1 - 10 Next
So Christian teens shoul inform gay teens in school of the Christian view ( the view of many.Christians, anyway) that homosexuality is sinful and destructive. OK, I won't necessarily disagree that they have a right to do that. But does it go both ways? Will Christians pitch a fit if a gay teen tells their Christian child that homosexuality is a good thing and they ought to try it sometime? Or, for that matter, if a Muslim or atheist kid "witnesses" to their own beliefs by arguing the superiority of Islam or atheism over Christianity on school grounds?
I hope you're joking, Rondoman, but if you're serious, my answer is NO. Obama has been a pretty bad President, butt a military coup would be a "cure" vastly worse than the disease.
I'm playing "devil's advocate" here since I am a "climate change" skeptic myself, in not quite a complete "denier". But I'm not sure it's completely irrational to fear climate change more than ISIS. IF the "warmists" should turn out to be right after all about the worldwide catastrophic effects of "climate change", I think that would be more damaging to humanity than anything a group of humans like ISIS, however evil, could do. And speaking of ISIS and worldwide effects, while ISIS may be able to cause a lot of trouble in the Middle East, I suspect the idea of its becoming an actual "global calibrate" capable of conquering the U.S. and other advanced non-Muslim countries is as exaggerated and "alarmist" as the wilder climate change predictions.
In response to:

Gay Marriage and the Limits of Tradition

WRH Bill Wrote: Aug 31, 2014 3:10 PM
Contrary to some comments here, Steve Chapman's viewpoint is more libertarian than straight "liberal" or "lefist". Many historians of the conservative movement note the existence of a kind of "three-legged stool" of conservative schools of thought-- traditionalist, libertarian, and national-security-oriented. Chapman's libertarian views someties put him at odds with the traditionalist conservative view and also with the national-security view. But his views still fall within a broad definition of "conservative" or "right wing" and are appropriate on Townhall. (As a libertarian, I am sometimes offended by the views of extreme traditionalists or bellicose national-security "neocons", but I don't call for them to be banished from TH.)
In response to:

Gay Marriage and the Limits of Tradition

WRH Bill Wrote: Aug 31, 2014 3:01 PM
As a same-sex marriage supporter (see a previous post of mine) I think the movement for SSM might do better not to couch its arguments in terms of an absolute "right" for anyone to marry anyone else they please. As i indicated, I think the rational arguments against allowing people of the same sex to marry each other are weak. The arguments against allowing blood relatives to marry each other, or against government recognizing polygamous marriages, are (at least in my opinion) stronger. But when same-sex marriage advocates claim a "right to marriage," they invite slippery slope arguments about incest or polygamy.
In response to:

Gay Marriage and the Limits of Tradition

WRH Bill Wrote: Aug 31, 2014 2:55 PM
I support same-sex civil marriage, at least as an issue to be voted up or down. I voted against an anti-gay-marriage amendment in my state back in 2008 (though I wasn't especially upset when the amendment passed) and I will vote in favor if a measure to allow same-sex marriage gets on the ballot here. Same-sex civil marriage seems to me to be a measure that makes at least a few people happy and harms no one, and the arguments I've seen as to why same-sex marriage will "destroy marriage" or cause society to crumble, seem to me to be quite weak. But on the other hand, I'm not quite as dismissive of "tradition," or as eager to see gay-marriage bans overturned by courts, as Steve Chapman (a columnist I often agree with) is. It's worth noting that Friedrich Hayek, the economist much more in tune with Chapman's and my libertarian views than Russell Kirk, , had kind words to say for the wisdom of tradition as opposed to the idea of remaking society on a totally "rational" basis. So the upshot of all this for me is, that I'm willing to leave the issue up to majority rule, as determined by voters and elected representatives, on a state by state basis. Even if I'm not convinced by the arguments of same-sex marriage opponents,I don't think the courts should just be tossing them aside in order to institute same-sex civil marriage against the majority's wishes. (I don't believe same-sex marriage will cause society to crumble, but I also don't believe in the idea that NOT having gay marriage is a horrible and unendurable denial of "equal rights".)
In response to:

Has John McCain Lost His Mind?

WRH Bill Wrote: Aug 07, 2014 1:22 PM
News flash, americathebeautiful... by the time the (Western) Roman Empire fell, it had been officially Christian for over a century, and more informed people than you or i (the 18th century historian Edward Gibbon, for one) have suggested that Christianity itself was an influence in causing the Empire to fall. I don't claim that's necessarily true, but the idea that Rome fell because of homosexual "debauchery" that occurred lifetimes before the fall, is even more far-fetched.
In response to:

Has John McCain Lost His Mind?

WRH Bill Wrote: Aug 07, 2014 1:14 PM
John McCain is part of the Republican Party's past. I hope Rand Paul is a major part of its future-- maybe not as the actual Presidential nominee in 2016 (I'm not sure Paul can win a general election, and there is an argument against electing ANOTHER partial-term Senator with no executive experience, even one with much better ideas than the incumbent) but at least a major influence in the direction of a sane foreign policy that does not obsessively seek out more and more wars for the US to involve itself in, and in the direction of genuine "constitutional conservatism" (rather than the McCain attitude that the Constitution ought to be swept aside if it got in the way of his proposed "campaign finance reform".)
In response to:

Quick, Hide the Past

WRH Bill Wrote: Jul 24, 2014 9:03 AM
I've read quite a few history books, thank you (including some written from a pro-Confederate viewpoint). Even if you are correct that Lincoln and the North *resisted* secession only because of wanting to collect taxes and tariffs from the South, that doesn't negate my point that the South *initiated* secession primnarily to try to protect slavery. Of the many crises and conflicts between North and South before the Civil War, the only major one rooted in tax and tariff issues rather than slavery was the Nullification Crisis of 1832 (and note that it was the Southern Democrat Andrew Jackson, not a nefarious "Yankee," who stood up against the Southern nullifiers on that occasion). Other crises were specifically based on issues involving slavery.
In response to:

Quick, Hide the Past

WRH Bill Wrote: Jul 23, 2014 12:25 PM
If it's true that the principle of "states rights" was at issue and not slavery, then I find it curious that one of the demands of the pre-war South was that the "states rights" of certain Northern states should be abridged by forbidding those states to maintain "personal liberty laws" whose effect was to provide due process of law to persons in those states being accused of being runaway slaves.
1 - 10 Next