Do moral conservatives place a high priority on individual liberties? (enemies, politicians)

[Gaylenwoof]

In another forum I asked:

"Overall, what would you say is more important to Ohio voters: individual liberty or moral conservatism?"

To which someone replied:
"That's an unfair question. Most moral conservatives place a high priority on individual liberties."

This seems like a good question to pose in this forum, and I would seriously like to hear exactly how moral conservatives reconcile their tendency to vote for politicians who pass restrictive laws with their supposed support of individual liberties.

It seems to me that moral conservatives are the most obvious enemies of individual liberties. The point of individual liberties is to let people live how they want, so long as they don't interfere with the rights of others. Moral conservatives always have a particular code (almost always based on religious beliefs) that they want to impose on everyone because it is, in their view, the "right way to live."

Let's take female toplessness as one example. How can someone who truly favors individual liberties stand up in support of laws that restrict toplessness? Is there a valid issue concerning the conflict of rights here? If so, I need someone to explain what it is. So far as I can see, the moral conservatives simply don't like nudity, and want to make sure that everyone else abides by their preferences.

[Jadex]

Democrats want bigger gov.

Can you please explain how you can have bigger gov and more personal freedom?

It is the conservatives that wants limited gov which means more liberties and personal freedom.

Going topless is not a right. Do you think we should become a nation of no morals? Do you think as a society that we need people walking around with no clothes on and the effects that would have on our society . If someone wants to walk around nude do so in the privacy of your own home etc

[burdell]

Originally Posted by Jadex

Going topless is not a right. Do you think we should become a nation of no morals? Do you think as a society that we need people walking around with no clothes on and the effects that would have on our society . If someone wants to walk around nude do so in the privacy of your own home etc

Just what is immoral about going topless?

And just who should we depend on for moral judgements?

[burdell]

Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof

In another forum I asked:

"Overall, what would you say is more important to Ohio voters: individual liberty or moral conservatism?"

What constitutes 'moral' conservatism and who's the judge(s)?

Is it someone like Newt Gingrich, preaching the party line of family values while cheating on his wife?

It's an extremely dangerous thing to start trusting elected officials to be arbiters of morality when theirs is most certainly questionable.

[Jadex]

Originally Posted by burdell

Just what is immoral about going topless?

And just who should we depend on for moral judgements?

Its sad that you are even asking this.

Lets just have an anything goes type of country and do whatever and see where that gets up. Shall we

Or we can have a country of morals, Principles and values and respecting one another

I choose the later

[burdell]

Originally Posted by Jadex

Its sad that you are even asking this.

Lets just have an anything goes type of country and do whatever and see where that gets up. Shall we

Or we can have a country of morals, Principles and values and respecting one another

I choose the later

What's truly sad are people who believe going topless is somehow immoral yet they're accepting of wars of choice as somehow moral.

BTW, you totally failed to answer the question: Just what is immoral about going topless? Who made that judgement?

[Calvinist]

Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof

In another forum I asked:

"Overall, what would you say is more important to Ohio voters: individual liberty or moral conservatism?"

To which someone replied:
"That's an unfair question. Most moral conservatives place a high priority on individual liberties."

This seems like a good question to pose in this forum, and I would seriously like to hear exactly how moral conservatives reconcile their tendency to vote for politicians who pass restrictive laws with their supposed support of individual liberties.

It seems to me that moral conservatives are the most obvious enemies of individual liberties. The point of individual liberties is to let people live how they want, so long as they don't interfere with the rights of others. Moral conservatives always have a particular code (almost always based on religious beliefs) that they want to impose on everyone because it is, in their view, the "right way to live."

Let's take female toplessness as one example. How can someone who truly favors individual liberties stand up in support of laws that restrict toplessness? Is there a valid issue concerning the conflict of rights here? If so, I need someone to explain what it is. So far as I can see, the moral conservatives simply don't like nudity, and want to make sure that everyone else abides by their preferences.

I believe that it's my right to be able to raise my kid in a decent environment. I honestly don't that I care about the public nudity laws....if you want to go to the beach like that, knock yourself out...but I think it should be expected that the average citizen shouldn't have things forced upon them that society considers to be obscene.

[Gaylenwoof]

Originally Posted by Jadex

Democrats want bigger gov.

Can you please explain how you can have bigger gov and more personal freedom?

It is the conservatives that wants limited gov which means more liberties and personal freedom.

I need some clarification here. Can you give specific examples of how "bigger gov" reduces individual liberties? (I'm not saying you are wrong here; I just want to focus on specific real-world examples rather than vague ideological platitudes.)

It seems to me that some examples of government opposing individual liberty would be:
Laws against public nudity
Laws against growing and smoking pot
Laws against pornography
Laws against prostitution
Laws against selling booze on Sundays
Laws against selling cars on Sundays
Laws against homosexuality (no longer considered Constitutional, but...)
Laws against gay marriage

And so on.

[burdell]

Originally Posted by Calvinist

I believe that it's my right to be able to raise my kid in a decent environment. I honestly don't that I care about the public nudity laws....if you want to go to the beach like that, knock yourself out...but I think it should be expected that the average citizen shouldn't have things forced upon them that society considers to be obscene.

A decent environment for kids would be a world where countries don't behave like arguing 4 year olds, where they don't kill for no other reason than that they can. What someone wears/doesn't wear to the beach is far down the list of what makes a decent environment for kids.

[Gaylenwoof]

Originally Posted by Calvinist

...but I think it should be expected that the average citizen shouldn't have things forced upon them that society considers to be obscene.

"Society" does not consider nudity obscene; moral conservatives consider nudity obscene, and they have been able to wield enough political power to impose their preferences upon everyone else.

Since when does nudity "force" anything upon anyone? What if you hate the color orange, and I wear an orange shirt?