather a personal topic for me. My ex-wife’s brother is homosexual, has been in a stable relationship for years. He is one of the finest people I know. Every year at his own expense (and he is not rich), he travels to various countries delivering Christmas presents to families that cannot afford them. He is engaged in more charitable organizations than I can remember. He is very religious. I could not without feeling a huge hypocrite take him to task for his “morals.”

Saying homosexuality will lead to beastility is just offensive. Claiming PETA will lead the charge for beastility is just stupid. One of the organization’s principles is that animals are not to be used for entertainment. Regardless, I don’t think you will find many secularists advocating beastility. They are mostly heterosexuals, like everyone else.

I see the greatest threat to our democracy the whittling away of Constitutional guarentees, the apathy of huge numbers of eligible voters, the disregard for ethical discourse, and our refusal to keep our financial house in order. I do not understand the argument that homosexuals or homosexual marriages threaten the institution of marriage. Most of us are heterosexual, and we are not suddenly going to become homosexual just because gays are not as stigmatized in this country as they have been in the past.

The preamble to the Declaration of Independence states that we are all entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I see no reason to deny this principle to homosexuals.

Posted by: Trent at December 12, 2006 07:46 PM

“Read Bill O’Reilly’s Culture War. It has info on this topic.”

Thanks for letting me consider the source. Makes a lot of sense now. Bill “facts be damned” O’Reilly strikes again via proxy.

Posted by: Kevin23 at December 12, 2006 07:54 PM

stubburn,

“Take homosexuality for example: sooner or later, some judge will automatically declare it legal in all states instead of letting the people vote.”

i agree that the states should decide. the rest sounds like fear-mongering, or just ridiculousness.

“People don’t need to be religious to be for morals. Religion just endorses it. “

yes, i realize this, as well as agree. religion does not guarantee morals, however. (though, i believe it helps). my argument concerning religion was that to conflate religion and politics sullies them both. when you bring religion into politics, you will inevitably end up with politics contaminating your religion, as well… therefore…

“I’m a Christian Capitalist Traditionalist Conservative. Conservative means to “preserve the ways of old.” Morals are have been in the past. The movement to wipe morals out is roughly 50 yrs old. Conservatives try to conserve morals.”

preserve them, by all means. but do so outside of the realm of politics… and if you cannot avoid politics in preserving your morals, do so locally. do not push ‘your morals’ on the rest of us - we’ll only push back, and harder.

recall, that is why we didn’t like the liberals pushing their ‘morals’ on us? see what happened? learn the lesson that they refuse to.

“Read Bill O’Reilly’s Culture War. It has info on this topic.”

it hurts to hear you cite this pompous ass. he makes us look bad (like hillary for dems).

Posted by: Diogenes at December 12, 2006 09:54 PM

Take homosexuality for example: sooner or later, some judge will automatically declare it legal in all states instead of letting the people vote.

Rights such as these are inalienable. They are not up to popular vote. Many basic human rights would not withstand a popular vote.

When homosexuality is legalized, the madness will not stop there. Polygamy will be next.

Huh. I thought all the gay bashing from the Right was supposed to be to protect the sacred tradition of marriage. I’m afraid polygamy is a part of that tradition. Or is it just to protect those parts of the tradition that you guys like?

Snark aside, the polygamy argument is a slippery slope fallacy. Marriage is a civil contract between two consenting adults that comes with specific benefits. Eliminating prejudicial language such as “a contract between a man and a woman” that restrict this contract to specific sex pairs does not entail allowing multiple partners entering into a similar contract.

As a nation that believes itself to represent equal rights for all people, we have a moral obligation to allow any subset of people to have the same opportunities as any other subset. The worst thing we could do is work into our constitution the kind of bigotry as expressed in a gay marriage ban.

Posted by: Joseph Briggs at December 13, 2006 08:39 AM

And what Trent said.

Posted by: Joseph Briggs at December 13, 2006 08:40 AM

there is no such right guaranteeing legal recognition of civil contracts in the constitution. thus, the states have the right to define these unions themselves.

the constitution does suggest that all citizens must be treated equally (and that’s your best argument), but i interpret that to mean within a given state (after all, capital punishment is not applied equally in all states, or even applied at all in some) - many others interpret that to mean that gay men have the same right to marry a woman, and v.v.

this would not be my interpretation, but the argument has some validity - it is an argument, and one which the constitution does not address, and so should be decided within a given state.

i think this pro-natal policy (legally recognized marriage or union) is obsolete or even counter-productive here in the states, and should be eliminated altogether… but that’s just my take. i would have the government stay out of personal relationships… and leave marriage to religion.

Posted by: Diogenes at December 13, 2006 01:33 PM

On issues such as these…let the people vote.

Posted by: stubborn conservative at December 13, 2006 04:59 PM

there is no such right guaranteeing legal recognition of civil contracts in the constitution.

it is an argument, and one which the constitution does not address,

You do realize that US law uses Common Law and precedence, right? Constitutional Law is not just reading the constitution. Try this and this.

The right to privacy (and privacy in marriage) is assumed (actually intuited) and it has been stated explicitly in court rulings (see the first link). Privacy basically means it’s none of our damn business. And since we have this civil contract of marriage (which bestows extra rights and privileges) that two people can enter into under sound mind and free will, it’s none of our business what the sex is of the two parties. The federal government has no power to abridge this right (without some radical constitutional amendment), the states would be remiss of the 14th if they tried, and if they tried, the federal government would be allowed to step in and strike such state law down under precedence derived from the 14th - because our national character is not about bigotry and exclusion, it’s about tolerance and inclusion.

Posted by: Joseph Briggs at December 13, 2006 09:21 PM

“The right to privacy (and privacy in marriage) is assumed (actually intuited) and it has been stated explicitly in court rulings (see the first link). Privacy basically means it’s none of our damn business. “

this is my point. keep the government out of marriage. the government has no right to any position on the matter.

as per you assertion regarding precedent;
yes there is such a thing as precedence, but it can be overturned…

i would have the fed stay out of it altogether, and leave the decisions to the states. you would have it be a federal issue - hence the attempts at a constitutional amendment. you are your own enemy, in this instance.

issues which are not brought before the supreme court cannot be decided by the supreme court. should this matter be brought before them, you will have only yourself to blame if they rule against you.

i would have the states decide, because what occurs in other states, especially regarding this matter, will not affect me and mine.

you would risk it all on a wager that the courts will side with you. much law is derived from common law and precedence… but such is not nearly as solid a ground to craft law as the constitution.

more importantly, there is no common law nor precedent unequivally stating that gay men and women must be allowed to attain legal recognition of their union… so we are back where we started. you wish to create precedent and common law, not cite it as due cause… and it may backfire in your face.

Posted by: Diogenes at December 13, 2006 09:47 PM

if you wish to have the fed prevent *any* regulation on marriage, bestow any privileges or rights, for anyone… then i would say you have a valid point. i would still have the states make their own decision, but i would be willing to recognize such a compromise as legit, practical, and constitutional.

Posted by: Diogenes at December 13, 2006 10:01 PM

you would have it be a federal issue - hence the attempts at a constitutional amendment. you are your own enemy, in this instance.

I’m referring to the constitutional amendment proposed by the Right. I don’t support that and I find the idea radical.

issues which are not brought before the supreme court cannot be decided by the supreme court. should this matter be brought before them, you will have only yourself to blame if they rule against you.

They may but as you said, precedence can be overturned.

i would have the states