Saturday, November 22, 2008

The Republican Party's New Platform

I just got a comment at one of my blog posts on the attitude Real Republicans™ should take towards homosexuals. I ain't naming names or quoting the rest of the text but here is the gist of it:

Leviticus 18:22

[22] You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.

Romans 1:25-28

[25] For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

[26] For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, [27] and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

[28] And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper

1 Corinthians 6:9-10

[9] Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals , nor sodomites, [10] nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.

==

Well you get the idea.

Not only will them homos not get the Kingdom of God, they are to be persecuted here on earth by a True Christian Government™ which the True Christians™ of the Real Republican Party™ will bring us any day now. As soon as they get elected.

Alan Keyes For President!


Sounds like a winner to me.

Cross Posted at Classical Values

32 comments:

Edgar said...

Show me where I advocate (or where Christians advocate) the "persecution" of homosexuals. Where?

You can't. Persecution is nowhere to be found in that post.

Declaring that homosexuality is wrong is NOT persecution. You have not told the truth.

kurt9 said...

Look, the social conservatives are an integral part of the republican party, for better or for worse. Instead of confronting them on social issues, it makes more sense to me to steer them towards "conservatism" on economic issues.

There is absolutely no reason why any social conservative should be "liberal" (pro-government power) on economic issues. Mike Huckabee has gone way off the deep end in this regard. People who want government in their economic lives are not about to vote for "democrat lite" (on economic issues) Huckabee when they could vote for the real thing in the form of democrats.

I think the libertarian part of the republican party should stop needling the social conservatives on social issues and instead concentrate on economic issues and convince the social conservatives to support them.

Edgar said...

Thank you, kurt9. Well said.

The only thing I would clarify is that a majority of social conservatives ARE very much fiscally conservative.

The vast majority want low taxation (or NO taxation of income, see FAIR TAX grassroots movement), and advocate the same economic prosperity that libertarians do.

This is why the Reagan coalition of the 1980s was so powerful. Reagan understood the need for limited government, low taxation, strong national defense, but not at the exclusion of America's traditional heritage:

1) Right-to-life
2) The importance of the nuclear family - mom, dad, kids.
3) Keeping God in the public square.
4) Saying NO to addictive drug use.

The scapegoating of social conservatives is just wrong.

M. Simon said...

Well kurt9, good idea.

If the Social Conservatives drop their insistence on their way or the highway on cultural issues I'll stop needling them on those issues.

==

Edgar,

It is just a few steps from denigrating some people until you start building camps for them. And then the gas chambers.

The socons of the party don't seem to respect other views on the cultural issues of the day. I intend to return the favor.

It has always seemed to me that without a figure that can unite the party on economic issues the party has no reason to stick together. So my intention is to do as much as I can to break up the part in the hopes of building a new party along "Leave Us Alone" lines.

And BTW the Rs haven't been walking the walk on economic issues for quite a few years. If they reign in Democrats on spending I might vote for them again. If they can't do that because they lack the votes? Tough.

===

Note: as a Jew I am pledged to never again. If the Austrian Corporal put them in camps they are my brothers. Of course not every one sees it that way.

And some read the Torah with out studying the accompanying common law. Which shows they know nothing about the Torah or the common law.

Which makes the literalists literally wrong. Now the New Testament may work that way but the Torah does not. There was at least a thousand years of common law by the time of Jesus.

But ignorance of the roots of Christianity seems a rather common failing among American social conservatives.

===

Here is a bit you might like on how the persecution thing works:

1. Identification -
pick a relatively small segment of the population with mainly minorities involed in some type of behavior that can be demonized. Drug users are ideal. Drug use is a behavior not considered an innate charecteristic. Certain subgroups of the population have cultural affinities for certain drugs. This makes it possible to target the subgroup without seeming to identify innate characteristics.

2. Ostracism -
Good people don't associate with drug users. Drug users are the cause of our problems. If we could just make drug users quit or leave the country most of our problems would go away. Of course drug prohibition like alcohol prohibition is just wonderful in this regard. The black market causes a LOT of violence which at least initially can be blamed on the alcohol or the drugs depending on the era.

3. Confiscation -
Since the drug users are no good and the cause of our problems we will relieve them of their property to pay for the damage done. While we are at it we will make it difficult for them to get jobs. With drug testing we can be certain to identify those who have used most drugs in the last 24 to 48 hours. Or if they have used pot in the last 2 - 4 weeks. Since pot smokers represent the largest number of drug users this is good. It generates business for testing companies. As prisons generate demands for prisoners and confiscations generate demand (and the ability to pay) for more police. Boy are we getting them good now. We have stolen their homes. So their wives and children are on the streets. We have put them in prisons so that husbands can no longer be fathers. And those that haven't met with this fate are prevented from getting jobs. And still they won't give up their vile habits.

4. Concentration -
There are half a million people in jail for non-violent drug crimes. About another half million in for violent drug crimes or property crimes related to drugs. We have arrested over 11 million pot smokers in the last twenty years. We can't build prisons fast enough. And besides they are way too expensive. Too much up keep. Too many guards (whose unions in Calif are asking for stiffer drug sentences - they know a good thing when they see one). Well we have these boot camps for drug users - perhaps they could be expanded. Out in the desert to make escape improbable. We have at least 1/2 million and perhaps 1 million druggies in jail. And we have identified another 11 million. Yep - just what we need camps in the desert.

5. Annihilation - but as all too often happens in enterprises like these costs mount and profits from confiscations declines. And besides there is no new income because the druggies aren't working. Its getting way too expensive and unsustainable. Well former speaker of the House Newt Gingrich had the right idea. Death for sales of 2 oz of marijuana. Well not this year maybe but try again next year Newt. Them druggies got it comming for ruining the country.


And to keep this all nice and tidy we will do all this nice and legal like. With the consent of the governed. Dopers are certainly not a big enough or cohesive enough segment of the population to identifiably swing any elections. Easy to generate consent if only a small minority is involved.

And why am I so confident of my plan? Because it has worked before in Germany against the Jews.

Read 'Drug Warriors and Their Prey' by R. L. Miller whose previous
book was 'Nazi Justiz'.

(c) 1999 M. Simon

This is a column I first wrote some time ago. Published widely at the time. The process outlined above is always the same. Gays, Jews, drug users. Targets change. The process remains the same.

M. Simon said...

Kurt9,

1) Right-to-life

Both anti-abortion measures on the ballot in '08 failed. In addition it does not comport with the Jewish view on the matter. And a view slightly more liberal than the Jewish view has prevailed in the culture.

2) The importance of the nuclear family - mom, dad, kids.

Good idea. So can we stop imprisoning black and hispanic men at greatly disproportionate rates due to the drug war so that the women of those "races" can have a better opportunity for marriage?

3) Keeping God in the public square.

How about Allah too? and Ganesh? and Satan (for the Satan Worshipers), etc. No God's in the public square or everyone's. This is America. Jesus does not own the public square in America.

4) Saying NO to addictive drug use.

Drug addiction is a deficiency disease as diabetes is a deficiency disease. How about we stop persecuting people with deficiency diseases?

Edgar said...

Simon,

Big D was right about you. You're just spewing hatred of Christians. It's plain for all to see.

I see it was convenient for you to leave out the rest of my post, so you could portray social conservatives as "bigots".

So, for anyone just tuning in, here is what else I wrote:

Make no mistake, we DO NOT hate gays or lesbians. We hate the sin and deception that has entrapped them. We pray for their health, safety, and spiritual well being.

I'm just happy that many on these boards can see you for what you really are: a bitter and divisive person whose only real purpose is to silence Americans' religious convictions, as evidenced by your comment below.

So my intention is to do as much as I can to break up the part in the hopes of building a new party along "Leave Us Alone" lines.

So, tell me Simon, where are the re-education camps? Don't see any, do you? Because evil thoughts like that don't enter Christians' minds.

Keep grinding that axe...

Snake Oil Baron said...

Social conservatives can't be steered towards financial conservatism because few of them are conservative in any sense beyond social conservatism. The very fact that they want government representatives to act as preachers and lobbyists for their religion is proof of a socialist mindset. This mindset is expressed with calls for trade protectionism, expanded prohibitions laws (on everything from drugs to porn to video games) and faith based social programs.

The problem with social conservatives is not how they make the Republicans look but what they make the Republicans do. They use the term "conservative" to justify their presence in the Republican party only to pursue a state centered agenda.

I don't claim that social conservatives are all like that but far too many are. And I don't feel that they are the worst offenders as many corporate welfare proponents and other interests are at least as damaging. But rather than trying to keep the "big tent" policy where groups who reject the party's supposed values of reducing the size of government, limiting its power, fighting corruption, and expanding personal freedom and accountability (i.e fostering self-reliance) are welcomed and accommodated, the party should shrink the tent and send some of the clowns home. If you are a social conservative or a powerful CEO and you can agree with the principals of the party you should be welcomed to stay otherwise go form your own tent.

Just because a group needs the Republican party does not mean the party needs, or even benefits from, them.

Edgar said...

"Both anti-abortion measures on the ballot in '08 failed. In addition it does not comport with the Jewish view on the matter."

A view that, according to you, justifies killing the child simply because the woman has thoughts of suicide, when both mother and child could live??? Ok, have at it. I suppose demographics will be the arbiter of that thinking.

"So can we stop imprisoning black and hispanic men at greatly disproportionate rates due to the drug war so that the women of those "races" can have a better opportunity for marriage?"

No one forced them to break the law - a law that is in place because a majority of people acknowledge that so-called "recreational" drug use is addictive and destructive. President Reagan said as much, or maybe that's not libertarian enough for you.

"No God's in the public square or everyone's. This is America. Jesus does not own the public square in America."

Last time I checked, religious belief, along with proselytizing, was alive and well in America's public forum - government included. America is NOT (and never has been) a secular nation.

"Drug addiction is a deficiency disease as diabetes is a deficiency disease. How about we stop persecuting people with deficiency diseases?"

Is that what you tell yourself - that "drug addiction" is a "deficiency disease"? Sure it's a deficiency for anyone who becomes addicted. Gotta have that fix, eh? How about: Just Don't Do It

So-called "recreational" drug use is destructive. Just ask the families in those hispanic, black, white, asian, etc. neighborhoods.

The fallout is enormous even if "dad stays home", or hasn't been picked up by the police.

I guess it's ok to have dad stay home, so he can demonstrate the proper way to do a bong hit, roll a doobie, or get the needle in just so, right? Gotta start the kiddies early!!!

Edgar said...

I'm still waiting, Simon.

Show me where I advocate (or where Christians advocate) the "persecution" of homosexuals. Where is it?

You say:

"It is just a few steps from denigrating some people until you start building camps for them. And then the gas chambers."

So, by your twisted logic, adhering to one's religious views, and daring to publically profess those beliefs, "camps" and "gas chambers" are the end result???

...and when has that ever happened in America?

Keep grinding that axe...

M. Simon said...

Baron,

Very perceptive. I do think that the idea of the Republicans as a limited government party are over. The social conservatives own the party.

I do believe that an adult libertarian party (i.e. serious about foreign policy and national defense) will arise and the Republicans as currently constituted will go the way of the Whigs.

There are already rumblings among the people I am in contact with.

Edgar said...

So now you suggest that foreign policy and nationl defense issues are not a concern for social conservatives?

You really should vote a straight Libertarian ticket. That's the Party for you. I don't know where you get this stuff, but it doesn't matter.

You still haven't shown me where I advocate (or where Christians advocate) the "persecution" of homosexuals in my post.

I know you said something about "camps" and "gas chambers". Your words, not mine.

Where is it?

Tom Cuddihy said...

kurt9,
I think Mike Huckabee is exactly the albatross around social conservatives' necks that many social liberals CLAIM that Palin is. Of course, while you can find hundreds of thousands of Republicans who "think like Palin," the only Republicans you can find who think like Huckabee are generally on TV asking for money or pausing from their pastoral work to run for office. I.e., they're politicians. Pharisees.

Simon,
Where is your intellectual honesty on the social issues? Saying that some action is wrong is not the same as saying that person who does it ought to be rounded up in a detention camp. For that matter, you talk a lot about how immoral the drug war is.

Shame on you for saying DEA agents should be sent to concentration camps! Shame on you for suggesting that DAs who prosecute drug offendors should be lynched!

I mean, you may not have actually said those things verbatim, but we ALL KNOW it's a short trip between what you have said and that ...

M. Simon said...

Tom,

Hatred is the slippery slope. It is a 5 step program. With respect to drug users we were not far from the abyss.

The same for gays. There was a time in America when literal gay bashing was OK.

Note: I don't think I have ever said or implied that that sort of thing is OK. My attitude towards DAs and DEA agents has never been that they deserve death or oppression. It is more one of: Forgive them Lord for they know not what they do.

If you think I have crossed the line quote me (at least a snippet) so I can figure out how you got that impression.

99% said...

Msimon, for once I actually agree with you. Well said.

RavingDave said...

Heh heh... 99% agrees with you.


Anyway, check this out.


http://www.gaypatriot.net/2008/11/23/attitudes-towards-gays-the-future-success-of-the-gop/#comment-333237




David

M. Simon said...

Dave see comments 18 and 19 at

www.gaypatriot.net/2008/11/23/attitudes-towards-gays-the-future-success-of-the-gop/

Tom Cuddihy said...

Simon, if you don't see the irony in your own response, I doubt I can point it out for you.

M. Simon said...

Well tom,

I'm not fundamentally a hater. I have been known to vent, but reason returns and generally predominates.

My point of view is that government IS the Devil. That should be obvious from your screams about government intervention. So safety for your lifestyle is not more government to fix what government has screwed up. It is less government. Every bargain social conservatives have made with the government Devil has eventually turned out badly. So instead of thinking about more government solutions (mandated prayer in schools) how about a less government intervention (government out of the school business). Focus on positions that will gain allies rather than government imposed solutions that will lose you support.

The deal is: Cultural Socialism works the same as Economic Socialism. Every failure requires more government. Until government is running your life in ways I'm sure you will find unacceptable.

"Leave Us Alone" is the only safe thing to say to government. Every time you say "help us fix this" you are making a bargain with the Devil.

kurt9 said...

I have a question for the social conservatives here. Do you guys have any problem with people developing and partaking of radical life extension therapies? That is, biomedical technology that slows or eliminates the aging process.

Tom Cuddihy said...

Simon, do you really not see the similarity between you accusing Edgar and fellow Social Conservatives of wanting to "persecute homos" here on earth despite Edgar suggesting no such thing...and me accusing you of wanting to persecute those who have taken part in the drug war despite you having said no such thing?

That's the point. I can't say you're advocating for persecution of drug warriors because YOU'RE NOT. Likewise, it's very dishonest of you to accuse Edgar and social conservatives in general of wanting to persecute homosexuals when neither he nor I nor anyone else I know of is saying that wither.

Tom Cuddihy said...

kurt9,
not against it as long as it doesn't involve the purposeful destruction of innocent human life.

M. Simon said...

Tom,

If Edgar doesn't want to persecute homos then why post Bible quotes that imply exactly that?

I guess you'll have to ask Edgar his motivation.

And why single out homos and not the divorced? Or the rest on the Biblical list?

If you are going to be a Bible literalist it seems to me a little consistency is in order. It might not gain adherents but, it would gain respect.

M. Simon said...

OK. I get it homos are ungodly.

Now what does that have to do with government?

RavingDave said...

MSimon, you move too fast for me. Much of what you are stating is the "monolithic" SoCon agenda is not. What you repeat back at us as our positions look unrecognizable to me.

I checked out comments 18 and 19, and I also saw a comment where you said everyone is hating on you... Now I may be wrong about this, but I recall most of what was posted by SoCons was responses to things you had written first. Like blaming them for the election.



Now I'm not saying anyone is hating on you, but if you throw rocks at a grizzly bear, don't be suprised if he tries to maul you a bit.


Apart from all of that, My positions are not based on religion. I will throw out a bombshell and assert that it is more likely that religion is based on my positions.

I have a world view which is evolution based, and every piece fits perfectly into the tapestry of the Whole, including religion.


Religion is a byproduct of necessity, as are most of the moral requirements pertaining to it.


David

kurt9 said...

M. Simon,

I don't think Edger and others here want to "persecute" gays. They just don't think that marriage should be extended to them.

Edger and others believe that the purpose of marriage is to provide a stable environment for kids and that it should involve monogamy and fidelity. They further believe that it does not make sense to extend this institution to a population that is well-known for its rampant promiscuity (believe me, the promiscuity in the gay community is way beyond the comprehension of most heterosexuals).

Although I do not necessarily agree with this, I do consider it a legitimate argument. I do believe that monogamy and fidelity is a part of marriage and that it may not make sense to extend it to those for whom monogamy and fidelity are alien concepts.

Tom Cuddihy said...

This entire argument crystallizes for me the central paradox with libertarianism in general -- the philosophy makes no allowance for limitations on the individual that may be necessary measures for the very existence and continuance of society.

It's like the flaw at the heart of the US constitution -- The First Amendment allows for no preventative measures against advocating for the destruction of the constitution.

In its creation bear the seeds of its destruction.

kurt9 said...

No Tom, it doesn't say anything about libertarianism.

You think it discredits libertarianism because you are assuming that marriage is a negative right and is therefor protected by libertarianism. I, on the other hand, do not consider marriage to be a negative right. Marriage implies the assumption of responsibility of well being for another person (your husband or wife). Having kids implies the assumption of responsibility for the well being of the kids themselves. As such, I do not believe that marriage can be viewed purely in terms of being a negative right. It is the assumption of positive obligation and duty for another person or persons (if having kids) that makes it more of a positive right or obligation.

Hence, the issue of gay marriage cannot be resolved purely in term of libertarian concept of negative rights. Rather, the issue is orthogonal to libertarianism per se.

You are correct in defending marriage as an essential institution for having and raising kids. You are not correct in claiming that this issue discredits libertarianism.

M. Simon said...

Kurt9,

Well yeah. We need to deny Liberty to the few because the many can't handle it. That is a great argument for curtailing everyone's Liberty. There might be a few, some, many who can't handle it. What ever happened to rugged American individualism?

We need a nanny state. Waaaaaaaaaaaa.

What a bunch of cry babies.

Christians of old faced lions. Christians today? Scared to death of Liberty. What a bunch of pussies.

When do we start going after married sexual libertines? Those people will ruin it for everyone. How dare they? How do they get licenses to marry any way? We need to tighten up the licensing laws. ASAP.

We need a House Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Punishment of Vice. The government is derelict in its duties.

I have come to the conclusion that in the main social conservatives are a fearful lot. It's like - you know - they don't have any faith. Cowering in their houses and churches awaiting the next change in social relations that they are too weak to handle.

It is to laugh.

kurt9 said...

My point is this:

The gays I knew in SoCal in the late 80's were very promiscuous. They lived in a world that was about as different from your suburban family culture as one could get. The idea of them getting "married" was as ludicrous to them as it was to me. As such, this recent push for gay marriage is something that simply did not and has not made any sense to me.

I guess the other reason why I do not care about the issue one way or another (other than the fact that I am not gay) may be shaped by the fact that I lived in Japan and other Asian countries for 10 years. As you may or may not know, Japanese culture is very exclusive. The gaijin expats have a sub-culture that exists parallel to mainstream Japanese society. Rarely, if ever, does a gaijin actually get accepted as "Japanese". This is a real mind bender for many gaijin, but was never an issue for me. As long as I have both economic and personal freedom, I have never felt the need to be a part of a "larger picture" or part of a group. Expat life suited me just fine.

Likewise, the gays have had the same personal and economic freedom as the rest of us. They simply cannot get married. Since I tend to view marriage as something other than just a personal or economic freedom, it is not something that I feel is relevant in order to do the things I want to do and be happy. So, I tend not to think so much about the "right" to get married.

Personally, I don't care about the issue one way or another. M.Simon, I think you have valid arguments about it. However, I think the social conservatives have valid arguments as well.

M. Simon said...

Kurt9,

I too am in the what's the fuss camp. As a Jew in America I too am used to being in the "excluded" camp. No biggie. Just leave me alone and I'm fine.

I do like to take the libertarian side of the argument because that is most in tune with "leave me alone".

My libertarian argument is that the state should register births, deaths, unions, and disunions and other wise stay out of relationships. And why registration? Convenience.

You want a marriage? Ask your church. You want a divorce? Ask your church. Let the churches sort it out. It is their job.

Get the government out of family life.

Also out of the school business.

Also out of persecuting people with unapproved habits.

Edgar said...

Where to begin?

Simon,

I did not quote those verses to suggest the persecution of gays, and obviously there is a misunderstanding. I even said as much in the same post - NO hatred of homosexuals.

Those verses tell us how Almighty God views homosexuality, and that He does not condone it. Sadly, people want to sugarcoat it, and don't like it when you confront them about destructive behavior - no matter if it's drug addiction, alcoholism, domestic violence, predatory sexual behavior, etc.

There are other verses in both Old and New Testaments which reveal God's unchanging character. The verses tell us that He does NOT want people to do evil (of any sort). He wants their happiness, prosperity, peace, and health by avoiding those things which are wrong.

Just as a protective and caring earthly father thinks and acts, He also does not (and will not) condone certain human behavior. Instead, He simply wants the best for His children - of which the practice of homosexuality is forbidden.

While He never stops loving His children, He will punish disobedience, and He grieves over the poor decisions we make.

Ezekial 33:11-13 says as much:

[11] Say to them, 'As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live. Turn! Turn from your evil ways!...

In that passage, He's pleading with us. That's the message I was attempting to convey with the earlier verses - a message of God's changeless and consistent character and that of human responsibility to Him.

You said:

"Christians of old faced lions. Christians today? Scared to death of Liberty. What a bunch of pussies."

Yes, we faced the lions, and we'll suffer persecution again, if necessary, for the glory of God.

Why do you think we declare (publically) the truths handed down to us?

You also say:

"You want a marriage? Ask your church. You want a divorce? Ask your church. Let the churches sort it out. It is their job.

Get the government out of family life."


I agree. So, why are gays demanding acknowledgement of a time-honored institution (marriage) between one man and one woman, through the use of the courts and legislation, especially when you say marriage is a cultural institution?

They would certainly NEVER obtain approval to marry from most Christian organizations, especially in light of those scripture passages, and any pretense (of marriage) to the contrary would be rejected and disregarded by most Christians as an attempt to legitimize their immoral behavior.

Likewise, I've always said (right here on this blog), if pro-Abortion advocates had never federalized the issue in Roe vs. Wade in 1973, I don't think abortion would be an issue at all for Christians (Muslims, Jews, etc.), because it certainly isn't law.

There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution guaranteeing abortion-on-demand. It's only the majority opinion (7 to 2) of a set of liberal activist Justices - nothing more.

Christians have every right to speak openly about their faith, their beliefs, their views, and their opinions (religious, political, or otherwise), and to lobby their Congressmen and vote their conscience. If THAT offends people...too bad.

Social conservatives in general are trying to preserve the traditional and historical time-honored institutions of marriage and family that have been the underpinning of this nation.

If people refuse to understand that, then it's time to hang it up. It's over. America will go the way of every other democracy in the last 2500 years - to our destruction, while we congratulate ourselves regarding our new-found "progressive" attitudes and blather on about shedding our parochial inhibitions.

You are wrong to suggest that social conservatives:

"...need a House Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Punishment of Vice."

We have never advocated such, and I think Tom summed it up nicely, when he said that Libertarianism, as a philosophy:

"...makes no allowance for limitations on the individual that may be necessary measures for the very existence and continuance of society."

Not every human behavior is beneficial.

I've always said that if someone doesn't agree with me, so be it, but don't go about pronouncing bigotry or the demise of the GOP because of social conservative attitudes.

Edgar said...

Oh yeah, and another thing...

Happy Thanksgiving, everyone!