Do moral conservatives place a high priority on individual liberties? (versus, state)

[hammertime33]

Social conservatives are bar far the biggest threat to freedom and liberty in the United States.

[Gaylenwoof]

Originally Posted by tigetmax24

It's difficult to discern what Gaylenwoof's expectations are. On the one hand he appears to affirm the obvious necessity for the existence of the institution (institutionalized morality) while, on the other hand, bemoaning the situation where a particular minority is subject to (imposed upon) or bound by the established/instituted morality of the institution. Does he see our current national and societal state of affairs as that of the majority being inclined to the morality of the "moral conservatives" or does he see it as a defective institution subverted by a minority of "moral conservatives?" Does he ultimately prefer the concept of government "of, by, and for, the people" vis-a-vis, the majority, or government co-opted by a particular minority of those holding to a "libertarian" perspective? Does he object to our current form of government or does he simply object to those who are, or appear to be, in control of the current institution?

Let's see if this helps:

I believe in "majority rule" only insofar as the majority does not oppress individual liberties. This is the spirit of the US Constitution; this is why we have a Bill of Rights, etc.

In order to pass a law that restricts someone's freedom, the government needs to clearly demonstrate that this law protects people's basic rights. So, for example, a law against murder is clearly an example of "legislating morality" – but it is acceptable because murder clearly infringes on a person's right to life. I have a right to swing my arm while holding a knife, but not if the knife collides with someone's neck. It is the government's job to mediate between the conflicting rights of individuals, and part of this job includes ranking liberties according to priorities. My right to live out-ranks your right to swing your arm.

Nudity, prostitution, Sunday liquor sales, etc., do not violate any high-ranking rights. By default, these things should be legal. The government, for example, has absolutely no business telling a business owner that people cannot be naked on his or her property. The clothing options for private property should always be the decision of the property owner – never the government.

If a majority of people in a local community want to require clothes on local public property (city streets, subways, etc.) then the majority is welcome to do so. But if the local politicians do not specifically pass laws restricting nudity on a particular piece of public property, then by default that place should be clothing optional.

[Hoarfrost]

Originally Posted by andrea3821

Um, if a woman is out wandering around in public with no shirt on (or heck, how about no pants, girl or guy?), society does consider that to be obscene and that is why there are laws against it. If you wanna walk around with no clothes in public, go to a nudist resort or nude beach. I do not want my children (or myself or my husband) to be subjected to that. I would have said that a couple years ago when I was at my most liberal, it has nothing to do with being conservative.

Nudity does force the decisions and actions of one party onto another. If I want to see someone naked, I can very easily ask my husband to undress, or I could do a simple google search for naked people or whatever. But if I don't want to see someone naked, especially when just going down the street to the grocery store, for example, I should not have to be subjected to it just b/c someone feels wearing clothing infringes on their personal liberties. It IS forcing it onto me and anybody else who is offended by seeing naked people without having a say in it.

Btw, women who wear next to nothing are considered by most to be slutty, and they are essentially asking for sexual advances. That in and of itself means that society deems public nudity obscene.

I would rather not see unnattractive people in public. When an unattractive person goes out in public without a face mask, that is forcing their decisions and actions on me. I, my children, or my husband and/or wife should not be subjected to that just because unattractive people view wearing a face mask as an infringement on their rights. I also should not be subjected to poor colour coordination, camo, and socks with sandals.

[chitown85]

Socks with sandals is one of the funniest things to see on tourists.

[wjtwet]

Originally Posted by NorthGAbound12

I can't believe people have spent 7 pages arguing about public nudity! How many people do you really think would go nude if it was made legal? Seriously how many? A handful, people don't like to be seen naked. Hell a lot of people won't even look at themselves naked let alone waltz down Main Street in their birthday suit. This little debate is just an attempt to derail the larger issue.

The larger issue is government legislating morality. There's a big danger there because morality isn't objective, it's subjective. Despite Christian claims/wishes otherwise there is no objective morality, what's moral for one person is not moral for the other. I personally think that a woman going topless down the street is far more moral than invading Iraq on fabricated evidence. However I see many posters here, who no doubt are "moral" and "pro-life" are comfortable desecrating nations but not comfortable with nudity in public.

Many Christians are so dead set against abortion, they will stop at nothing to ensure a two week old clump of tissues inside a female's womb is protected, yet they see nothing wrong in denying healthcare to people too poor to afford it. These "moralists" rail and pine for anti-pornography laws, want every strip club shut down, yet war is fine with them. They are so "pro-life" that they forget that life doesn't end at birth.

What if one day Muslims became the majority and wanted to enforce Sharia Law to regulate their version of morality? I'm quite sure all of these "moral" conservatives would whine and cry about that. Yet they are seemingly comfortable enforcing their own morality on the rest of us. Gay marriage? Banned. Abortion, banned. Pornography? Banned. Strip Clubs? Banned. Violent video games? Banned. Offensive song lyrics? Banned/edited out. Curse words on TV? NEVER! Universal Healthcare? No! War? Yes! Death Penalty? Yes! Stem cell research? No! Torture? Yes! Waterboarding? Yes! The Patriot Act? Double Yes!

The question is what is moral Conservative. By your answer this is a list of what you see as a moral conservative

Many Christians are so dead set against abortion
yet they see nothing wrong in denying health care to people
These "moralists" rail and pine for anti-pornography laws, want every strip club shut down
yet war is fine with them
Gay marriage? Banned. Abortion, banned. Pornography? Banned. Strip Clubs? Banned. Violent video games? Banned. Offensive song lyrics? Banned/edited out. Curse words on TV? NEVER! Universal Health care?
The Patriot Act? Double Yes!
So if you are a Christian you are a moral Conservative. OK got it
If you prefer to stop a genocide of 50 million unborn you are a moral Conservative. got it
If you do not want strip clubs near a school your a moral Conservative got it
so if you prefer your songs without the fword and killing in them you are a moral conservative... got you
You have to love war to be a moral conservative..got you

So if you are not a moral conservative you, not a Christian who loves killing the unborn, who wants to bankrupt the country with universal care, that has never worked anywhere , while wishing to have porn for kids, as your 7 year old listens to songs about sex and killing cops and you do not want to use the patriot act as Obama has to protect the country and defending the country with war is bad.
You did a great job of defning what a moral cosnervative is and is not .

[gaelgirl]

Originally Posted by NorthGAbound12

I can't believe people have spent 7 pages arguing about public nudity! How many people do you really think would go nude if it was made legal? Seriously how many? A handful, people don't like to be seen naked. Hell a lot of people won't even look at themselves naked let alone waltz down Main Street in their birthday suit. This little debate is just an attempt to derail the larger issue.

The larger issue is government legislating morality. There's a big danger there because morality isn't objective, it's subjective. Despite Christian claims/wishes otherwise there is no objective morality, what's moral for one person is not moral for the other. I personally think that a woman going topless down the street is far more moral than invading Iraq on fabricated evidence. However I see many posters here, who no doubt are "moral" and "pro-life" are comfortable desecrating nations but not comfortable with nudity in public.

Many Christians are so dead set against abortion, they will stop at nothing to ensure a two week old clump of tissues inside a female's womb is protected, yet they see nothing wrong in denying healthcare to people too poor to afford it. These "moralists" rail and pine for anti-pornography laws, want every strip club shut down, yet war is fine with them. They are so "pro-life" that they forget that life doesn't end at birth.

What if one day Muslims became the majority and wanted to enforce Sharia Law to regulate their version of morality? I'm quite sure all of these "moral" conservatives would whine and cry about that. Yet they are seemingly comfortable enforcing their own morality on the rest of us. Gay marriage? Banned. Abortion, banned. Pornography? Banned. Strip Clubs? Banned. Violent video games? Banned. Offensive song lyrics? Banned/edited out. Curse words on TV? NEVER! Universal Healthcare? No! War? Yes! Death Penalty? Yes! Stem cell research? No! Torture? Yes! Waterboarding? Yes! The Patriot Act? Double Yes!

Absolutely brillant post. "Life doesn't end at birth."

[wjtwet]

Originally Posted by gaelgirl

Absolutely brillant post. "Life doesn't end at birth."

Your support of people who are not moral Conservatives is clear.

So if you are not a moral conservative you, not a Christian who loves killing the unborn, who wants to bankrupt the country with universal care, that has never worked anywhere , while wishing to have porn for kids, as your 7 year old listens to songs about sex and killing cops and you do not want to use the patriot act as Obama has to protect the country and defending the country with war is bad.
.
Way to support your side

[tigetmax24]

Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof

Let's see if this helps:

It doesn't. As a matter of fact, my entire post seems to have passed completely over your head. Either that, or it hit home to the degree that you really have no alternative but to avoid a direct response.

Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof

I believe in "majority rule" only insofar as the majority does not oppress individual liberties. This is the spirit of the US Constitution; this is why we have a Bill of Rights, etc.

What you happen believe about majority rule matters not. Our Constitution, Bill of rights and Declaration of Independence all came to be established through a majority vote. All subsequent amendments by majority. All branches of government to include all state and federal officials (Presidents, Governors, Legislators, Supreme and District Court Justices and Judges) by majority. While federal judges and justices are appointed, they are still appointed by the duly elected President and confirmed by a legislative majority of duly elected legislators.

If you're honest, you will also affirm the historical fact that the constitution has been and is routinely ignored by our elected officials and appointed judges and justices.

Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof

In order to pass a law that restricts someone's freedom, the government needs to clearly demonstrate that this law protects people's basic rights. So, for example, a law against murder is clearly an example of "legislating morality" – but it is acceptable because murder clearly infringes on a person's right to life. I have a right to swing my arm while holding a knife, but not if the knife collides with someone's neck. It is the government's job to mediate between the conflicting rights of individuals, and part of this job includes ranking liberties according to priorities. My right to live out-ranks your right to swing your arm.

What does any of this have to do with the price of tea in China? All the government needs to do in order to restrict someone's freedom is to pass a law. True enough, if the new law is in fact unconstitutional there should be accountability. Emphasis on 'should'. Hopefully, they would be taken to task and held accountable by the people.


"If America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great"

- Tocqueville

Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof

Nudity, prostitution, Sunday liquor sales, etc., do not violate any high-ranking rights. By default, these things should be legal. The government, for example, has absolutely no business telling a business owner that people cannot be naked on his or her property. The clothing options for private property should always be the decision of the property owner – never the government.

Says you, so what? The government is doing all sorts of things that it shouldn't be doing. If the people continue to allow it, guess what? It's going to keep right on happening.

Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof

If a majority of people in a local community want to require clothes on local public property (city streets, subways, etc.) then the majority is welcome to do so. But if the local politicians do not specifically pass laws restricting nudity on a particular piece of public property, then by default that place should be clothing optional.

Again, it really doesn't matter whether or not you see such things as proper or not. Currently, under our system, the majority is going to get it's way if, IF the majority determines to exert it's authority.

[andrea3821]

Originally Posted by Hoarfrost

I would rather not see unnattractive people in public. When an unattractive person goes out in public without a face mask, that is forcing their decisions and actions on me. I, my children, or my husband and/or wife should not be subjected to that just because unattractive people view wearing a face mask as an infringement on their rights. I also should not be subjected to poor colour coordination, camo, and socks with sandals.

The things you listed are subjective. There is nothing subjective about a woman exposing her breasts.

[ClearNight]

It seems that the center of attention to these squawked about liberties are all ...sex-party related.
Sex party related in what could be coined as the , other side of boredom, abnormalities, or top of the line expression.
Where are liberties squawked about in under age smoking ? Not sexy enough to get a roar ?

A roar in leave me alone , I will do as I please at your $$$ expense.

These so called liberties, cost $$$. $$$ in tax to cradle the always sad consequence in
abnormal expression. The bare all deal, is just a trigger to ignite the flame.

Any government that would make a pronounced lift in some of these issues knows fully well the $$$$ involved in clean up, in any projected increase of party-sex , abnormal behavior. Its a political tool to excite a roar.
Smoking laws have done well in decrease of youth use. Discouragement impacts costly clean up & saves, your tax dollars plus, it works.

As well, how can anybody argue , above wisdom in other post...A country which is good does well....
People gotta choose for them self in all of these issues....why ? Because they are all basically available one way or another & always will be ..with mild discouragement. Save the nudity business , which is dumb , because nobodies really keen on it and the transfer of regulation from government is illogical due to demand and ..$$$$ in organization. Its a sucker, trigger for political roar effect...everybody knows that.

There will always be strip clubs, no government would abolish...are you joking....don't go myself , but men like a lounge timid-barbaric atmosphere from time to time. Many politicians from all sides would have zero objection to a strip club.(guess, and if not true ...HARD TO BELIEVE) Different locals have option to tone down from what I understand. Whats next...oh my, the government is going to ban broadway...? Political manipulation for attention.

Don't forget......abject lifestyle costs u.....$$$$$$ . Money that government is graded on in performance. All politics would not be so short sighted as to neglect this reality.Mild discouragement is here to stay. Toss your $$$wager in.
(Edit...abortion is a sensitive and hugely complex issue, in abnormal decision. It is irresponcible to group together with the like of strip clubs, topless beachs ect, this is true .)