Conservatives and Personal Freedom

As a content co-ordinator for a non-partisan political information site, I am confronted all the time with rhetoric that I find on candidates' websites. Some of that rhetoric makes me very angry. I am responding now to what I've been finding on the websites of any number of Republican candidates: The ardent claims that “traditional marriage” is “bedrock of society” and that "protecting it" from being extended to include such “threats” as gay marriage reflects “religious freedom” and “American values”.

I ask these Republicans: Have you ever read the Bible? Because I have, and most people in the Bible did not have a “traditional marriage.” They were either single, as were Paul and most of the prophets, or they were sleeping with any number of women, as were Abraham, David and Solomon. Which makes most people in the Bible terrible sinners according to the logic of these Republicans.

For decades Republicans have been claiming themselves to be a party of small government. A small government is not a government that tells people what lifestyle they have to lead. Nobody is preventing people who want to have a “traditional marriage” from doing so. The problem is that many of the people who are into “traditional marriage” want to deny people the right to live any other way. And that is a supreme violation of liberty.

Liberty that the Republicans claim to protect; that they claim to believe in; and that they aggressively deny to everybody else.

The essence of liberty is choice. Particularly, it is being able to choose the lifestyle that one wishes to live. This means both for those people who want a “traditional” lifestyle and for the people who want to live one or another lifestyle alternative. A person who truly values liberty will understand this, and he will respect this. There is no excuse for those in feminism who want to deny people the right to a “traditional” family; that's just another form of control and intolerance. But there is also no excuse for conservatives denying other people the right to choose a way of life other than theirs.

As a man, and a father, whose wife has left me to be with another man, I would be expected to take the side of social conservatives. I do not. When she left me, I did not try to kill her or her new love interest; I did not try to take away from her my daughter; indeed I did not even wish upon either of them any kind of ill. They are both good people, and I have maintained a good friendship with both of them. My daughter has the complete attention from both her mother and her father. I say that this is possible, and that other men in similar situations should take the same path as I did.

If I can do this, then they can as well.

And them doing so – being able to rise above jealousy and possessiveness and respect and value true freedom, which is the freedom for people to choose their lifestyle - will make a better America and a better world.

Kenneth Starr, who in 1998 unleashed a storm of vicious abuse against President Clinton, said recently that, if he were to meet Bill Clinton now, he would apologize. This is being a true gentleman; indeed this is true integrity. This is what Christianity is meant to be about.

Not attacking single mothers; not attacking gays; not attacking people who are childless.

For many years conservatives have been claiming that they want people to not infringe on their lifestyle or make them pay for theirs. This is a two-way street. Having lived in the San Francisco area, and made good money in the computer industry at the time, I know just to what extent the conservatives infringe upon other lifestyles than theirs. Most homosexuals work, as do most childless people, as do many single mothers. Most of the above do not infringe upon anyone either. Yet all of the above are under constant attack from conservatives.

Ted Cruz said that there is no place for gays and atheists in “his” America, and that “the Constitution makes this clear.” “His” America? What about the other 300 million people who live in America? The recent electoral results have shown that Far Right, although it may think itself to be an American majority, is in fact an American minority. And no, they have not “built America.” 300 million people living now – and many millions who have lived in the past – have.

These included any number of people who are nothing like Ted Cruz or those who vote for him. It includes the Chinese, who built American railroads; the blacks, who staffed its plantations; the Jews and the atheists, who dominate its science and innovation and have a strong presence in finance, business, media and entertainment; and the Hindus and the minority religions in the computer industry. America owes vastly to all of the above. It is time that more people stand up on behalf of these great contributors to America and defeat the voices of conmanship and deception, from Ted Cruz to Rush Limbaugh to Alex Jones.

To Ted Cruz: No, you are not America. You may be a part of America, but you have no business claiming America to be yours. California is not yours. New York is not yours. New England is not yours. And, as we have seen in recent electoral results, neither does appear to be the majority of the American population.

Ted Cruz is rightfully attacking ISIS for forcing upon people in Middle East its radical interpretation of Islam. But he is doing the exact same thing: Forcing upon people in America his radical interpretation of Christianity. He is not only attacking atheists and gays; he is also attacking the more tolerant people within Christianity – tolerance which, incidentally, is demanded by Jesus. He is not a conservative. He is a radical. And the people who rail against radicals have no business being radicals themselves.

I ask this: What is the logical outcome of believing yourself, and nobody else, to be America? The logical outcome is this: Forcing your way upon the rest of America. If you think that America is yours, you will run roughshod over everyone else who lives in America. And if you think that you speak for God, then you will run roughshod over everyone else, period. This is what ISIS is trying to do; and, it appears, it is in this not alone.

I have absolutely nothing against the people who want to live the “traditional” lifestyle. It is their absolute right. But likewise a right it is for people who want to live a non-”traditional” lifestyle. Both the conservatives, who want everyone to live the “traditional” lifestyle, and those in feminism who see the “patriarchial” lifestyle as evil, are in the wrong. Liberty means liberty. And that means the right for those who want to live the “traditional” lifestyle to do so – and for people who don't want it to be doing something else.

Much is being decided at the political level right now, and the same people who used to have no interest in politics are taking interest in it, because important issues are at hand. These issues are important enough to merit honest analysis. A political force that thinks that it is America and nobody else is can only be a force for tyranny and oppression. And it is high time that the rest of America speak up and tell them that they do not speak for it.

 

Haha, sweet.

 

Separation of Politics and Religion. Claiming that the majority of Republicans are opposed to same sex marriage is simply a generalization. I am a Republican and I am not against same sex marriage. Agree that those of the same sex have the right to a civil marriage and all the rights that all married couples are eligible for. As far as the Bible/Christian Religion condoning same sex marriages performed in a church setting, not sure I can go there. As far as Republicans being for "small government", it has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with "civil rights" afforded by the U.S. Constitution. You are confusing Religious Christian Beliefs with Republican politics. Republicans such as myself have no problem, government wise, allowing civil marriages between same sexes. We just won't support legislation that makes same sex marriage in a church as religion right. Big difference. You want to mix religion with Government when you know the Constitution prohibits this.

I am a Centrist/Quasi Libertarian. I believe the Constitution, as you say in your post gives us freedom and choice. Yet the Federal Government under both the Democrat and the Republican Party are continually taking away our freedoms. Where are actions cause no harm to others they should be legal. Our Country incarcerates more individuals then any other Country. Why? Because our legal system passes criminal legislation prior to the legislation be vetted and it is left up to the Appeals and Supreme Courts of the States and Federal Government to do so. The fact so many cases are appealed and so many Appeals Courts rule differently on the same laws should tell you that it is next to impossible for the normal citizen to understand the law they are subject to.

And, the fact that criminal laws are not applied equally, sentences vary, and the like is also a problem with our criminal system.

Sorry, but there are many State criminal laws that are contradictory. And, many criminal laws that allow way too much discretion by law enforcement and Prosecutors, Prosecutor's whose goal is to make a name for themselves; not to uphold justice for the citizens of the City. County. State and the accused.

I have read many cases, appeals and State Supreme Court rulings and have determined that the law is anything but applied fairly and appeals Courts rule differently on the same statutes as do Supreme Courts.

Wanted to be a lawyer, instead was a medical manger working for the veterans administration. If I learned anything working for the Federal Government it was that I could never have survived being a Lawyer. I would have been beating my head against the wall. The legal system is corrupt and anyone with morals and ethics can not survive in the system.

 

Wait a minute. I thought you were from Australia. Why do you care about Ted Cruz?

 

As do many Republicans. So long as they remain the dominate voice of the party, the GOP will retain its reputation for being the party of social conservatives, trying to force their version of the Christian religion upon the rest of us.

 

Well first of all as someone who said the read the Bible you should already know that we now live under the New Testament not the old one so using examples from that is not relevant anymore.

Second of all, you are confusing laws with liberty. Some people are denied things because of laws but they still have it. Gays are not prevented from living their lifestyle and they are free to marry a woman as anyone else is so yes they do have their liberty. If I ask the government for something new and they deny me that does not me they are denying liberty.

The rest of your post is simply way too long to respond to everything. You should shorten it up in the future. One last thing. Small government is not necessarily about less laws, it is about smaller expenditures.

 

I care about Ted Cruz because I care about America. I've lived in America longer than I've lived in Australia, and I am an American citizen. My family and most of my friends are in America. I did not leave America for Australia because I was unpatriotic; I left America for Australia because I fell in love with an Australian woman. Having been both inside - and outside - of America, I have both the internal and the external perspective; and that allows me to make a more intelligent commentary than if I had had just one perspective or the other.

 

Don't forget incest, LOTS AND LOTS of incest in the bible.

 

So "thou shalt not kill" and "thou shalt have no gods before me" do not apply any more?

Tell that to a homosexual person raised in a socially conservative culture or a woman fleeing domestic violence in the South.

Even on the defense spending?

 

What ever gets you off.

 

Actually, Jesus said that the his followers were to still follow the old laws, and that anyone who does not, and/or teaches others not to, shall be "viewed as the least in the Kingdom of Heaven. The only person who preached that Jesus destroyed the old law was Paul. He preached many thing that contridicted Jesus' words, and as such was viewed as a false prophet, and often, a spy, by the majority of Christians. Even his own wife believed him to be a spy according to many sources. The bible says he was not because almost the entire new testiment was written by him to spread his own teachings. Teachings which often went against the teachings of Jesus.

 

Okay thanks. Since you were kind enough to share, I'll share a quickie with you. Even though I'm hetero, I used to work in a gay bar for a while. The gays, God bless 'em, were the only people who would give me a job. (I was having a hard time for a minute). I used to stock their bar, I'd work from about 9 in the morning till a little after noon when they opened, maybe 1pm or so usually. My job was basically to carry cases of beer up from the basement. And the help the guys with the trucks when they came by. So anyway... other stuff came along with that job, right? I didn't know nothin' from nothin', I was just a kid (20, I think, something like that), but pretty soon I was trying to figure out ways to be inoffensive, to my employers, to the people who were giving me tips, and to the people who were telling me I was cute. Y'know... the first time I didn't know what to say, I was speechless... by the fifth time I was like... okay, I can sorta categorize this by the type of excuse that might work... "Aw, you're sweet, but, I'm busy", that was a good one... I mean, look, that was a valuable job. I was trying my best to be nice and not to rock the boat. There was only one time, when I had to come right out and tell someone the truth. It's a long story, too long to tell. Someone I'd known from the past mysteriously showed up there one day, and... all that. But I was very grateful for that job, and I was determined to do my best for the only people who were nice enough to give me work. I stayed there about six months maybe, the pay was decent and it was in cash and it got me out of a tough spot. I'm still grateful. And, I learned a few things, kinda "got paid for going to school", type thing. Heckuva good deal, yes? No one ever accosted me, threatened me, scared me, inconvenienced me even. Nothing like that. One time someone offered me a line of "green", I had no idea what it was, apparently it was popular for a while. I just said, "thanks, I have a hangover, I'll take a rain check". That's the lewdest thing that ever happened. lol

Yeah well, I digress. "Personal freedom", includes the freedom for a straight guy to work in a gay bar. It's upside down, but I did it and it was a win/win. Anyone who's different, their lives end up being "more difficult" somehow. I mean, different in "any" way. Even if it's just being super strong, or super smart, or any little thing. The social conservatives call that a "social fabric", it's supposed to keep people in the mainstream and on the straight and narrow, but the problem is those definitions change, and the inertia in the social sphere causes great pain when that happens. This is probably one of those times. I know, though, from my own experience, that my excuse when I had to use it, was "I'm busy", so I was, in effect, "feigning marriage". Y'know? If I don't support equal marriage rights for the people who really want to be married, I become a total hypocrite. And I don't want to be that, so I focus on the human and political rights piece and leave the rest alone. We all have that choice. Choose what's important, y'know.

Anyway, thanks for your post, maybe you should blog it or something, it's a good post.

 

Thank you Ballantine. Probably the biggest argument - besides the religious one - that the anti-gay people make is that homosexuality is unmanly. That's why they are hated as much as they are in the macho cultures such as the military and Uganda. I know a gay history professor who is extremely manly and would easily beat the crap out of these people. He became the first, white, American, gay king of a Nigerian tribe that claims descent from the tribes of Israel. Some gays are effeminate; others are very macho; and it should never be claimed that homosexuality is a decadent perversion, because most homosexuals work and make major contributions to society.

 

I was simply remarking that if we were to go by Christian biblical standards of what is a "traditional" marriage, incest ranks pretty high on that bible list, there was Lot, and his daughters, there was Noah, etc. so, Christians are basically saying that these are their "traditional family values" hence why I'm not a Christian.

 

Personal freedom ranks #1 when I vote for a Candidate. I have trouble with the base of either Party.

Republicans and Democrats don't seem to "really" care about our Constitutional rights. Democrats claim to care but actually have done nothing to stop over imprisonment, reform of criminal legislation, personal freedom, immigration reform, tax reform; and neither have the Republicans. And, while Republicans claim to support smaller Government, they continue to pose new criminal laws allowing more Government interferment in our lives, some using Religion as a basis for their arguments, which I don't support them doing and Democrats simply don't care how much they tax the majority to pay for their ridiculous, socialist programs. I hate, yes hate both of these parties. That is why I support Rand Paul, a moderate and Libertarian that holds all of my personal views.

 

Libertarians are a major force in America, and they well should be.

 

It's about less intrusion. Liberty is not "the ability to do stuff." It's "the government doesn't prevent you from doing stuff." Freedom is not the ability to act on every whim, and the purpose of a Federal government is not to provide people with all the necessary tools to act on every whim. For example, people don't have the freedom of healthcare when the government gives them health insurance. On the contrary, they are limited by whatever the government decides to allow them. Federal health insurance does not mean you're free to use an Eastern medicine concoction of rhino horn and cocaine to cure your misaligned Qi.

Prior to a law regulating marriage, marriage was whatever society said it was. In this scenario, an individual has freedom to decide for themselves what that means, no one has a supreme legal authority to tell you what that means, and the Federal constitution reserved that freedom to decide for the people.

Now, the main argument for a Federal definition of marriage has to do with how married peoples interact with the government. In effect, it's also government regulation that causes the conflict in the first place. The legal recourse to make health decisions, financial decisions, or probate decisions for someone are tied (unnecessarily) to marriage. In this way, government forces an opinion on the public eliminating the freedom to define the term at the individual level. Now, instead of being able to decide for yourself what marriage is, we have some strange federal dignity test that we must adhere to. Are marriages between three people dignified? A person an a comfy chair? Only Justice Kennedy knows, and that's not freedom at all, that's the whim of Justice Kennedy.

 

Not true at all. That is only one aspect of "small" government. The Constitution, as a whole, exists specifically to create a "small" government.

 

Actually no.

What Jesus said was, I've not come to change the old law but to fulfill it. The purpose of the old law has been fulfilled and now a new covenant with God has been made. The point being that people who followed the previous law do not deserve punishment under the new law. And Jesus for sure did proscribe some new law, You have heard it said, but I say etc..

 

I think your problem is differentiating Republicans and Conservatives. This day-in-age we have moderate Republicans and moderate Democrats. Millions.

I'm not conservative but I'm a Republican in theory.

Plus...Social issues are the bottom of the 'important' chart. We have more important things to worry about.

 

Jesus did break with a lot of the old laws, just not the Commandments.

For example, Jesus said that the dietary laws are unimportant:
Mark 7
14 He summoned the crowd again and said to them, “Hear me, all of you, and understand.
15 Nothing that enters one from outside can defile that person; but the things that come out from within are what defile.”
16 Anyone who has ears to hear ought to hear,
17 When he got home away from the crowd his disciples questioned him about the parable.
18 He said to them, “Are even you likewise without understanding? Do you not realize that everything that goes into a person from outside cannot defile,
19 since it enters not the heart but the stomach and passes out into the latrine?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.)
20 "But what comes out of a person, that is what defiles.
21 From within people, from their hearts, come evil thoughts, unchastity, theft, murder,
22 adultery, greed, malice, deceit, licentiousness, envy, blasphemy, arrogance, folly.
23 All these evils come from within and they defile.”

 

No, you've taken that out of context. That particular sermon was delivered in response to the pharisees' and scribes' objection in verse 5 that his disciples were eating with "unwashen hands" in violation of the "tradition of the elders" (KJV), not the dietary laws delivered by Moses.

 

Conservatism does not actually claim to be about personal freedom. That is a misunderstanding much of the public has, but it isn't actually conservatism. Liberal means favoring less social regulation and more economic regulation. Conservative means favoring more social regulation and less economic regulation. To the extent that one believes that "freedom" means "less regulation" (which is not actually a sensible conclusion to draw), then conservatives support economic freedom and oppose social freedom where liberals support social freedom and oppose economic freedom.

The ideology that opposes both social and economic regulation is libertarianism. True libertarians are socially liberal and economically conservative because they want strictly limited regulation in both areas.

 

There are authoritarians in all the popular political divisions (republican/democrat/conservative/liberal). It is the authoritarians who are anti-freedom.

Authoritarians, left unchecked, will try to:

...dictate the maximum size soda you can sell/buy.
...interfere with you and your doctor's decisions about your uterus.
...force you to purchase goods and/or services against your will.
...put you in jail for your personal recreational substance choices.
...dictate who you can or can not marry.
...force you to do business with people you don't want to do business with.
...confiscate your money/property to give to someone else.
...etc etc etc...

The authoritarians are the enemies of liberty and freedom, not the democrats, republicans, liberals, or conservatives.

 

Reread verse 19:

19 since it enters not the heart but the stomach and passes out into the latrine?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.)