Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Ben Shapiro :: Townhall.com Columnist
Dreaming Of A World Without God
by Ben Shapiro
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Do you feel the leaked information from a global warming alarmist organization is meaningful?



There is a curious void in the modern American left. That void is the empty spot where God should be. The American left -- and the Democratic Party, as its political representative -- has worked tirelessly over the course of decades to cast God from the public square, all the time disclaiming their mission by invoking "tolerance" for all beliefs.

But now the cat is out of the bag. In the aftermath of John Kerry's electoral defeat in 2004, Democrats explained that they wished to re-enter the arena of moral values. During the two Democratic presidential debates, God was mentioned just once, by scurrilous panderer John Edwards; ethics was mentioned once, by Barack Obama, who was disclaiming his association with a lobbyist; morality was mentioned only in the context of America's international "immorality"; values were invoked only by Joe Biden (ironically enough, in touting Roe v. Wade ). When Democrats talk about moral values, they mean the Planned Parenthood brochure.

Where's God in the liberal moral equation? Nowhere to be found -- and with good reason. The American left now stands for the wholesale displacement of traditional religious morality and the utter rejection of the Divine. "We believe with certainty that an ethical life can be lived without religion," atheistic commentator Christopher Hitchens writes in his new best seller, "God Is Not Great." Hitchens, consciously or unconsciously, speaks for the liberal movement.

A recent Gallup poll showed overwhelming liberal support for homosexual activity (83 percent), premarital sex (89 percent), illegitimacy (83 percent), abortion (67 percent) and doctor-assisted suicide (73 percent). Liberals support polygamy, adultery and cloning humans at an exponentially higher rate than conservatives. The top moral issue on the liberal agenda seems to be global warming. ("It is a moral issue, it is an ethical issue," spouts Al Gore.) Liberals seem far less comfortable discussing the moral implications of a precipitate withdrawal from Iraq.

This, then, is the "ethical life" proposed by the liberals who echo Hitchens: the unethical life of moral lassitude. It is a collective program of moral abdication on the international and domestic fronts. It is the substitution of libertinism for liberty, accompanied by the substitution of enforced fairness for individual freedom.

Liberalism's morality is philosophically bankrupt. Its atheism precludes the human capability for free will -- without a soul, we are nothing but mechanistic products of genetics and environment -- yet it simultaneously insists on an infinite capability for individual and societal perfection. It asserts the potentiality for a triumph of the will, while obliterating the basis for willpower. It champions the "natural," while maintaining that nature need not dictate social relations. It weds deterministic Darwinism to Marxist utopianism.

Despite liberal ethics' internal contradictions, they have largely triumphed in America over the past 40 years. The same Gallup poll showed that Americans now believe in the moral acceptability of premarital sex (59 percent to 38 percent), illegitimacy (54 to 42) and doctor-assisted suicide (49 to 44). Large minorities believe in the moral acceptability of homosexuality (47 percent) and abortion (40 percent).

A morality promoting licentiousness is a powerful temptation. As a societal morality, however, it is doomed to failure. The consequences of legitimating illegitimacy and abortion have been dire -- the plague of fatherlessness combined with the vast killing of the unborn is crippling America economically and demographically. Excusing homosexuality and premarital sex has bred cynicism, jadedness, illness and broken homes.

Forty-three years ago, Ronald Reagan explained that the time had arrived for choosing. "You and I are told increasingly we have to choose between a left or right," Reagan explained. "Well, I'd like to suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There's only an up or down -- up to a man's age-old dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism."

We have witnessed four decades of a punctuated slide down to the ant heap, thanks to the morality of those who reject the possibility of the soul and the righteousness of the Divine moral mission. But it is not too late. It is never too late, as long as the Divine spark smolders in the human heart -- the spark that is always ready to burst into a renewed flame of enlightened morality. And no amount of liberal obfuscation and atheistic bluster can extinguish that spark.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Ben Shapiro is a regular guest on dozens of radio shows around the United States and Canada and author of Project President: Bad Hair and Botox on the Road to the White House.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Ben Shapiro's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
 
©Creators Syndicate
May be the problem isn't the message
May be the problem isn't the message, but the messenger.

Every day I try and find some way the right wing could be more arrogant, more pompous, more insulting, more condescending, more unpleasant and more alienating than its current demeanor.

I have yet to find one. If you are a moderate or a liberal and visit Town Hall you are guaranteed to be insulted within the first 30 seconds for not being conservative.

Same is true for Rush Limbaugh and Fox News. AM Radio. And conservatives sit around and wring their hands.

It's called a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you try really hard to get people to hate your and turn against you, it will most likely work.

The right wing needs to grow up and quit being obnoxious.

He asks a good question
and gets drive-by-smeared by the latest "trumpeter of truth for all time". More like drive-by-propagandist.

These people on the left act like they have the absolute hold on morality, and yet they can't even say where morality comes from because they're so-called "relativists"! Relativism means "there is no right or wrong, just what cultures believe".

You can't believe both in right and wrong AND relativism, and yet they constantly do just that! Constantly acusing of anything they can think of to forward their distorted cause. I get tired of it.

drivebyposting
Maybe if liberals come to Townhall and expect to be coddeled and accepted for their liberal ideas, that is their problem, or I should say, driveby, that is your problem. If you want to spout your liberal beliefs in opposition to conservative ideas on Townhall without hearing conservative ideas, go to the liberal posts. When you go to your libeal posts, you will hear only things you want to hear. Stay out of Townhall, you are not wanted. It is difficult enough to deal with the Nancy Pelosi's and Harry Reid's, et al, so Townhall is a place for conservatives to discuss conservative ideas, not listen to criticism by liberals. It is not a place for liberals to mewl and howl and complain about conservatives discussing ideas. I guarantee you that the only reason liberals come to the Townhall blogs is to spout their hate and liberal ideas. If liberals don't like what they read on Townhall, please go elsewhere, where their warped ideas will be accepted by their fellow haters.

to: drivebyposting
No, the problem is not the messenger. You just don't want to hear the message. I am frightened by the most vicious and desperate assaults against the First Amendment that I have seen in my 53 years as I have seen in the last few years. You liberals want to shut down debate on everything. You proclaim global warming to be a done deal with no room for debate. You want to reinact the Fairness Doctrine to effectively shut down Fox News Channel, conservative talk radio, and conservative Internet blogs. You bring out hateful atheists like Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris in an allout assault on those of us of faith. You even want to reclassify right wing religious organizations as lobbyists so they have to pay fees that would effectively put them out of business. I have also never heard such vitriolic hatred in my lifetime as that spewed against President George W. Bush. You don't have to agree with the man on everything but at least show some respect. While everyone gets hot under the collar once in a while, I beleive it is you liberals that have lately gotten more arrogant, pompous, insulting, condescending, unpleasant and alienating.

More garbage from Shapiro
"A recent Gallup poll showed overwhelming liberal support for homosexual activity (83 percent), premarital sex (89 percent), illegitimacy (83 percent), abortion (67 percent) and doctor-assisted suicide (73 percent). Liberals support polygamy, adultery and cloning humans at an exponentially higher rate than conservatives. The top moral issue on the liberal agenda seems to be global warming."

If that isn't the best example of misleading information in a column I don't know what is. Liberal support for homosexuality? What, believing that if someone is a homosexual they should be allowed to live their lives as they wish? To be honest I'm just disappointed the number is as low as 83 per cent. I wonder what the question was and what the "conservative" response was? Support for premarital sex? Again, I'd like to know what the conservaitve number was. But as Ben is a virgin, I'm not sure he is in any position to comment. Illegitimacy? Well, it's a fact of life, always has been always will be. Do I support kids who are illegitimate? Well, it ain't their fault. How do you not support it? There are plenty of illegitimate kids who grow up with the love of both parents; if they choose not to marry that's their perogative. Liberals support "polygamy, adultery and human cloning"? Erm, if this poll Ben is quoting is so full of numbers, where are the numbers for these? Presumably they were so tiny that it didn't back up his argument to use them. The fact is that divorce rates are higher among evangelicals than among atheists. Who in their right mind is going to support polygamy? And adultery? What was the question? There is no context for any of this - throwing numbers around like confetti doesn't make a cohesive argument. All Shapiro is capable of is making broad generalisations abobut people whith whom he disagrees. his ability to plot a well-formed argument is getting worse. No wonder it's taking him so long to graduate from law school.

Lord of the Flies
If you still read books, read that one. It explains what happens when you leave the babies in charge of the daycare centre.

The next time your twelve year old screams "I can do it myself!" leave him in charge of the household for the day and see how he does. Ask his opinion and don't give him any advice. Hand him the bills and the chequebook and say "Okay, you pay the bills today -- figure out how to make the money stretch -- and you buy the groceries, cook the meals, do the laundry, make all the decisions, and mind your brother and sister. You're in charge. My job today will be to scream, kick, flail and demand, and to undercut everything you do by screaming YOU'RE NOT THE BOSS OF ME!"

When you leave the kids in charge of the shop, you get what you've got today.

The big, big mistake the original Hippies made when they designed their Utopia was the assumption that their despised parents -- The Man -- would continue to slave on their behalf and leave them in charge of all the fun parts of life. Well, The Man is coming up to retirement now and looking forward to turning over the crank that makes the world go round -- and the Hippies don't want that job at all. They counted on The Man bending meekly to his slavery forever to make Utopia happen.

They are finding out what happens when they open the door in the morning and the slaves they thought they had locked up have quietly melted away.

See you in Galt's Gulch. Can't wait to see how this turns out.....

DriveByPosting
If it bothers you so much to deal with people on this side of the political scale, why do you bother reading and posting at this site. Practically everything you have written could be applied to you and your ilk, and far more accurately so.
____
"Every day I try and find some way the right wing could be more arrogant, more pompous, more insulting, more condescending, more unpleasant and more alienating than its current demeanor."
____
This is funny coming from you - just read Critical Bill and honestly assess whether that statement doesn't fit him perfectly.
____
"I have yet to find one. If you are a moderate or a liberal and visit Town Hall you are guaranteed to be insulted within the first 30 seconds for not being conservative."
____
We deal with ideas, not labels. If it looks, acts and quacks like a duck, we're going to conclude it's a duck. We're not going to allow you to deny that fact - it's been for too long that we've allowed you the benefit of the doubt because alternate information wasn't being presented, and what we've got is the usual waste and carnage for allowing you liberals your way.

That's why for you, the amnesty debate comes down to heart wrenching anecdotes, emotional appeals, out right lies and slurs (we're all 'racists' for opposing the illegal alien invasion).
____
"Same is true for Rush Limbaugh and Fox News. AM Radio. And conservatives sit around and wring their hands."
____
You don't have the media marketplace all to yourselves anymore and that's what burns you the most.
____
"It's called a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you try really hard to get people to hate your and turn against you, it will most likely work."
____
Hate us? It doesn't take much for you to hate us - all we've got to say to you is NO. Then you start screaming, stamping and throwing a fit like a child that's had it's sucker taken away.
____
"The right wing needs to grow up and quit being obnoxious."
____
See above.

This whole post draws upon one of the left's tried and true techniques - projection. Be the first to accuse your opposition of what you yourself are and are doing. Then bully and intimidate opposition with names and labels in order to drive logic and reasoned argument out of the marketplace and replace them with emotion and slogans.

Again, you come here with arrogance and hostility and then whine when it's returned.

The answer to my initial question is quite clear: your purpose, of course, is to hone your techniques because your ideas, when honestly proposed, do not win in the marketplace. It's hard for your side to compete when you don't have a captive audience, coercion and an information monopoly. That's why you want to destroy talk radio with the 'fairness' doctrine. You can't compete.

(e.g. If PS students were subjected to the latest available scientific and visual evidence in the abortion debate, with as much effort as they've been exposed to homosexual/sex education agenda, for how long do you think libs hold any credibility on those issues).

Take another valium, DBP. Thanks to alternate information sources available today, it can only get worse for you. The Senate is just finding this out.

AudiR10
The truly sad part is how few people know what Galt's gulch is.If more knew and read enough to get to the gulch we wouldn't be in the mess we're in.

Acetate
You write -

"Every day I try and find some way the right wing could be more arrogant, more pompous, more insulting, more condescending, more unpleasant and more alienating than its current demeanor."
____
This is funny coming from you - just read Critical Bill and honestly assess whether that statement doesn't fit him perfectly."

I can assure you I can be an awful lot more unpleasant than my first post here. And more pompous and insulting. But all I said was that it seems to be taking Shaprio an awfully long time to graduate from law school. You want to grow a thicker skin. As insults go that's probably about as nasty as Oprah gets.
The problem is that you can't really answer the points I made so you resort to calling me names. The point of these threads is discussion - if you can't bear people not agreeing wholeheartedly with shapiro, or whoever's column we are discussing, I suggest you stop reading this.


Acetate,
Critical Bill will generally engage a fellow commenter politely, using actual arguments. I often don't agree with him but I'm happy to have someone engage in debate.

I think he makes a valid point that whatever study it is to which Ben seems vague.

But CB,

I'll stand by Ben when he says that the morality of the Left is bankrupt. I'll go on to say that the Left's morality is without any foundation. It goes like this:

Despite the pandering by politicians up for election, Liberalism has philsophical underpinnings in materialism and atheism. If God doesn't exist, then we are all no more than a complex chemical reaction. And there is no sin in a chemist's beaker, just chemical reactions.

So who is there to define what is moral? Will you let ME decide for YOU? Do you think I will let YOU decide for ME? Do we all decide for ourselves?

But if we all decide for ourselves what is moral, does that go for Charles Manson as well? If I decide for myself that murder is okay (as long as it benefits me, of course) then who are you to tell me otherwise? After all, what we call murder is simply one chemical reaction terminating another chemical reaction.

Without God, there is no morality, only rules. Likewise, there is no true evil, only things that you don't like.

Drivebyposting
Just keep on driving, troll.

drivebyposting and Critical Bill:
Your's is certainly a "Brave New World", take your soma....feed your fantasy.

Me, I'll be in the Falklands....

Can you honestly not see the correlation between the rise and promotion of homosexual activity, premarital sex, illegitimacy, abortion and doctor-assisted suicide, polygamy, adultery and cloning humans to the ever-expanding totalitarian state that will evolve to facilitate your licentious society.

The liberal mindset claim they cherish freedom and individual responsibility, yet they cooperatively stand in line with stoic belief that that are in fact, waiting for their shower.

Good grief...

The left
The more I learn about the left, the more I realize that every position they take is based on an overwhelming desire to copulate with whoever or whatever they want, without consequence. That explains their love of virtually every position Shapiro mentions. My dog acts the same way. I fail to see much difference, except for the fact that I love my dog.

Just a pesky little detail...
Could we *please* stop using the word "illegitimate" to describe children born to a single mom? No child is *illegitimate.* Period.

I'm sure that's not the terminology used by Gallup.

Enjoy your healthy debate about "atheist liberals" and "theist conservatives." Not worth it for me today.

Martha

More conservative foolishness
in articles like this.

To use the same pointless and innacurrate genaerlaiizng this author did:

Conservatives talk a lot about ethics and God, but live so little of it. Bob Ney, Tom Delay, Duke Cunningham, Ted Haggard, Monica Goodrich, and Scooter Libbey, just to name a few. Never mind the staffers of these folk that have plead guilty to charges.

So who wants to follow the God of these people?

And the even more ludicrous posters that assume, because they have their heads up the first three letters, that liberalism automatically means atheism.

Such historical ignorance is stunning. It's sad that people this loud and narrow minded are allowed to vote. However, because of the liberal founders of this country, who railed against their own fundamentalist clergy(read the Jefferson Memorial inscription in it's full context), even the most simple of this country, just because of their age, are allowed to vote, and speak their opinion.

And live lives like gahena all week and praise God on Sunday, and then pat themselves on the back for their "righteousness."

No wonder America rejected these folk last November.

"Free" Will.
"Liberalism's morality is philosophically bankrupt. Its atheism precludes the human capability for free will..."

Mr. Shapiro is confused (and apparently ignorant, philosphically speaking) when he implies that atheists are alone in precluding "the human capability for free will...".

He should brush up on his reading of Augustine, Luther and Calvin.

1st Amendment
The 1st Amendment is in serious jeopardy. The attacks on religion and free speech have increased substantially. There was opposition to allowing Marines to pray prior to going into battle. Certain elements thought that photos of Marines praying was a violation of separation of church and state. In Philadelphia (google philadelphia 11) 11 Christians were arrested and charged with felonies with a penalty of 47 years in jail for protesting a homosexual group in a park. There was no violence, they were on public property, and they did not interfere with others. In fact they were surrounded by militants and imprisoned. They were charged with harassing an ethnic group.

I'm waiting for the PC Gestapo to show up an a publicn military graveyard to remove the religious symbols from the markers.

Wayward1
Firstly, I'm not sure there has been a rise in homosexual activity and "promotion". What has riasen is society's acceptance of homosexuality. I wonder if there are indeed more homosexuals now than there were, say, 50 years ago? It's impossible to know because 50 years ago most homosexuals lived their entire lives in the closet. What has been "promoted" is tolerance of alternative lifestyles. Is that really such a bad thing? And it's ridiculous to say that polygamy is on the rise - where, exactly? As far as i know it is illegal and even Mormons don't do it any more. And human cloning? Well, if you know of any cloned humans I'm all ears, because as far as I know there has been no human cloning, unless it has happened behind closed doors. So not only does it not officially exist, the technology by which it could be achieved is what, five years old? No wonder it's on the "rise"! You all complain about "liberals" uining society - yet since Eisenhower became president Republicans have occupied the White House nine times - as opposed to five Democrat presidencies. So you could easily argue that the Republican dominance of the White House has been more than responsible for the society in which we now live.

Steve O
Reread CB's post and note the snarky arrogance of his reference to:

(1) Shapiro's sexual status condescendingly refering to him as a 'virgin', as if this is some disqualifier, perhaps a malady. Whether he is so or not is something CB has no way of knowing, nor has it any bearing since it is hardly the issue. Besides, unlike CB, not everyone considers it abnormal to be an unmarried virgin.

(2) his academic status - he's in Harvard Law but that's something to make snide comments about as to period there. I wonder from what perspective of lofty academic achievement CB feels himself qualified to belittle Shapiro's.

QED Let the libs appropriately apply their projected assessments to their own.

Acetate
Firsly, I'm assuming he is a virgin - as an umarried staunch advocate of abstinence i hope he practices what he preaches. Although if he didn't it would hardly make him stand out from the Republican crowd. And yes, I am one who happens to believe that experience lends a great deal to opinion. You wouldn't take stock market advice from someone who'd never bought or sold a share in their life - but commentary on other people's sex lives from a virgin is ok? Not in my book. That is what makes him fair game in this case.
My comment about his life as a student is fair game too. He isn't shy about letting everyone know he's at Harvard law school, but if you want to pursue the legal profession you'd better be good at making arguments. Shapiro has proven himself woefully short on arguing skills time and time again - the arguments he makes in this column, based on the evidence presented by him, wouldn't last ten seconds in court. So I'd say his rather long tenure at Harvard is also fair game.

God save conservatism from religion!
''Liberalism's atheism precludes the human capability for free will -- without a soul, we are nothing but mechanistic products of genetics and environment.''

What?? I've been a longstanding reader of this site and never posted a comment but that article has forced me to. How exactly does atheism preclude free will then, Shapiro? And do tell us exactly how Darwinism is deterministic?

More broadly you can be a conservative and free-marketeer and be a convinced atheist, so why does the right insist always on going on about religion being the basis of our laws etc.? Sounds more like Iran or Saudi Arabia than a country whose founders rightly insisted on the division of church and state. The more the right turns its back on Darwinism and embraces dictatorial religion the more easy points the left can score.

Morality does not come from the bible, or organised religion. Cultures that had never heard of Judaeo-Christianity still had broadly the same morality as ourselves - rules against murder, theft, rape etc - while many of the 'morals' of the bible and church are utterly repellant or impossible to live by - e.g. genocide and rape by the Israelites in the OT, Sermon on the Mount advocating not bothering to work but relying on God to provide, always turning the other cheek, the approval and direct investment of religious bodies in the slave trade. We pick and chose the bits we like according to the mores of our time.

And the core of Shapiro's article is just rubbish. There is a long tradition of religious people in the left, and the most religious societies in history have had none of the individual freedom Reagan hoped for.

I take it back
I see most postgrad law degrees in the States are three years, not the two we have here. So Shapiro shuld be graduating very soon... I look forward to him joining the armed forces now that he is out of full-time education!

Critical Bill
Perhaps my wording was vague. What I believe the author to be pointing out, and that you dissected in your first post, was not in fact referring to the rise but rather the promotion.

No one can bear and ounce of intellectual honesty by suggesting that the promotion of these "licentious" lifestyle are not detrimental to society as a whole, yet you cannot turn on the TV, listen to the radio or read a news clipping without being made to "feel" that by having a traditional conservative view of these subjects, you are in fact, having the extremist position!

The absolute perversion of honesty suggests that centuries old cultural norms are perverse and progressive views are the norm.

It's still my view that by letting a progressive view influence your intellect, you are in fact joining the line of the lemming.

Did Huxley realize the profoundness of his work? Are we heeding it's warning?

missing the point
Ben,

All of your rhetoric has no bearing on whether or not god exists, nor whether a god, if it exists, is your version of god.

Wayward1
My own view is that is if you are anti-homosexual it's your lookout, but don't expect wider modern society to embrace your views any more. Realistically, intolerence towards homosexuals is relatively new - history is littered with societies in which homosexuality was accepted or at least turned a blind eye to. Sparta, Rome, Athens, the foundations upon which much of modern society was built, all practiced extreme tolerance. Even mediaeval society was relatively tolerant - Richard the Lionheart was a raving queen, as were more than a handful of popes. I guess what conservatives have difficulty accepting is that societies view on lots of things changes over time - as I've said before, if it didn't we'd still be hanging children for stealing pigs. With regards to homosexuality, progressive views now ARE the norm.

AudiR10 & Dan874; Quick Question:::
::::.. Do you remember the "Heroes" of AR's novel as being God fearing people? I don't. Sorry, but the mores of these people at Galt's Gulch were very similar to those possessed by and expounded by today's leftists. However, with that said, the results in that "story" (prophecy?) were 180 degrees opposite of the results the left has coming for this country. Please keep in mind that I'm talking about the personal morals of the individual heroes, not the collective mores of the society in which they lived.
TBC :>)

Bagehot76
"And the core of Shapiro's article is just rubbish. There is a long tradition of religious people in the left, and the most religious societies in history have had none of the individual freedom Reagan hoped for."

Spot on target! A follow up question might be to ask people to name some large religious societies that had large amounts of individual freedom?

Critical Bill:
You're pointing out the singular. The author's, and my contention, is to address these issues as a whole, as in, their cumulative effect.

Progressive views suggest that we can all live in harmony by embracing our differences. I am suggesting that that is impossible. The reason that I think it is impossible is because we think, we rationalize and therefore we differ.

Only conditioning can resolve those differences and you wind up in a totalitarian society.

Religion teaches us one thing, that we are accountable for our actions. If not in this life, the next.

In essence we have to choose. Either we live by free will or through an ownership society.

G-d is LIFE!, G-d is LOVE!
"A recent Gallup poll showed overwhelming liberal support for homosexual activity (83 percent), premarital sex (89 percent), illegitimacy (83 percent), abortion (67 percent) and doctor-assisted suicide (73 percent). Liberals support polygamy, adultery and cloning humans at an exponentially higher rate than conservatives. The top moral issue on the liberal agenda seems to be global warming. ("It is a moral issue, it is an ethical issue," spouts Al Gore.) Liberals seem far less comfortable discussing the moral implications of a precipitate withdrawal from Iraq."

Liberals EMBRACE a culture of DEATH. Pope John-Paul the Great recognized it and called us out on it. It is NOT just America. Our POPULAR CULTURE is not Life Affirming and has not been so in decades.

Where there is G-d, there is life, love and hope!

Yes, "religion" can be twisted out of shape, but so can any other belief system. In the Judeo-Christian tradition - the believer is to "reach out" to others" and to "serve the Lord," IS to serve others... It is a "personal" relationship.

I see "so-called" believers that for years have shun "anything" that might have the "taint" of religion. Only to see them promoted on TV as being "believers" when they are photographed or filmed inside a House of G-d, with a congregation that they are not in community with.

The Church, the congregation are "props" for their scripted and showmanship life that they are selling for votes into office.

Some men (and women) of G-d are "shamed" into allowing it. Others fall to the greed of "exposure" or other platitudes. And a few actually believe that THEY CAN bring the celebrity back into a relationship with G-d. There is too short a time, and too many “hangers-on that prevent it from occurring.

The good men and women in these churches, especially in some cultural communities ARE being USED and ABUSED to promote a FALSE and misleading message. If it is SO GOOD to be SEEN in Worship – why aren’t they there EVERY SUNDAY at least.

IF THE MESSAGE IS “GOOD NEWS” then why can’t we tell our children 7 days a week, 8 hours a day at least? Why must we give “voice” to evil in our public schools and yet, cannot we allow the “word” prayer to uttered, in fear of lawsuits by the allies of the just same corrupt politicians and celebrities.

Maintaining the illusion
You, Ben Shapiro, are hereby ordered to continue believing in God and all the sunshine that He brings into your life, for the rest of your life, that you may stay aligned with what is righteous and just and wholesome. Because if you don't, then you will be the recipient of the biggest reality check of your life, one that could potentially lead to serious disgruntled acts of violence and horror. The breaking apart of your grand illusion, that shiny clean deliciously empty of trouble and interference amibiance of what you would call grace, but is only a product of your mind, reinforced by your community of like whirly-eyed adherents to this same grand illusion, that sharing of ambience which is their deep empty of anything sunny smiling happy life that thing you can only call love that you feel. It's all in your head, Ben. You are evading what is real. The illusion is just that, it doesn't exist. That nice feeling you get comes from nothing, it feels good to feel nothing because nothing is unadultered and unpolluted with reality. Keep escaping, but stay there, and don't leave, because you are a potentially dangerous individual.

Wayward1
I addressed the singular because some of the others listed, illigitimacy, polygamy and human cloning, are plain nonsense. And let's stop beating about the bush - it's homosexuality that is the biggest gripe by a long shot. Adultery? Divorce? Blame Henry VII if you must, but they're both as old as the hills. Religion teaches many great things, but also many daft things. Taking responsibility for one's actions is not a matter of religious dedication. Anyone can take responsibility for their actions; it shouldn't be done just because a book orders it. I know many liberals and many conservatives - most take responsibility but not all. And hardly any are religious in any way shape or form, including the right wing nutters, a bracket in which I count several of my closest friends. I'm not sure about embracing our differences, and I agree with you to a certain extent that that is probably an impossible goal. But tolerating our differences and preventing persecution because of them - that is not impossible and I don't see why that should not be something that we as a society should not all want. Your religion is tolerated - why can you not tolerate how others choose to live their lives?

Maybe it's liberalism
Maybe it's not a lack of god belief; maybe it's liberalism that generates the opinions Shapiro opposes. I'll bet the Religiou Left seconds those opinions 100%, and they believe in God, don't they?

The relationships between causes and effects in cultural evolution are more tangled than Shapiro lets on.

The article was just a rant . . .
. . . to stir up the usual rabble. As several of you have pointed out, there is not much substance.

Being a liberal agnostic, the most annoying thing about religion is not that people have religious faith, it's that conservatives use religion for social/political intimidation and control. With liberals, religion is a personal matter that isn't the government's business. When it comes to morals, we all need to accept that we can't kill, injure others, destroy property, etc., but beyond these basics, one's morals are part of our "personal space" that should not get entangled in politics.

Once again, we're at a big disconnect in liberal-conservative communication. We all believe there are issues that are too "personal" for the government to invade. Each political side just has a different priority of what those issues are. For liberals, religion and personal relationships top the list. For conservatives, it's their wallets and personal property. To sway the other side, you have to speak THEIR language. (Bill Clinton was very good at this, George Bush and most current republican politicians are terrible at it.) Of course, it's more fun for you Townhallers to just call us "libtards", "sissies", and "haters".

When it comes to politics and hating, the only thing I "hate" is how conservatives trumpet that they are morally superior to everyone else. We all make mistakes and have foibles. Gonzo mentioned Bob Ney, Tom Delay, Duke Cunningham, Ted Haggard, Monica Goodrich, and Scooter Libbey. I'll add Tom Foley. When these and other conservatives crash and burn in some scandal, it's not what they did that irritates liberals, it's that the hypocrisy of their "moral superiority" is exposed. Either build glass houses or throw stones. No one can do both.

Critical Bill
Perhaps the objection to liberal, progressive thinking is that in our lifetime we have seen society turned upside down. Divorce is approaching 80%. Nearly 70% of all children were born out of wedlock last year. 40 Million children have been murdered since Roe vs. Wade. The list goes on...

What conservatives view as their core beliefs, that being the family and the sanctity of life are being systematically reduced to meaninglessness.

Yes, we all fear change.

Wayward1
Frankly, those stats you threw into that last reply are gibber. 80 per cent of marriages end in divorce? Nonsense. 70 per cent of children were born out of wedlock? Where did you get that? And I don't buy that 40 million either. the population of the States just passed 300 million. 40m abortions means what, at least every other woman of child rearing age in the last 30 years has had an abortion? Where do you get these numbers? Off the back of a Family Research Council mailshot? Believe it or not, the "family" remains incredibly important to the overwhelming majority of liberals. I know mine does.


Kathy
good morning

Critical Bill
The divorce and abortion numbers came from a recent article in Time magazine. Either in January or February of this year. The article addressed the changing demographics in Europe and gave comparative numbers in the U.S. to illustrate the tides of immigration from 3rd world nations.

Gibberish...I think not.


Bastards...
Shameful is too nice a word for a woman that chooses to have a child without a husband.

Illegitimacy, unwed mothers, children born out of wedlock. What ever you want to call it, is a big problem, HUGE!!!

Political correctness will not make any difference or prevent the pending disaster that has already begun to undermine a society filled with fatherless adolescents.

Questions, Answers and Observations
Critical Bill writes, "History is littered with societies in which homosexuality was accepted or at least turned a blind eye to. Sparta, Rome, Athens...."

OBSERVATION: I couldn't have put it better myself.

Hal Donahue asks, "A follow up question might be to ask people to name some large religious societies that had large amounts of individual freedom?"

ANSWER: The United States of America. (Also Great Britain through WWII).

Good On Paper says, "With liberals, religion is a personal matter that isn't the government's business."

ANSWER: There is a vacant lot in Waco, TX that says otherwise. Cynicism aside, I suggest you check out Gore's promotion of GW.

Paper also states, "When it comes to morals, we all need to accept that we can't kill, injure others, destroy property, etc..."

QUESTION: Why?

Paper continues, "but beyond these basics, one's morals are part of our "personal space" that should not get entangled in politics."

QUESTION: Why? And how do you define "personal space?"



Critical Bill
Life dynamics http://www.ldi.org/

states the actual number of abortions to be at 47,830,481.

Oh
Obviously one can't take someone to serious who holds Hitchens up as the model of a liberal, gvien that Hitchens has built his career out of his contempt for liberals.

But Shapiro did get one thing right. He said that Liberals support "cloning humans at an exponentially higher rate than conservatives."
I do think we should clone many more humans than conservatives.

But by the way, why is proper stewardship of the earth supposed to be a secular value when it is a biblical imperative? Is the religious/non-religous divide here really the Shapiro approves/Shapiro disapproves divide?

Wayward1
I still don't believe you. can you post the link to the time article that you are referring to? The one about the 70 per cent illigitimacy rate and 80 per cent divorce rate? And Life Dynamics has just crashed my computer. So would I be orrect in assuming it is an anti-abortion group? Funny that. And come on - nearly 50 million abortions? Just think about that number. Let's assume that since Roe v Wade there have been, living in the US, 150 million women of child bearing age. That means that one in three have had an abortion. Or that considerably fewer have had many, many abortions. I for one find that very hard to believe, particularly when the stat comes from an anti-aboriton source. I'm not objecting for the sake of it, and I'm happy to be corrected if that number can be corroborated. I just find the stat hard to believe based on the number of women who could have had abortions. Are there any alternative, pro-choice statistics to compare that number to?

In all fairness
Critical Bill writes, "Believe it or not, the "family" remains incredibly important to the overwhelming majority of liberals. I know mine does."

This is actually a good point. Most liberals, like CB, believe in "gay liberation," "right to choose," "no fault divorce", etc. IN THEORY. But does their practice match their theory?

For example, according to the US Census Bureau, there are approximately 110 million American women who were of childbearing age between 1973 and the present. This is a conservative estimate of the total number of women who might have had legal abortions.

The Center for Disease Control, however, reports that there were approximately 37 million legal abortions in the US between 1973 and the present -- again, a conservative estimate.

Therefore, even if we grant that there were no "repeat customers" in the abortion clinics (which is not true), the overwhelming majority of American women have NEVER had an abortion.

In other words, by far the majority of liberals live "socially conservative" lives.

I wonder why?

Terminology
"You and I are told increasingly we have to choose between a left or right," Reagan explained.

"Well, I'd like to suggest there is no such thing as a left or right.

There's only an up or down -- up to a man's age-old dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism."
------------------------------------------------

Every man is his own judge
Each person has the power to believe and make choices.
He is the king of his own mind and heart, and their sovereign ruler.

Left or right is used to divide political arguments or moral issues each of us believe in.

The law that is certain, and cannot be abolished is the Law of Nature, the end of judgment comes through reaping what is sown with real life consequences or rewards.


The day we can change "reap what we sow", is the day some mans voice can have impact to decide for himself and others what is good and what is evil.

In the mean time, just simple observation of the consequences for actions and deeds should be sufficient evidence some behaviour is bad for results, in finding happiness, and instead find depression, guilt and hatred for life.

All justifications for bad choices can never alliviate the consequences.

So words mean nothing, results do.

God is not mocked
"Whatsoever a man soweth, so shall he reap".


typo's
And spelling errors make me reap a tinge of guilt for not proof reading my own posts.

DocColeNat
Erm, well, I'm not gay, have never divorced and have never had an abortion. So not sure how I could put any of those things into practice rather than leaving them in theory. and as a man I think the latter is well out the range of my physical abilities. And do your maths - 66 per cent is a majority, but it ain't "overwhelming".

Ben quotes Hitchens...
...""We believe with certainty that an ethical life can be lived without religion," .

This beggars the question: from where does the definition of "ethical life" come. If not from religion, where? The very essence of that statement leads to an amoral, self defined "good" life. Without the foundation of a religion, there is no moral integrity.

That is the reason most conservatives claim a religious background and why they try to live a God pleasing life -- (knowing that, of course, they can't) -- it is their foundation. It is also their mission -- to live and proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It can't be forced upon anyone, it can only be accepted.

The liberals on the other hand, by living a foundationless life with their tolerance and diversity are merely enablers of all that the conservative sees as wrong.
So, the bottom line is a choice between living a life based on a Rock Solid Foundation or, leading a life that enables anyone to do anything that "feels good". You choose! As for me and my household, I've made my decision for that Rock Solid Foundation.

God help us all for we cannot help ourselves.
TBC :>)

Critical Bill's 9:34 am post
You failed to mention that all of those societies fell, and why they fell. Your post is misleading at best.

Lolo
They fell for a myriad of reasons, but I also said that those societies (Rome and Athens in particular), are the foundations upon which our socities are built today. One thing is for certain - they didn't fall simply because they tolerated homosexuality, if that's what you are hinting at...

a little reality -
Didn't Reagan father a child out of wedlock? Aren't all of the adulterers in the presidential race on the Republican side?

Hitchens doesn't speak for liberals any more that the God Hates Fags group speaks for Republicans. Or does it?

Moral Relativism exists today only among conservatives as a criticism of the left. This stuff is getting old. Some visits to the dozens of Christian left websites would show that Shapiro and numerous other columnists on this website are consumed with bearing false witness.

While conservatives fight health/safety regulations and universal health care (in the name of the Almighty $) and starts bogus wars, don't talk to liberals about either a Culture of Death or morality.

Lolo
And do you seriously think that by not pointing out that Sparta, Athens and Rome all fell I am being misleading? Which century are you living in? I mean, do you really think I need to point out that Spartan society fell? Is there anyone reading this who thinks that Spartan society is alive and well and that "The 300" was based on a recent event? Ha ha ha ha. Lolo - you're way out of your depth. I'd keep schtum if I were you.

Thanks for the response, CB
Bill replies, "Erm, well, I'm not gay, have never divorced and have never had an abortion. So not sure how I could put any of those things into practice rather than leaving them in theory. and as a man I think the latter is well out the range of my physical abilities. "

Precisely. In your worldview, they're all good things IN THEORY -- but you'd never do any of them yourself or, as a male, pay for someone else's abortion in the last case.

CB continues, "And do your maths - 66 per cent is a majority, but it ain't "overwhelming"."

I managed to reply to your post without being condescending; I'd appreciate it if you'd return the favor.

Now, 66% may not be "overwhelming" in your world, but it would win you the US Presidency in
every election since 1900.

Furthermore, as I stated, the 37 million figure assumes NO second, third or other multiple abortions. The best figures I was able to find (from a "progressive" site, I might add) show 48% of abortions ARE second, third, or fourth (or more).

Thus, the actual number is closer to 25 million women than 37 million. In other words, @77% of US women have NOT had abortions.

That "overwhelming" enough for you?

BTW, the link is:

http://www.third-way.com/data/product/file/17/demographics_of_abortion.pdf

The Black Cherokee
Ayn Rand was a Russian. She was personally anti-God and so were her characters. She was also not very good at drawing characters, kind of like Larry Niven.

My reference to Galt's Gulch was as a place of retreat for those of us who refuse to contribute to the downfall of our society or prop up Generation Whine. This can be a place of mental retreat -- for those who suddenly 'forget' how to do all the things they used to do to cover the butts of the Whiners; a place of physical retreat, such as a retirement community or Monaco or Switzerland; or a place of moral retreat such as a low-paying subsistence job working for wages.

P.S. to Fernando
Get stuffed.

abortion stats
This is a quote from the Guttmacher Institute (very liberal and pro-choice, Guttmacher was a President of Planned Parenthood):
"About half of American women have experienced an unintended pregnancy, and at current rates more than one-third (35%) will have had an abortion by age 45."
Here is the source:
http://www.guttmacher.org/media/presskits/2005/06/28/abortionoverview.html

Nowhere....
Nowhere in the Constitution of the United States do the words God, Jesus, or Bible appear.

I am married, (by a Justice Of The Peace) have kids, and have served in the Navy for almost 14 years now. I am pro-choice, I have a couple homosexual friends, I love my wife, I love my kids, have never committed a crime, voted Republican in every presidential election since GHW Bush, and happen to think that ALL organized religions are full of crap. I guess that makes me immoral.

To claim that I (and the THOUSANDS, if not MILLIONS) of people like me are immoral simply because we don't proclaim fealty to a mythical interventionist being who will punish us with eternal damnation if the don't accept his eternal love that only thier particular church can deliver doesn't mean I don't know the difference between right and wrong.

It just means you don't recognize when you're being conned.

I think Hitchens is a jerk too, by the way.

Please Barry Goldwater! Save us all!

"I am a conservative Republican, but I believe in democracy and the separation of church and state. The conservative movement is founded on the simple tenet that people have the right to live life as they please as long as they don't hurt anyone else in the process."

"The religious factions will go on imposing their will on others,"

"I don't have any respect for the Religious Right."

"Every good Christian should line up and kick Jerry Falwell's in the a**."

"A woman has a right to an abortion."

-Barry Goldwater

Knight_of_BAAWA,
I don't believe that self-awareness or free will requires a soul, nor do I see what difference it makes.

I believe a better question may be, "Is there more to a person than the biological creature you see in the mirror." In what part of the electro-chemical-biological machine we call the brain do we find self-awareness? But even that's heading off on a tangent.

The real question is "Upon what do athiests base their morality?"

Anyone tired of conservatives saying that Christian morality is superior can feel free to respond.

Arbitrary Liberal Morality
Liberals tell us that they have morals, which by and large mirror "traditional" morals (no murder, theft, etc.) and that many cultures before Christianity had the same basic morals.

This is true. However, IMO, liberals have modified their moral structure arbitrarily to fit what they want, or what they believe they can get society to accept.

Here is an example of the arbitrariness of liberal morality:

Marriage is defined as a legally recognized commitment between a non-negative whole number of x males and a non-negative whole number of y females.

Traditional marriage is defined as x = 1 and y = 1.

Gay rights activists want marriage to be defined as x + y = 2.

A question to gay rights activists, please give me your moral argument that x + y >= 3 is immoral.


The Curious Void
RE: "There is a curious void in the modern American left. That void is the empty spot where God should be."

This should be no surprise because the American Left, like the international Left in general, has inherited its worldview from Mr. Marx and Mr. Engels, who were Materialists to the core. Remember the famous definition of religion given by Mr. Marx? "It is the opium of the people" (Marx, "Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right").

Interestingly, what is surprising is the absolute ignorance among the American left and many Democraps as to the origins of their worldview.

Dear stonesean
You are one confused puppy! You are obviously in need of a basic course in political philospohy. True conservatism predates the libertarian notion of it perpetrated upon you and many Americans by Mr. Goldwater. In fact, true conservatism dates to the writings of Aristotle (who taught the natural law notion of the proper use of sex BEFORE Christianity), the Roman Stoics, and the Church Fathers. Their writings led to the notion, in later ages, that human beings had unalienable rights (as expressed in the Declaration of Independence).

What Mr. Goldwater and you THINK is conservatism is actually the belief of the libertine, who, to justify his or her sexual behaviors, created the myth that all morality is relative and people can make it up as they go along through life. In short, a true conservative recognizes this as false and has no hestitation of defending the primacy of the moral educator. In addition, a true conservative is pro-life on the abortion issue, and this is NOT negotiable because without the Right to Life, all other rights cannot be enjoyed.

Conclusion? Straighten out your thinking, and if you cannot, call yourself whatever you want. But have the decency to avoid the term "conservative" when referring to yourself.

Dear stonesean
You are one confused puppy! You are obviously in need of a basic course in political philosophy. True conservatism predates the libertarian notion of it perpetrated upon you and many Americans by Mr. Goldwater. In fact, true conservatism dates to the writings of Aristotle (who taught the natural law notion of the proper use of sex BEFORE Christianity), the Roman Stoics, and the Church Fathers. Their writings led to the notion, in later ages, that human beings had unalienable rights (as expressed in the Declaration of Independence).

What Mr. Goldwater and you think is conservatism is actually the belief of the libertine, who, to justify his or her sexual behaviors, created the myth that all morality is relative and people can make it up as they go along through life. In short, a true conservative recognizes this as false and has no hestitation of defending the primacy of the moral educator. In addition, a true conservative is pro-life on the abortion issue, and this is NOT negotiable because without the Right to life, all other rights cannot be enjoyed.

Conclusion? Straighten out your thinking, and if you cannot, call yourself whatever you want. But have the decency to avoid the term "conservative" when referring to yourself.

Eternity
As I read most of these posts I am so saddened by what I am reading. The simple fact remains that God created ALL of us -- He created the liberal as well as the conservative, the atheist as well as the believer, the moral and the immoral alike. And He loves us all and wishes for all of us to be saved and to dwell with Him for all eternity.

As for Christian superiority, There is no one who is righteous. No not one. For all have fallen short. But we can take heart even in this for Christ did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance that we may gain eternal salvation through Him.

Christians above all must remember that God wishes that none may perish -- that all may come to Him and have eternal life through the salvation that was offered on the cross when Jesus died that we might live. Hell was not created for humans. It was created for Satan and his demons. There is no need for any of us to suffer eternal torment. If we can put aside our pride and disbelief long enough to reach out for a God that loves us so much that He sent His only Son to die for us, we can ALL enjoy fellowship with our Creator for all eternity. One need only take that initial step forward and then God will take you the rest of the way.

Read a Bible. Listen to a sermon. Open your heart. Rely on the words of Christ -- not the actions of a Christian.

Knight who says Ni
Knight says, "I'd love to see Ben actually demonstrate that free will requires a soul."

Knight, can you demonstrate that it does NOT?

Can you demonstrate that you have NO soul?

What happens when you die? How do you KNOW?

kill that straw man!
Am I to understand that since I'm an atheist, that means I'm also a liberal? Well, who knew! I'd better get busy campaigning for Hillary, as how else can I attone for 25 years of supporting conservative candidates?

Oh, and Verbivore, can you say "burden of proof"? You sound a lot like a liberal to me.

Old News
Liberals are Amoral Heathens who think Right and Wrong is subjective. UNLESS of course it is A Liberal Swindle (Global Warming), then it should be made law INSTANTANEOUSLY!

PS Passt out some crying towels for all The Liberals whose feeling are hurt when TownHallers insult them.

"Dreaming Of A World Without God"
If liberals spent less time dreaming of a world without God and more time praying for a world without God, perhaps than they would be sucessful.

However, if liberals were praying to God, a world without God would no longer be their issue.

Uh, cam
A little reality here, NO, President Reagan DID NOT father a child out of wedlock.

The column was terrific and right on base!

Please keep up the good work, Mr. Shapiro!!

YAWN
All these words and lille said

Evolutionary Psychology
Here is my response to the Hitchens/Wilson on-line debate mentioned in another thread. This is relevant to the questions raised by some participants on this thread as to where morality could have originated if a god didn't invent it and invest us with a moral sense:


"One of the weakest points Wilson made was when criticizing Hitchens' evolutionary explanation for the existence of human moral systems. Perhaps, this is because Hitchens didn't explain himself fully.

"Since Wilson believes evolutionary theory describes only change in systems, he also believes that means psychological evolution would describe moral systems always in flux.

"It doesn't. Change merely grabs newspaper headlines. Evolutionary theory describes how changes in characteristics emerge, are selected for, and RETAINED over time. The ONLY WAY evolution can generate lengthy and comprehensive changes in a long line of descent is if there is some method of passing those changes onto the children, grandchildren, and so on.

"This insight also applies to moral systems. We humans experience sharp emotions when we experience events that we perceive as good and bad. Those things that enable our survival (directly and indirectly) we perceive as good. Those that kill us or harm us we perceive as bad. The ability to discern the difference (and to do so quickly, and no nonsense about it) is so basic to our survival, we can't even imagine doing without it. All human languages are rife with such distinctions.

"This very ancient and simple biological source of morality lives within us to this day. Changes do occur--especially through cultural evolution. But biological evolution works slowly and thoroughly.

"Wilson thinks we get to pick and choose individually whatever our deepest fears, desires, loves, and hatreds might happen to be. Evolutionary biologists say, 'No Way.' We are hard-wired by our brains and our limbic systems for the way we feel about basic things.

"In short, Wilson was looking for a "warrant" for morality in all the wrong places. Cultural evolution, religion, philosophy, law, politics--none of these can give us the solid core and depth of moral feeling that biology gives us. All of our cultural institutions are built upon the solid rock of our biological inheritance.

"Religious people shouldn't worry about humans going all screwy without religion. The only ones in danger of this are sociopaths and psychopaths, those that suffer from subtle brain defects. Fortunately, a very small percentage of the population."


In short, we inherit our moral sense, just as we inherit our physical bodies and our psychological quirks. We can't disown any of these. The fear that we could merely by dropping any belief in any god is laughable.

Robert E. Lee on conservatism
"You are one confused puppy! You are obviously in need of a basic course in political philosophy. True conservatism predates the libertarian notion of it perpetrated upon you and many Americans by Mr. Goldwater. In fact, true conservatism dates to the writings of Aristotle (who taught the natural law notion of the proper use of sex BEFORE Christianity), the Roman Stoics, and the Church Fathers. Their writings led to the notion, in later ages, that human beings had unalienable rights (as expressed in the Declaration of Independence).

"What Mr. Goldwater and you think is conservatism is actually the belief of the libertine, who, to justify his or her sexual behaviors, created the myth that all morality is relative and people can make it up as they go along through life. In short, a true conservative recognizes this as false and has no hestitation of defending the primacy of the moral educator. In addition, a true conservative is pro-life on the abortion issue, and this is NOT negotiable because without the Right to life, all other rights cannot be enjoyed."


It depends on what you are trying to conserve. European conservatives attempted to conserve monarchy and aristocracy. Communists tried to conserve Communism. Third World people attempt to conserve a traditional tribal culture. American attempt to conserve American institutions and hard-won freedoms handed down to us from the Age of Enlightenment--American style.

None of the left-right political spectrums of these various societies align properly because all of them include people trying to conserve and change different systems.

Libertarians enjoy a considerable overlap of views with American conservatives because in many respects they are trying to conserve the same thing. Goldwater was a true American conservative.

Fernando
You get a thumbs up from me despite Audi's instant and hostile dismissal.

A woman having a child out of wedlock is no longer stigmatized but it is a moral failure and an abrogation of responsibility of the individuals involved. Anyone who has studied human development knows that a child that is raised without the benefit of two interacting and cooperative parents, suffers emotional defects regardless of leftist denials and pooh pooh dismissals.

Some women actually set out to have themselves a pet kid to raise on their own, the height of cruelty...

TheLeftIsEvil
From everything I have read over the months on this site, it certainly appears that the Aztecs are the true parent of the Republican, fundie conservatives.

Liberal Crybabies
If the opinions expressed on this Website offend you, LEAVE!!!

Morality and religion are inseparable.
A previous post contains this quote: "Religious people shouldn't worry about humans going all screwy without religion."

Sorry, but recent experience has taught us that people do indeed "go screwy" when they abandon belief in God. Is it a mere coincidence that, as our nation has become less religious, morality and civility have gone awry?

To say that our moral nature comes from our need for survival is simplistic, shallow, and just plain ludicrous. People are selfish by nature, and the desire for survival often causes them to stab one another in the back. If you don't think so, just watch one episode of "Survivor." Many atrocities, including those of the Nazi Holocaust, have been committed in the name of "survival."

Reagan said it...PAY ATTENTION!
"Forty-three years ago, Ronald Reagan explained that the time had arrived for choosing. "You and I are told increasingly we have to choose between a left or right," Reagan explained. "Well, I'd like to suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There's only an up or down -- up to a man's age-old dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism."

Exactly. When is it the busines or purpose of our government to dictate or disallow which legal activities a citizen may engage in? Simply labeling behavior we disagree with as 'licentious', or not in accordance with my religeous views, does nothing to elevate my own moral position. We are each free to refrain from engaging in any behavior we see as being immoral, by whatever standards we choose to use.
If I don't believe in 'Gay Marriage', nothing in any legislation or court rulings says, or is ever likely to say, that I must marry someone of my same sex. Nor am I forced to undergo an abortion if I believe that it is wrong to do so. Likewise with premarital sex...if it's against my beliefs, I can refrain from it, with no fear that I am running afoul of our laws.
True conservative thinking does NOT attempt to control, by legal compulsion, the sexual, moral or medical behaviors of our fellow citizens.
I become increasingly queezy when God is invoked in arguments about such behaviors. As I read our Constitution and Bill of Rights, I see no such invocations, nor see any need for them to be there, in order for these foundations of our freedoms to have moral validity.
As our courts have ruled increasingly in favor of individual freedoms, I have felt no diminishment of my own freedoms. My marriage is just as strong and vital as it was before Ben and Bob from Massachussets got hitched! My friends...we are becoming far too preoccupied with what other people are doing wrong, and not nearly enough concerned with what we are doing right!

Great...
That liberal, tolerant, agenda has really spawned some great generations lately hasn't it? Our forefathers would be proud.


Despite liberal ethics' internal contradictions, they have largely triumphed in America over the past 40 years. The same Gallup poll showed that Americans now believe in the moral acceptability of premarital sex (59 percent to 38 percent), illegitimacy (54 to 42) and doctor-assisted suicide (49 to 44). Large minorities believe in the moral acceptability of homosexuality (47 percent) and abortion (40 percent).

re: Robert E Lee
Robert E Lee wrote:

"... True conservatism predates the libertarian notion of it perpetrated upon you and many Americans by Mr. Goldwater...

"What Mr. Goldwater and you think is conservatism is actually the belief of the libertine..."

>>>>>

I think, sir, that you are conflating "libertarian" and "libertine". They two are NOT synonymous, much less interchangeable. They represent two distinctly different concepts.


re: Ken
Ken wrote:

"... Is it a mere coincidence that, as our nation has become less religious, morality and civility have gone awry? ..."

>>>>>

Quite possibly. A corollary does not, in and of itself, demonstrate a cause.


Personally, I believe a different problem is the root of the decline in morality, restraint, civility, and overall decency in our society.


Individual Responsibility and Accountability.

They are all but lost concepts. Over the last century or so we've been so emasculated of our self-reliance that a greater and greater number of individuals believe they have no responsibility for their own lives. Indeed, many feel "entitled" to be cared for and coddled by society/government.

We've been so inculcated with the idea that we should be able to do whatever we want -- and that bad things won't happen. The government has usurped individual responsibility for retirement planning (Social Security), self-sufficiency (Welfare, Section-8 Housing, Food Stamps, WIC, etcetera), health care (Medicare, Medicaid, Prescription Drug Give-Away, Peachcare for Kids, and the fast approaching "universal health care"), and child-rearing (subsidized daycare programs, public education, etcetera).

The government has insinuated itself our lives to make sure that we DON'T make bad/harmful decisions (helmet/seatbelt laws, smoking bans, fat bans -- coming soon).

More and more individuals abdicate responsibility for their own lives to the government. Every time they abdicate some, they're ready to abdicate more. And our society is LETTING them.

Spill pipin' hot coffee and scald your nethers... It's not YOUR fault. It's McDonald's fault!

Get drunk... crash the car... kill a kid... It's not YOUR fault. It's the bar's fault!

Get stoned... rob a convenience store... It's not YOUR fault. It's the drugs'... the gun's... the bullies'... the violent TV, video games, and rap's fault!

Get laid... get pregnant... It's not YOUR fault. He manipulated you!

Poor? Rob a convenience store? It's not YOUR fault -- never mind that you dropped out of school, can't speak intelligible English, dress like a three-year-old in daddy's clothes, and look like a graffiti covered, chrome-plated Harley. It's the man's fault! or whitey's fault! or society's fault! Or someone else's fault, but NOT YOURS.

Ad nauseam.


The more that society assumes responsibility -- or at least ALLOWS individuals to ABDICATE responsibility -- for the consequences, for the risks, of their behavior, the RISKIER the behavior becomes. After all, why bother restraining your sexual urges if you can protect against, treat, and/or abort anything that happens? Why bother studying in school and developing your intellect and your work ethic if the government will support you?


Personal accountability deters reckless, irresponsible choices. It doesn't eliminate 'em, but it sure as h3ll stifles 'em. Eliminate accountability and the deterrent is gone.

Ken on morality
"A previous post contains this quote: "Religious people shouldn't worry about humans going all screwy without religion."

"Sorry, but recent experience has taught us that people do indeed "go screwy" when they abandon belief in God. Is it a mere coincidence that, as our nation has become less religious, morality and civility have gone awry?

"To say that our moral nature comes from our need for survival is simplistic, shallow, and just plain ludicrous. People are selfish by nature, and the desire for survival often causes them to stab one another in the back. If you don't think so, just watch one episode of "Survivor." Many atrocities, including those of the Nazi Holocaust, have been committed in the name of "survival."

I am the poster you're referring to.

Remember, the cause must precede the effect. When humans became humans hundreds of thousands of years ago, highly organized religions such as those we're discussing today didn't exist.

Morality HAD to emerge somehow. Evolutionary psychology attributes it to the fact that humans were developing language, the ability to envision alternate scenarios, memory, and the desperate need to cooperate with very closely related members of their hunter-gatherer band.

Do you really mean to suggest that there was no such thing as morality before Christianity? Before Judaism? If so, how do you explain human survival BEFORE these religions came to be. Personally, I've got a great imagination, but I quail before the image of lying, thieving, cheating, murdering hunter-gatherers--ALL of whom would be our ancestors. They would've died out long before we'd get to city-states, let alone the Internet. :O

Survival, the TV show, is an artificial situation created for the enjoyment of TV audiences. Only one player gets the $1 million. This zero-sum situation guarantees backstabbing. Most human situations are not zero-sum. Ask any economist.

Hal
"From everything I have read over the months on this site, it certainly appears that the Aztecs are the true parent of the Republican, fundie conservatives."

Naturally, they were all heart. :O

Pun intended.

Patrick
What? No message for me, your lovable, conservative, evolutionary, secular humanist Townhall.com participant?

Boohoohoo. I'm so ignored. :(

nert
Nah, Knight has been obnoxious all week on some other posts, making bold and arrogant prounouncements of truth, but rarely making any argument to back up assertions. Apparently all that he knows to be true is simply true because Knight says so. I was just egging him a little.

A voice from the Secular Right
Many people-- including, it seems, Ben Shapiro-- view modern American politics as a battle between the "Religious Right" and the "Secular Left". If you're religious, you must be right-wing/conservative, and if you're secular/non--theistic, you must be liberal/leftist.

On the other hand, it's been noted that there certainly is such a thing as a "Religious Left," people who think their religious beliefs call for such things as a pacifist foreign policy and a high-tax welfare state to "help the poor".

And there is also such a thing as a "Secular Right," people who believe in "conservative" ideas such as limited Constitutional government and free markets, and even, to some extent, in "traditional" moral values-- without believing in God and religion, or at least without believing that conservative ideas *must* have religious underpinnings.

Mr. Shapiro insists that because I don't believe in his idea of God, I must be a leftist. Keep arguing that way, sir, and you may convince me-- not to support every position of the Left, but that I have no choice but to ally myself with the Left rather than with a Right that regards me as an alien outsider in a "Christian America" at best, and an evil sinner deserving of eternal torture at worst.


Dreaming Of A World Without God
It seem that the author anger is centered around a need to control other peoples lives.I am not gay, but I have better things to do then to try to put them in jail.

If Ben Shapiro wants to remain a virgin untill he is married that is his own affair. I have no problem with him doing that. My problem is his need to get involed and manage everyone's love life.

I have disagreed with people on both side of the political devide without hating them.



WRH Bill
I am beginning to think that what we are seeing here is a last gasp of a dying aberration of religion....

i lOvE iT
i lOvE iT that people think I'm liberal, what a hoot.

Here's the problem folks. Do the math. 2/3 thirds of America is against the war and yet 80% of Republicans are for it.

Think very carefully about those numbers.

God help us if any of you people every tried to be missionaries using the demeanor common to this web site, or AM radio.

But wait, Jesus tells us we are always in ministering mode because of our every minute our example is the key to salvation for the lost to see the light by.

Ahh, so that's what my point. Say there was a piece of cheese. Say there was a mouse. Further say the mouse was hungry, just three inches from the piece an abandoned piece cheese on the floor. The mouse wants it, is salivating furiously for it and is about to pounce. Then you walk in. God has given you the mission of talking the mouse into eating the cheese.

The minute any of you folks opened your mouths the mouse and the cheese would both turn tail and run screaming from the room.

You people couldn't sell paint to a painter or convince a librarian to help you find a book.

May God have mercy on us all. We have lost the way, we pass judgment and smirk and leer at the lost rather than see them as God would like us too: as lost souls who need our caring.

Religious Right vs. Secular Left
WRH Bill writes: Wednesday, June, 13, 2007 8:35 PM
*** "A voice from the Secular Right
Many people-- including, it seems, Ben Shapiro-- view modern American politics as a battle between the "Religious Right" and the "Secular Left". If you're religious, you must be right-wing/conservative, and if you're secular/non--theistic, you must be liberal/leftist." ***

I understand your point. It seems to me that both of the less vocal factions, the religious left and the secular right, seem to be on the sidelines in this issue. I haven't heard much from either.

Without explicit language distinguishing all four factions, it would be easy to assume that they are being lumped together.

Unfair
You know none of you really know what real religious intolerance is. I go to a liberal university and I am a science major. I am also a Christian. I respect other people's choices in their lives. However, that same kindness seems denied to those of us with faith. I guess we're just religious nuts right?

Well I am tired of being called a right winged religious monster that wants to control other people's lives. It seems to me that secular leftists, who are different from seculars on the right because those on the right are more toloerant since they believe in freedom, are the ones seeking to control others.

There are morals that a society must follow otherwise disorder follows, Rome and Greece are perfect examples. Religion wasn't their only problem but the lack of a strong moral faith didn't help.

Apologies
I wrote earlier that no one posting understands real religious intolerance, I was just rereading that. I must apologize, I was mad and have calmed down. People of faith in the modern world are under attack from the secular left (not the secular right). I am sure some of you have also suffered religious intolerance.

I agree with Shapiro
What Shapiro wrote in his column is absolutely true. The anti-Christian crowd in America which is composed of those who do not believe in the God of the Judeo-Christian tradition, has worked hard to remove any Christian vestige from American life. By using the non-constitutional phrase of Thomas Jefferson, the court invented the so-called “separation of church and state” doctrine, which is not contained in the Constitution.

Using this judicial travesty, the anti-Christian crowd in America, embodied by the intolerant and totalitarian anti-America ACLU, has launched an aggressive legal battle to intimidate public schools, federal government, boy scouts, counties, and cities around the nation.

What are those issues that ACLU targeted to fight in order to “defend” the civil rights of America? Before answer this question, we need to know the morality and values of anti-Christian pro-Communist groups. Groups like the ACLU do not believe in America as the beacon of democracy and freedom. They do not believe that Christian people who believe in the God of the scriptures founded this nation. The ACLU believes that the only solution for America is a totalitarian Stalinist regime like that of Cuba, China and North Korea. God does not fit in the world of the ACLU. The concept of freedom for the ACLU is freedom from religion and Judeo-Christian values.

Therefore, the answer to above question is that the ACLU has been fighting the very foundation that made America free, strong, prosperous, and humanitarian: the belief in the God of the bible and the free expression of that faith in public life.

Shame on the ACLU! However, the ACLU is not alone, groups like American United for the Separation of Church and State, Planned Parenthood, and other anti-Christian groups, are engaged in an cultural battle to reshape American values and culture. Unfortunately, many politicians, particularly Democrats, share this destructive agenda.

Along with these groups, clown opportunists like Hitchens are making money at expenses of attacking the Christian faith. Is the Christian faith so dangerous that people like Hitchens, and groups like the ACLU are desperate trying to eliminate it? The reason is yes. The belief in God is dangerous for those who believe in totalitarian governments.

That is the reason communism bans bibles, imprison Christians, kills religious people, burn down churches and deny the existence of God. Once God is removed from society, the ugly totalitarian face of the state places itself as God. And this is precisely what pro-Communists politician in the Democrat party wants to do in America.

The assault on America Christian heritage is clear: forcing homosexuality on American people as a “normal and healthy” way of life. American people are afraid to say that homosexuality is a perversion. This is evidence of a totalitarian thought control called “political correctness.” Judeo-Christian morality based on the bible is seen as “intolerant,” when actually, it is the other way. Intolerance against Christianity is on the rise.

The indiscriminately killing of the unborn, which is an open disregard for human life. Abortion is not about “women’ right to choose,” it is about mocking the law of God about the sanctity of life. These two elements define a culture that honors God from a culture that despises God.

A world without God is world that not even atheists would like to live.



Great Article
Well done, Well done, Mr. Shapiro!

Indeed! The Left-wingers are trying with desperation to turn America into a pit of Sin; where there is no RIGHT, but everything is wrong!
While Socialist Communist creeps in ever closer!

The bible says "A nation that turns it's back on God will be turned into Hell"

It's a scary thought knowing that the Democrats are helping to lead Precious souls into Satan's snare of torture!!

Please America! Wake up! And bring America back to it's original state; the way of our Founders!

Jeremiah

Knight of Baawaaa
What you described,is that the law defining marriage in your world without God?
I have neither heard nor read of that in reference to any prior civilization.
Don't use the Greeks, they did not marry eachother.

Knight_of_BAAWA - read further
Knight_of_BAAWA writes: Wednesday, June, 13, 2007 11:14 PM
wjrii and marriage

*** "No it isn't. It's defined as a contract between consenting individuals REGARDLESS of sex. Remember: it used to be "defined" as ..." ***

You didn't read far enough before responding. Here it is again:

*** "Marriage is defined as a legally recognized commitment between a non-negative whole number of x males and a non-negative whole number of y females.

Traditional marriage is defined as x = 1 and y = 1.

Gay rights activists want marriage to be defined as x + y = 2." ***

Your definition is the gay rights definition of x + y = 2. For this definition, marriage is between:

- 1 man and 1 woman (x = 1 and y = 1, x + y = 2)
- 2 men and 0 women (x = 2 and y = 0, x + y = 2)
- 0 men and 2 women (x = 0 and y = 2, x + y = 2)

How about an answer to my question?

*** "A question to gay rights activists, please give me your moral argument that x + y >= 3 is immoral." ***





TheLeftIsEvil
"Do you really mean to suggest that there was no such thing as morality before Christianity? Before Judaism? If so, how do you explain human survival BEFORE these religions came to be."

In the first place, you seem to be operating from the premise that all religions are man-made. I do not accept that premise.

In the second place, you missed the point of my argument. My point is, we have no basis for morality apart from God. If there is no God, then right and wrong are purely arbitrary. Who decides what is right and what is wrong? I've never met an atheist who can answer that question.

For that matter, if there is no God, then on what basis can you label the left or anyone else as evil?

Dostoevsky said it well: "If God does not exist, then everything is permissible."

Liberty First
I totally agree with your argument that people need to take responsibility for their actions and stop blaming others.

My question is, WHY should they take responsibility? If there is no God, then right and wrong become purely arbitrary. To say that morality is all based on survival is simplistic. Much evil has been done in the name of survival.

Some will point out that much evil has also been done in the name of God, which is indisputably true. But that only brings me back to the original question: if there is no God, then how can we label anything as evil?

Dear TheLeftIsEvil and Liberty First
I stand by my statements on the definition and origins of conservatism.

Moreover, Barry Goldwater was NOT a true American conservative. The entire political establishment of his era (Republicans and Democrats), possibly under the influence of JFK and the "myth" of Camelot, considered freedom to be a co-equivalent term with moral relativism, that is, each individual should have the "right" to define morality and virtue (especially in the area of sex) as he or she saw fit. Hence people in both parties were then mounting (pun intended) big drives to legalize abortion, pornography and contraceptives, and liberalize divorce laws. Since the "establishments" of both parties were in on the deal (and, of course, the monies to be made), it was easy for both rightists and leftists to claim this notion of freedom fit their agendas. It was actually a big lie, a big ideological box to advance the goals I just listed, and you, among others, fell for it.

And, Liberty First, I am NOT conflating "libertarian" with "libertine;" the terms are synonyms. If you stop and think about it, the freedom promised by the libertarian is mainly about...(trumpet flourish, please)..."bedroom" freedom.

For a great way to clear your ideological confusion up, I refer you to a book called Flawed Foundings by George Tomezsko (Xlibris Corporation. It contains a truly EXCELLENT essay comparing libertarianism to Marxism. Get it!

Ken on morality
"In the first place, you seem to be operating from the premise that all religions are man-made. I do not accept that premise.

"In the second place, you missed the point of my argument. My point is, we have no basis for morality apart from God. If there is no God, then right and wrong are purely arbitrary. Who decides what is right and what is wrong? I've never met an atheist who can answer that question.

"For that matter, if there is no God, then on what basis can you label the left or anyone else as evil?"

Morality arises out of thousands of generations of hard-won experience.

I define the Left as Evil (hence my on-line name) because they are anti-American and anti-survival. If we followed their path, we would soon cease to exist.

Everything MAY be permissible, but there WILL BE consequences. Not punishment from On High, but real life consequences.

Libertarianism and Marxism
"For a great way to clear your ideological confusion up, I refer you to a book called Flawed Foundings by George Tomezsko (Xlibris Corporation. It contains a truly EXCELLENT essay comparing libertarianism to Marxism. Get it!"

The only overlap I can see is the libertarian tendency towards pacifism, as exhibited by their anti-war stand concerning the Iraq War.

Of course Marxists really aren't pacifists; they merely find pacifists to be useful idiots.

On economics, they're are at a 180-degree separation, on opposite sides of the circle.

Knight
"You also need to read up on argumentation ethics"

I don't think you have any room to talk on that point.

re: Ken
Ken wrote:

"... My question is, WHY should they take responsibility? ..."

>>>>>

I believe the better question is, why should anyone ELSE be held responsible FOR them? Or, more accurately, why should anyone ELSE be compelled to mitigate or alleviate the consequences of THEIR choices?

Barring charitable spirit and people freely CHOOSING to help someone (eg: private charity), if no one else will accept responsibility for another, then they are compelled to EITHER "take responsibility" or suffer the consequences of their choices.


For instance, if someone neglects his education and does not effectively develop his intellect and a positive work ethic and, thus, is unable to maintain gainful employment; and if no one props him up by housing and feeding him; then he will -either- TAKE responsibility, get educated, learn a trade, and cultivate a positive work ethic -or- suffer the consequences (eg: live in squalor, go hungry, possibly even starve).

In this "for instance", the deterrent effect of knowing that he MIGHT starve if he DOESN'T get an education and develop a positive work ethic is NOT insignificant. Take away the consequences away or mitigate them -- provide, through public programs, an expectation that "that [starving] will never happen" -- and you take the deterent towards irresponsibility away. The incentive for him to make responsible choices is all but gone.


Make cars safer -- better crash-cages, crumple zones, seat belts, airbags, accident avoidance systems, etcetera -- and you reduce the possibility of and/or severity of the consequences of reckless driving. The incentive to drive more carefully or safely is greatly reduced. Thus, riskier driving habits follow.

This is NOT to suggest that cars should not be built as safely as possible. Indeed, one aspect of individual responsibility it taking the precautions to mitigate the risks of ANY choice. This is intended, merely, to illustrate what happens when risks are minimized -- it tends to produce a sense of security thereby encouraging the individual to take greater risks.

Indeed, I see it amongst riders of my motorcycle club quite frequently. The "safer" the bike, the greater their experience and/or training, and the better their protective gear; the faster and more aggressive they typically drive.

===============================================

"... If there is no God..."

>>>>>

I've no intention of answering the what-if's about God or no God as I believe it is immaterial to my point regarding abdication of responsibility and accountability.


If you're interest is to attempt to demonstrate a cause-and-effect -- that "eliminating" God has lead to the culture of abnegated responsibility and entitlement-mentality -- then I'm not sure I agree. I believe that the beginning of the decline of responsibility preceded the decline in piety.

Indeed, some still hold up the 50's as a fairly moral and virtuous era and many do not attribute the beginning of the "elimination" of God in American culture until about the 60's or so with the free-love generation and the "sexual revolution". However, America's love affair with abnegating responsibility began well BEFORE then, by a matter of several decades, traceable back to New Deal-era social programs and perhaps earlier.

I do see a corollary between the rate of the decline in piety and the rate at which individual responsibility is being abnegated in the last several decades -- the faster the rate of abnegation in my three-decades+ lifetime the faster the decline in piety. However, I am loathe to attribute a cause-and-effect to one or the other.

If I had to hazard a guess, I would surmise that declining responsibility results in a greater degree of egocentrism, self-centeredness. This of course causes a far lesser degree of other-centeredness, or concern for others. Putting one's self in the center would seem to push others, including family and God, out. Hence, a decline in "family values" and a decline in piety.

Of course, that's just a guess...

re: Robert E Lee
Robert E Lee wrote:

"... And, Liberty First, I am NOT conflating 'libertarian' with 'libertine;' the terms are synonyms. If you stop and think about it, the freedom promised by the libertarian is mainly about...(trumpet flourish, please)...'bedroom' freedom..."

>>>>>

That is an utterly fallacious misrepresentation of libertarianism. I extend the benefit of the doubt as to whether it is willful and intentional -- an effort to demonize libertarianism -- however, and lean towards believing it is unintentional, based upon misinformation and/or ignorance.

I suggest that you investigate the philosophy more thoroughly for yourself rather than relying upon other's flawed analyses (See my later comment below).

Here are some primers:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/libertarianism
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-234230/libertarianism
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/libertarianism/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

Pay particular attention to the "Rights Theorist" as that tends to constitute the majority of libertarians in my experience:
"Rights theorists hold that it is morally imperative that all human interaction, including government interaction with private individuals, should be voluntary and consensual. They maintain that the initiation of force by any person or government, against another person or their property — with 'force' meaning the use of physical force, the threat of it, or the commission of fraud against someone — who has not initiated physical force, threat, or fraud, is a violation of that principle."


http://www.libertarianism.com/what-it-is.htm
http://www.libertarianism.com/definitions.htm
http://members.aol.com/MrSage365/Liberty.html
http://nvnv.essortment.com/libertarianwhat_rcrx.htm
http://www.theihs.org/about/id.1084/default.asp
http://www.libertarianism.org/ex-1.html
http://www.mondopolitico.com/ideologies/libertarianism/whatislibertarianism.htm
http://www.answers.com/topic/libertarianism-2



Libertarianism is, at it's essence, about recognizing the sovereignty of the individual and maximizing the Liberty and Freedom of the individual WITHIN THE BOUNDS of OTHERS Liberties and Freedoms.

In other words, libertarianism (little "l"), holds that each individual is the sole possessor/owner of his/her own being and life and, therefore, authorized and ought to be free to peaceably conduct his/her life (ie: without committing aggression against the Equal Rights of others) as his/her conscience dictates.

Certainly this extends to "bedroom freedom" as well, HOWEVER, that is HARDLY what libertarianism is "mainly about".



"Libertine", on the other hand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertine
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/libertine
http://www.answers.com/topic/libertine
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/libertine
http://www.allwords.com/word-libertine.html
http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/l/l0149900.html



The two concepts may have some similarities, particularly with regards to liberty, but not enough to properly be considered synonymous. Libertine is, essentially, UNrestrained liberty. Libertarianism is, essentially, maximized liberty WITHIN the bounds of OTHERS' Rights.


I concede that confusion and misinformation about libertarianism is reasonable. The image often presented by the Libertarian Party tends to be limited to staunch advocacy of (a) "bedroom freedom" and (b) "substance freedom". Indeed, (b) tends to attract "potheads" who latch onto the Party and/or philosophy without ever researching or understanding it simply because they believe that it affords them justification for their libertine ways.

Thus, the two -- libertarian and libertine -- tend to be conflated by the uninformed and misinformed.


====================================================

"... For a great way to clear your ideological confusion up, I refer you to a book called Flawed Foundings by George Tomezsko (Xlibris Corporation. It contains a truly EXCELLENT essay comparing libertarianism to Marxism. Get it!"

>>>>>

Unless the comparison between Marxism and libertarianism is to demonstrate their differences -- if the comparison likens one to the other -- then it is, sorely, flawed.

* Marxism tends toward collectivism; libertarianism is rooted securely in individualism.

* Marxism tends towards adnegation of individual property rights; libertarianism advocates individual property rights far more than Marxism.


Those two points alone tend to cast (typical) Marxism and (typical) libertarianism as almost polar opposites.

About the only similarity between Maxism and libertarianism, ironically, is the fact that both tend to envision an eventual withering away of the State.

TheLeftIsEvil
"Morality arises out of thousands of generations of hard-won experience."

But how do we define what is moral and immoral? Is it really based on consequences? Many people have gotten rich by dishonest and crooked tactics. Since their actions were profitable, does that make them moral?

"I define the Left as Evil (hence my on-line name) because they are anti-American and anti-survival. If we followed their path, we would soon cease to exist."

I understand your low opinion of the Left, which I partly share. I don't exactly regard liberals as evil; I just think they're terribly misguided. Even so, on what basis do you condemn anti-Americanism? Many on the Left claim America is evil. Why are you so sure they're wrong? (They ARE wrong, but on what basis do you make that claim?).

In short, how do we define right and wrong if there is no God?

Liberty First
"Indeed, some still hold up the 50's as a fairly moral and virtuous era and many do not attribute the beginning of the "elimination" of God in American culture until about the 60's or so with the free-love generation and the "sexual revolution"."

It's true that not everything about the fifties was glorious, especially for African-Americans living in the South. At that time, the Left was right to condemn racial segregation. But that only reinforces my point. Morality is bigger than political or sociological factors.

"If I had to hazard a guess, I would surmise that declining responsibility results in a greater degree of egocentrism, self-centeredness. This of course causes a far lesser degree of other-centeredness, or concern for others. Putting one's self in the center would seem to push others, including family and God, out. Hence, a decline in "family values" and a decline in piety."

I partially agree with you on that point. But again, what makes self-centeredness such a bad thing? You are right to condemn self-centeredness, but on what basis do we condemn it? My question still stands: how do we define right and wrong if there is no God?

I'm sorry if this is not a very thorough reply to your post, but my time is running short, so I tried to focus on the gyst of your arguments. It's been good talking to you.

Ken on morality
"Morality arises out of thousands of generations of hard-won experience."

"But how do we define what is moral and immoral? Is it really based on consequences? Many people have gotten rich by dishonest and crooked tactics. Since their actions were profitable, does that make them moral?"

The core of morality is not reasoning about consequences or anything else. The core of morality is emotional--visceral anger at perceived insult or promisebreaking, etc. Sweet gratification at perceived goodness.

We inherit this emotional substrate from those thousands of generations of successful ancestors. Cultural evolution takes them and refines them, adapting them for each culture.

Needless to say, this does not guarantee good behavior, but it does make rough and ready (and rapid) almost instinctual judgments about self and others a universal human trait.


"I define the Left as Evil (hence my on-line name) because they are anti-American and anti-survival. If we followed their path, we would soon cease to exist."

"I understand your low opinion of the Left, which I partly share. I don't exactly regard liberals as evil; I just think they're terribly misguided. Even so, on what basis do you condemn anti-Americanism? Many on the Left claim America is evil. Why are you so sure they're wrong? (They ARE wrong, but on what basis do you make that claim?).

I could write a book about why I believe America to be the most astonishing development in human cultural history, but I'll forbear hear. To summarize ever so briefly: any person or group who desires or plans the destruction of America is engaging in a truly anti-human, anti-life, anti-civilization act of the worst kind. America brings freedom to those who couldn't even dare dream of its blessings. America brings life to millions who were doomed. And what we can do with our great power for the world's good just beggars the imagination.

Obviously I can't prove any of this as in a court of law. These are assertions. It would indeed take a book to carefully delineate the argument for what I am claiming. But I don't believe it requires a belief in God to make the claim I am claiming and to do it well.

"In short, how do we define right and wrong if there is no God?"

See above--my description of emergent phenomenon growing out of a combination of biological and cultural evolutionary processes.


re: Ken
Ken writes:

I notice you did not address the entire first half of my response to you. Can I take that as an agreement about the deterrence of being compelled to either take responsibility OR suffer the consequences, as well as the general result from reducing risks (re: increased risk-taking)?


I'm not going to address your points about the 50's, segregation, and morality as bigger than political or social factors as I believe you missed the point of my observation. The point of my observation was, that I believe abnegating responsibility started well before the general decline in piety.


===================================

"... But again, what makes self-centeredness such a bad thing? You are right to condemn self-centeredness, but on what basis do we condemn it? ..."

>>>>>

You mistake an observation for a judgment. I did NOT condemn self-centeredness. Rather, I guessed that self-centeredness tends to lead towards pushing others away, including family and God, thus as egocentrism rises, piety and concern for others diminishes.

I guess a better way to put it, perhaps, would be that self-centeredness -- a higher regard for one's self -- tends to lead to a disregard for others. Self-centeredness is not, in and of itself, a bad thing.

However, I certainly believe that WIDESPREAD disregard for others, particularly willful disregard, IS.


A disregard causes friction, hurt feelings, and even violence. A person who disregards others does not, generally, demonstrate any, or demonstrates very little, consideration or respect for others. They tend not to respect others' property, persons, or lives. As such, they are often more inclined to incite violence or initiate force against others. The "gangsta" culture is a prime example of this.

Even if an egocentric individual is not, typically, inclined to violence or force, their crass discourtesy for others tends to rub folks the wrong way, inciting animosity.

I'm sure you probably even recognize this -- the feeling of being "rubbed the wrong way" -- in yourself.

Just ponder these questions. You don't need to answer them:
... how do you FEEL... how do you respond... when some boorish thug pulls his car up next to you with his bass thumping so hard it rattles your teeth and hurts your skull?
... how about when someone feels they need to yell into their cell phone while you're trying to enjoy a dinner out?
... how about when "parents" let their hellions run wild while you're trying to enjoy a dinner out?
... how about < insert whatever irritating, annoying, discourteous habit(s) that just torque you off HERE > ?

Do you NOT feel offended, even angry at times, by others' lack of consideration, courtesy, or respect? Does it NOT foster animosity towards them or "people LIKE them"? Do you or do you NOT feel LESS inclined to be cooperative and courteous to them or "people LIKE them"?

Common courtesy and respect, you could say, are the lubricant of the gears of a peaceable and cooperative society. Without the lubricant, there's friction. The more friction there is, the more heat and tension build up. Eventually somethings' got to give or else the mechanism seizes or it falls apart.

The irony is that these kind of people DEMAND to be respected, yet show NO respect for others. In their egocentric universe, everyone exists to suit THEM. Our Pop Icon Celebrity sub-culture exemplify of this attitude.

Eventually, folks finally just say, "enough is enough" and "to h3ll with everyone else," and withdraw their regard for others and/or retaliate in kind.

On top of that, a disregard for others tends to cause the individuals to neglect "duties" or "responsibilities" that they feel are burdensome or get in the way of their personal gratification. Their children, particularly, are frequently ignored, neglected, or even abused. At best, such progenitors often do the barest minimum necessary to provide for their children's health and welfare.

Consequently, the children tend to, at best, grow up to emulate their progenitors' disregard for others. At worst, they tend to grow up angry at everyone and everything. And then, THEY become progenitors and, likely as not, they parent the way their parents parented, perpetuating the attitude.


WIDESPREAD disregard for others tends to cause social friction, animosity, and tension. It tends to result in poorly raised children inculcated with the same disregard for others. And, ultimately, it destroys "family values", substitutes self-gratification for Ideals, and erodes the very FOUNDATION of peaceable cooperation -- mutual respect and regard -- thereby toppling peaceable cooperative societies.


===================================

"... My question still stands: how do we define right and wrong if there is no God?"

>>>>>

We're not discussing how we define "right" and "wrong".

You asserted a cause for the general decline in morality and civility in society. I suggested an alternate cause.

You asked WHY people should take responsibility to which I proposed, I believe, a more proper restatement that you have NOT addressed.

I asked: "I believe the better question is, why should anyone ELSE be held responsible FOR them? Or, more accurately, why should anyone ELSE be compelled to mitigate or alleviate the consequences of THEIR choices?"

Additionally, suspecting your "If there is no God" line of inquiry was to lure me into a cause-and-effect debate -- that diminishing piety caused the abnegation of responsibility -- I attempted, perhaps foolishly, to forestall that direction of inquiry by hazarding my own guess about cause-and-effect. Thus, I opened myself for your quite reasonable probe as to why self-centeredness is bad.

Fair enough. I stepped into so I stepped up to it (above).

However, we are not discussing how we define right and wrong or "evil" this go 'round. We're discussing:

( a ) possible causes of the general decline in morality and civility in our society;

( b ) responsibility -- it's importance and why people should take responsibility (more appropriately, why others should/should not accept responsibility for the consequences of someone else's choices);

( c ) my guess as to how/why abnegating responsibility leads to self-centeredness thereby diminishing piety; AND

( d ) why self-centeredness (more appropriately, the accompanying disregard for others) is a bad thing.


Thus, your question has no standing in this discussion. HOW we define "right", "wrong", and "evil", with or without God, have nothing to do with (a), (b), (c), or (d).

I almost brought this up yesterday,
but I had sworn off posting to this column...for the day.

Since the discussion has continued on the subject of morality, I would love to know what others on TH think of Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development. The theory often comes to mind when I'm reading posts here.

If you need to brush up on it, Wikipedia covers the theory fairly well, I think:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohlberg%27s_stages_of_moral_development

I know this column's posting's are probably nearly done, but it's worth a try.

Martha

definitions needless?
Liberty First writes:
( a ) possible causes of the general decline in morality and civility in our society;

( b ) responsibility -- it's importance and why people should take responsibility (more appropriately, why others should/should not accept responsibility for the consequences of someone else's choices);

( c ) my guess as to how/why abnegating responsibility leads to self-centeredness thereby diminishing piety; AND

( d ) why self-centeredness (more appropriately, the accompanying disregard for others) is a bad thing.


Thus, your question has no standing in this discussion. HOW we define "right", "wrong", and "evil", with or without God, have nothing to do with (a), (b), (c), or (d).

Martha writes:
It's not my debate, but I do have difficulty understanding how you can discuss the causes of moral decline without agreeing on the definition of morality.

Furthermore, I'm not so sure about the clarity of the presumed definition of self-centered. M-W:

1 : independent of outside force or influence : SELF-SUFFICIENT
2 : concerned solely with one's own desires, needs, or interests

I would suggest that the more common usage is actually #2.

With all respect,
Martha

gosh, I hate making that typo
I'm a comma-apostrophe freak.

posting's should be the plural postings


Knight_of_BAAWA - Marriage rights
*** "As to your question: it's irrelevant." ***

It is the core of my argument that liberal morality is arbitrary.

Since you haven't indicated that you understand the question, I'll explain.

Those supporting gay marriage believe that marriage between gays should be afforded all the rights and privileges as hetero marriages.

Time after time when questioned, gay activists say that in no way does the redefinition of marriage to include gays lead to the acceptance of the same rights and protections for polygamous marriages.

My question is, if gay marriage is okay, tell me why polygamists should not be afforded the same rights and privileges?

Past illegality of interracial marriages does not affect one whit the reasons today that those supporting gay marriage reject polygamous marriage.

On what grounds to you do so?





Knight_of_BAAWA
*** "Beats me. I'm not the one advocating for it not to be." ***

Thank you for finally answering my question head on.

I congratulate you on your consistency. You are the first person I have heard who admits that there is no moral difference between gay marriage and polygamy.

Wasn't that easier than picking nits with tangential issues?


re: Martha
Martha wrote:

"... It's not my debate, but I do have difficulty understanding how you can discuss the causes of moral decline without agreeing on the definition of morality..."

>>>>>

Wednesday, June, 13, 2007 4:54 PM, Ken wrote: "Is it a mere coincidence that, as our nation has become less religious, morality and civility have gone awry?"


Do you think we need to sit down and hash out the definition of "civility", too? The word "morality" HAS been defined. Read a dictionary.

Regardless, it is easy enough for me to infer what Ken meant by "moral decline" without having to have him produce an expose on what it meant. As such, it is easy enough to postulate an alternative hypothesis for "morality and civility [going] awry", particularly when, in context with "civility", I get a much clearer understanding of his meaning.

====================================================

"... Furthermore, I'm not so sure about the clarity of the presumed definition of self-centered. M-W:"

1 : independent of outside force or influence : SELF-SUFFICIENT
2 : concerned solely with one's own desires, needs, or interests

"I would suggest that the more common usage is actually #2..."

>>>>>

Well, gee, if you'd read what I wrote on the matter, I believe you could deduce the meaning from the context. I would imagine that the term "egocentrism" and the entire discussion of "a disregard for others" would certainly clafify it by context.


Or do Ken and I need to submit, debate, and agree upon the definition and usage of various words before we can use them in a discussion?



Now, do you actually have anything of value to add to the discussion, or are you just stirrin' the puddin'?

Goddie4LT
No, Reagan did not father a child out of wedlock. He was, however, the only president in history to be divorced.

This endless debate on the moral superiority of either side is useless. The proof is in the actions of those with the loudest voices. Remember good ol' Strom? Strom, the viciously racist father of an "illegitimate" black child, born to his maid.

Remember Rush? Drug-addicted Rush. Merciless decrier of drug use. Send all the users to jail, right Rush? Enjoy your prescription heroin.

Remember Ted? Pious Ted. Kind to heathens. A little too kind to homosexual prostitutes, considering his stance on homosexuality... At least he supported civil unions. But why choose meth, Ted? There are lots of drugs that are way more fun and not so addictive.

This list goes on and on. And yes, everyone remembers that Bill Clinton got a blow job. Just remember Newt Gingrich's affairs and divorces when you bring that up.

Don't be too quick
Ben, you and Christopher Hitchens would actually get along pretty well together. To start, Hitchens is extremely anti-Islam, has called for a war against Islamofascism and did support the war in Iraq. In terms of personality, he's confrontational and good at rabble-rousing, which is pretty much all you're good for as well. ...Oh, yeah, and he is also notorious for being an unrepentant drunk. Think of all the fun you could have together!
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.