Progressives unseated all 59 Republican judges up for re-election in Houston in the midterms

[Smokin Joe]

It's frustrating that more people don't understand that there are still extremely clear and significant differences between the left and right when you take social issues out of the equation. Secular conservatism is a thing. We're not going to sprint down the path to socialism if conservatives drop the social issues and focus on economic ones instead. I think that will actually help us avoid socialism by refocusing on the merits of capitalism and conservative immigration standards. It's over if the left keeps gaining momentum like they have been.

I'm starting to think that these social issues are more important to a lot of people than actual economic conservatism.

We have already s[printed down the path to socialism, you just missed it. When the whole mess is doing what yoiu thing kis wrong, is headed in the wrong direction, just some faster than the rest, do we go all pragmatic and vote for the people who might keep us from abject totalitarianism in our lifetimes (and stick our progeny with that slow moving trainwreck) or do we try to stop the whole shooting match and turn it around?

What I'm NOT hearing, sadly, is the idea that the socialist policies which have been imposed WILL be or even CAN be rolled back--something the TEA party espoused, and elected swarms of GOP people to The House who promptly forgot why they were there--and until you start pushing in that direction, away from Socialist Secular Humanism, you are traveling away from the objective, away from a Constitutional Republic and toward totalitarianism, no matter who is driving, or how slowly they are going. 

[TomSea]

It is irrelevant that most of the Founders were religious.  They deliberately established a secular, Constitutional, Republic.   The very person who wrote the words you cite in the Declaration also wrote of a "wall of separation" between church and state.   

Go on and sally forth with your Christian crusade.  Just don't enlist the government.   

These are hateful words.

No wonder one is echoing blame at other groups have in history including the Democrats own Klan.

[TomSea]

My experience is those who plug for infertile and indeed fake marriages are the first ones to be pro-choice.

So many upset about gay things strike at Christianity and psychologically are for abortion to smear Christianity even more

And no, Trump may have said something like it is sweet Elton Johngot married but I would not say he is a same-sex marriage supporter.

[Dexter]

I would not say he is a same-sex marriage supporter.

! No longer available

You sure?

[HoustonSam]

It is irrelevant that most of the Founders were religious.  They deliberately established a secular, Constitutional, Republic.   The very person who wrote the words you cite in the Declaration also wrote of a "wall of separation" between church and state.   

Hi @Jazzhead.  Good to see you.  I think I saw something mentioned here recently about an injury you had experienced, a tendon perhaps, which I had not realized.  I hope you are well, and I wish you and yours all the best this Thanksgiving and Christmas.

Certainly the founders did not write Christianity into the Constitution - no religious tests for public office, no establishment of religion - but it doesn't follow that they established a *secular* republic.  That they were religious, and (I think more importantly) that those who in the several states voted to adopt the Constitution were also religious, is hardly irrelevant to our understanding of the character of the republic they did establish.  Adams and Franklin made oft-since-quoted statements about the necessity of religious character to the success of the Republic, and in Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association (not a binding, legal document, please note) his "wall of separation" was between *church* and state, not *faith* and state.  Locke, himself the father of the Natural Rights idea, wrote that we are all the servants and property of God.

Of course we have since rejected some of the beliefs of the founders; our respect for them need not bind us to all of their thoughts.  The "American Experiment" continues to evolve, and while I join those who lament a general descent, the experiment is not yet concluded.

Practically speaking you and @Dexter might be correct; maybe a voting majority for social conservative thinking is no longer possible in the US.  But there has to be some *philosophical* precedent to our *political* thinking about right and wrong.  I believe that philosophical precedent originally *was* rooted in Judeo-Christian beliefs, and it was the fundamental source of the "United" in "United States"; the Constitution simply put mechanical structure to governance, consistent with those pre-existing beliefs.  If we insist that those beliefs now have no place in thinking about government, with what do we replace them?

[Smokin Joe]

It is irrelevant that most of the Founders were religious.  They deliberately established a secular, Constitutional, Republic.   The very person who wrote the words you cite in the Declaration also wrote of a "wall of separation" between church and state.   

Go on and sally forth with your Christian crusade.  Just don't enlist the government.   

I am not on a religious crusade, any more than one who advocates murder and stealing are morally wrong, for starters. Considering that those two were mentioned in the Ten Commandments, do we abandon the morality implicit for the purpose of shedding a religious context?
No, we don't. Yet the Founders did not require a religious test for holding office, and did not impose a specific religion on the masses, instead sought a guarantee that the People would be free to worship (or not) as they chose.
That did not keep the laws from reflecting that set of moral absolutes, any more than the influences of religious philosophers were abandoned in forming that same Republic. When people mention social issues, I must note the first villain you call on is organized religion, specifically Christianity, yet it that selfsame Christian philosophy which is strongly reflected in the writings, thoughts, and indeed, the Republic. Abandon that and the vacuum will be filled with something, and other ideologies as fervently adhered to as Christianity are available, from the Secular Humanism of the Marxists, to the 'kindness' of the eugenicists, to any of a host of other belief systems you might not find as equitable or forgiving as the Christian ethos.

So what do you propose to replace that with? A system which values only profit? one which imposes the redistribution of the fruits of the labors of those who work hard to those who will not? One which says murder is okay as long as your age is  not between two arbitrary numbers? because when you stop dealing in absolutes, you now make everything negotiable, everything becomes a matter of 'pragmatism' or 'expediency', and no one, repeat, no one is safe from the depredations of the mob.

[GrouchoTex]

@Smokin Joe

because when you stop dealing in absolutes, you now make everything negotiable, everything becomes a matter of 'pragmatism' or 'expediency', and no one, repeat, no one is safe from the depredations of the mob.

An excellent point, and history is rife with examples.

[Jazzhead]

Practically speaking you and @Dexter might be correct; maybe a voting majority for social conservative thinking is no longer possible in the US.  But there has to be some *philosophical* precedent to our *political* thinking about right and wrong.  I believe that philosophical precedent originally *was* rooted in Judeo-Christian beliefs, and it was the fundamental source of the "United" in "United States"; the Constitution simply put mechanical structure to governance, consistent with those pre-existing beliefs.  If we insist that those beliefs now have no place in thinking about government, with what do we replace them?

Hi @HoustonSam , thanks for the greeting and happy Thanksgiving to you too!    That's my favorite holiday, btw, because it exemplifies true Christian values far better than the commercially bloated, materialistic mess that the Christmas season has become.   My favorite Christmas activity, by the way, is watching A Charlie Brown Christmas -  what a beautiful, simple explanation of what Christmas ought to be about.

I've never suggested that our Republic can succeed without a firm grounding in moral principles.  Liberty is not license.   I've limited my commentary to the two "hot button" issues of abortion and gay marriage where social conservatives have, IMO,  done the most damage to the conservative cause by driving moderates from our coalition.    That Christianity promotes moral values isn't in dispute and isn't the point, the enlistment of government to enforce religious morality is. 

 You speak of "right and wrong".   I don't disagree.  But it is not universally accepted as "right" that gays be marginalized. or discriminated against or prevented from marrying or accessing goods and services.   To me, a true Christian bakes the cake he advertises to provide.   That's being true to one's word.  A true Christian doesn't spurn and humiliate his customer out of some selfish concern that he not "celebrate" sin. 

[TomSea]

A lot of gay rights advocates are solidly for abortion to thumb their nose at Christians.  They can't reproduce, they have to take out their frustrations somewhere, nor do they feed millions every day but their lifestyle ways must be protected I suppose.

[HoustonSam]

You speak of "right and wrong".   I don't disagree.

We seem to agree that the law must reflect some moral beliefs.  What source do we consult to determine these beliefs?

But it is not universally accepted as "right" that gays be marginalized. or discriminated against or prevented from marrying or accessing goods and services.   

Neither is it universally accepted that a business owner must compromise his own moral beliefs simply to remain in business.  Universal acceptance is clearly *not* the test of whether a moral principle can be enforced by law.  The fact that we premise the very need for law indicates that laws will *not* reflect universal acceptance.  All laws are coercive.

To me, a true Christian bakes the cake he advertises to provide.   That's being true to one's word.  A true Christian doesn't spurn and humiliate his customer out of some selfish concern that he not "celebrate" sin.

I agree that people should not be spurned and humiliated.  I challenge that the record of the events we've previously debated supports this characterization of the bakers' actions, and I further challenge the idea that demurring to participate in an action one finds spiritually abhorrent is somehow more "selfish" than insisting that one do so.

[GrouchoTex]

@HoustonSam

"The fact that we premise the very need for law indicates that laws will *not* reflect universal acceptance.  All laws are coercive.


 "I further challenge the idea that demurring to participate in an action one finds spiritually abhorrent is somehow more "selfish" than insisting that one do so."

Good Points.

[roamer_1]

Get rid of Christians and the moral void will be filled with something else.

Just demographically - 30m reliable votes, that can go to 60m for the right message. There just ain't no way to replace em.

[roamer_1]

I guess my hope was that the Christian right would still vote for Republicans, seeing them as the more intelligent option. Not having a public position n these issues doesn't mean the Republicans have given up on morality. It just means they understand how to win elections. Who says some of these issues can't come back to the forefront once it's more politically expedient?

No, your thinking is stone dead wrong.
Christians vote according to moral values. Period.

I will NOT vote for a man unless he is pro life, and of high moral character. Whatever else thereafter is secondary. If I cannot find that initial function in a man, the rest doesn't matter.

Just like civil-libertarian oriented conservatives vote federalist and originalist...
Just like fiscal conservatives vote Austrian economics...
Just like defense conservatives vote strong military...

If you are not giving folks their primary principled things, you will not get their votes.

And intellectually, your idea is barren - Utterly barren - Because it takes ALL Conservative principles to fix what is wrong. Nobody can go under the bus, or you are not fixing a damn thing.

[roamer_1]

I think moving left on social issues would make it easier to move right on economic issues. The left won the social war.

You cannot have conservative economics with a decadent and unlawful citizenry.
It is impossible. You cannot have one without the other.

[roamer_1]

Yet, economic conservative will die with it.
An immoral society really won't care about moral economics.
Why would it?
It would be fine to lie, cheat, and steal your way to prosperity, if you don't have a moral compass to guide the way.
It is all part and parcel.
We have locks on our doors, not to keep the thieves out.
They will find a way in.
It is to keep the honest people honest.
Ignore the parts of morality that you are uncomfortable with being discussed, and the rest of it won't be far behind.

EXACTLY right. 

[roamer_1]

Also I don't believe morality can't exist without Christianity. There are plenty of good people that don't consider themselves religious.

Pointless remark.
It is not whether people consider themselves to be good.
That has no bearing without a definition of good.
That definition, that sense of right and wrong, in all of the West, but particularly in America, IS the Judeo-Christian Ethic.

What you propose discards the very definition of right and wrong... supplanting it with what?

[roamer_1]

I think when people are taught morality as children they will often carry that into their adult lives and teach their own children the same thing. I think most good people are good because they don't want to be bad. I think that's all the motivation most of them need. People don't need religion to know that killing and stealing are wrong. Most people don't want to be evil.

Wrong. Most people want to be good in their own eyes... That means 300 million different definitions.
What you propose to discard is the singular definition.

[roamer_1]

Live and let live. I do not believe humanity will descend into suffering and chaos without Christianity.

They always do...

[roamer_1]

I don't believe that. I believe one day humanity will be completely secular and that the differences between right and wrong will still be easily identifiable.

Them that do not know history are doomed to repeat it.

[roamer_1]

I think at its core humanity is good.

Define good.

[Dexter]

Define good.

Not wanting to do undue harm to others. Wanting to help people that need help.

[roamer_1]

I just want economic conservatism to survive this mess we are in.

And how does that happen with a burgeoning welfare state and rampant drug use?

[roamer_1]

Interestingly,  the Declaration - authored by Thomas Jefferson, lest you forget - doesn't mention the Christian God.   It refers to "Nature's God".   Our natural rights derive from our status as human beings - whether prince or pauper. 

Who is Nature's God?

LOL! What pap!

Read Blackstone to find 'Nature's God' defined... Shouldn't a lawyer have done that already?

[TomSea]

Been said before, nothing new....Supreme Court is set to have a conservative majority for maybe decades, oh, I definitely agree, we don't know how these judges will vote.   Nothing succeeds like success.

[roamer_1]

Not wanting to do undue harm to others. Wanting to help people that need help.

LOL! An overly broad definition that I think you will find does not hold up to scrutiny. Your problem will be moral relativism - The very problem at the root of all our troubles.