In response to:

'Fiscal' Conservatism Needs 'Social' Conservatism

Basset Hound Wrote: Jan 22, 2013 2:38 PM
What about adultery. That one is about violating a marriage vow and the betrayal of another human being.
Donjindra Wrote: Jan 22, 2013 4:37 PM
"Just because something is legal does not make it moral. We are called to be moral, not just to obey the laws. "

No kidding. That's not the issue.
David3036 Wrote: Jan 22, 2013 3:37 PM
Please just RE-READ my comment. There was NO reference to what is moral or immoral -- only that the 10 commandments and the Biblical taboos in general are NOT the basis for our laws in this country. Nor SHOULD they be. That would make about as much sense as basing them on Muslim beliefs.
Gentillylace Wrote: Jan 22, 2013 3:29 PM
Just because something is legal does not make it moral. We are called to be moral, not just to obey the laws.
Donjindra Wrote: Jan 22, 2013 3:00 PM
"What about adultery."

There are either no laws against it or they're not enforced or enforceable.
David3036 Wrote: Jan 22, 2013 2:51 PM
But it's not illegal, is it?
For some years now, we have been told about a major division within American conservatism: fiscal conservatives vs. social conservatives.

This division is hurting conservatism and hurting America -- because the survival of American values depends on both fiscal and social conservatism. Furthermore, the division is logically and morally untenable. A conservative conserves all American values, not just economic ones.

By "social conservatism," I am referring to the second and third components of what I call the American Trinity -- liberty, "In God We Trust" and "E Pluribus Unum."

It is worth noting that a similar bifurcation does not exist on the left. One...

Related Tags: Conservatives