Senator Senatorum's candidacy for the US presidency has sparked debate about Social Conservative issues. Specifically, these have surrounded speculation about what societal changes do social conservatives advocate in general and what changes would Santorum advocate in particular.
But before we can discuss the topic, I think its important for us to have a common understanding of terms. What exactly makes up a "social conservative" and what are the political implications in the US? How does this differ in other countries?
Ideology
The phrase “political conservative” is most associated with the ideologies of social conservatism. Indeed, most of today’s conservatives see themselves as social conservatives, although there are other types. The following list contains common beliefs with which most social conservatives identify. They include:
- Advancing pro-life and anti-abortion stances on unwanted or unplanned pregnancies
- Advocating for pro-family legislation and a ban on gay marriage
- Eliminating federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research and finding alternative methods of research
- Protecting the Second Amendment right to bear arms
- Maintaining a strong national defense
- Protecting US economic interests against foreign threats and eliminating the need for trade unions
- Opposing illegal immigration
- Limiting welfare spending by creating economic opportunities for America’s needy
- Lifting the ban on school prayer
- Implementing high tariffs on countries that do not uphold human rights
It is important to mention that social conservatives can believe in every one of these tenets or just a few.
What confounds me is the degree that each of these tenants are so attacked by the Left and undermined by democrat policies, when these are issues that are fundamental to the preservation of our society and constitutional freedoms.
Ms Anonymous 10 March 2012 -
I think this is a great time to bring up gay marriage and maybe even contraception.
So I have some opinions about this.First of all I will say that I have never been too comfortable with same sex parents. I think it is strange, but I also know that feeling is unimportant. As a society we should be encouraging monogamous relationships rather than judge what parents are doing in the bedroom. An option for marriage (I think it should officially be called civil unions for everyone) for heterosexual and homosexual seems to make sense, even more so if you consider family. For acceptance from extended family and for children of parents. Some people are gay bisexual,so what. Is it traditional gender roles that protect family, or making the health and happiness of your children the priority?
It seems that men think the only way to be involved in family is by going back to the traditional arrangement and citing feminists as what destroyed their place in the family. They think they can "fix society" by controlling women as well as being against gay marriage. Its never about the joy or responsibility of being a father.It's always something having to do with their anger towards feminists robbing them of their territory as men. I think that is depressing.
I think men should be involved in the abortion debate because we are talking about family. They are responsible for the choices they make just like women are. Their sex lives have changed from abortion being legal just like with women but its still the woman's fault for how a man behaves. Keeping men out of that discussion reinforces that perception, imo
I think currently public opinion about abortion is way too casual and most contraception methods unhealthy but these are always personal decisions whether some people like it or not. I also believe that since family is the foundation of society it is here that our attitudes and decisions are often made in a sheep-like way. not everyone, but some people look on the outside to see whats okay and for approval when they are ignorant or uncertain and can accept certain opinions as fact because they are popular or because they are trying to ease their conscience. This is often the case with teens. Media tends to influence more than parents do because children spend more time with the tv. than their parents. I still wouldn't support government making those decisions for anyone.
I think family values means promoting whatever is best for the kids and trying to support the many different family arrangements they live in. And since we're all not religious or of the same religion we would be better off if the discussion wasn't framed in religion, imo!
Here is something on separation of church and state.
http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/history_of_the_separation_of_chu.htm
Even without this information you can see that most conflicts are over religion and power. Separation of church and state protects spirituality and government. In short, it helps to keep the peace.
First of all I will say that
It was important enough for you to mention, so its not unimportant. What I would propose is the ideal environment for raising children is a monogamous, hetrosexual, nuclear family. Having said that, the reality is we do not live in an ideal world. Frankly, some adoptive children would thrive better in a same-sex civil union or with a single parent better than the abusive nuclear family they left. So I support gay adoption as an adoption of last resort. But I think it behooves us to address the root issue of the dysfunctional nuclear family since if we agree that it is the "gold standard", then we have an obligation to future generations to repair and strengthen families--giving all kids the opportunity for the best possible outcome.
All marriages ARE civil unions, but that does not mean all civil unions are (or should be) marriages. I think that is a slippery slope that undermines the gold standard that we've agreed upon.
Yes. That would be depressing...if it were true. It's certainly not the truth among the men in my circle of acquaintance who view marriage as a sacrament that men and women give to eachother. I'm not denying there are men that believe as you say--I'm just saying that I challenge the universality of your statement. It's a generalization and an unfair one at that. What I see encourages me! Men and women that celebrate their marriage and encourage one another. Intact extended families that provide encouragement and emotional support to their adult children struggling as new parents. The great unsung majority is out there and they are good and decent people. It's sad that we only hear about the spectacular failures of the few instead of the success of the many.
Not surprising that when people's moral compass has no "true North", they must look elsewhere in uncertainty and ignorance for guidance. This is why "faith" is so important. It is part of our psyche to seek God and to invent one if He cannot easily be found. The gods of today include the media, celebrity, wealth, and even political ideologies. No different than thousands of years ago.
It was important enough for
To give any credibility to a passing hm over seeing a family arrangement that isn't common doesn't help create a positive environment for the children of those parents. It is also none of my business why two people get together I don't want it to be my business either.
What do you think is the root issue of the dysfunctional nuclear family?
Also, I can agree on a personal level that the nuclear family is the gold standard but it can't be in reality for myself or for everyone because that is not the way it works out. Otherwise we are supposed to accept that some families out there are on a lesser scale to others defined by what they are missing or what is different--always wrong or broken. Not good for the kids.
I know that families look to others for what is normal. The "gold standard" should be the selflessness of the parents and thinking of their children first whether they are together, how they are together. I think there is way too much attention given to arrangements.
Why and how? :)
I absolutely do not believe that. Faith, or your spirituality is not the responsibility of the public or the business of the government to force feed you.
You know there are several hundred denominations of Christianity in the United States and then you have individual interpretation within those denominations. Once you have religion in government you have that individual interpretation and the corruption of power to contend with. It's not a democracy friendly environment because like in some areas in the Middle East they are not going to allow choice to do the wrong thing or believe in the wrong religion. or give rights to the wrong people because it threatens society and their individual and small circle of "god given" power.
Also if it shows a moral compass with no true north to look elsewhere for what is normal: then why should anyone be threatened by gay marriage?
Didn't I answer this one already on the Ron Paul thread? "That is a tough one. I can agree with people that are saying that its important to remember that freedom of religion doesn't give you the right to choose which laws are followed and you always have personal choice to not do something like have an abortion, but yeah I don't like it. "
Here is something quick I found
Creating wiggle room:
You raise too many issues to
You raise too many issues to discuss in a single post. Let me try and break this down into more manageable bites and if you want more then I'l try to oblige.
The real bottom line question is where is the nexus of this issue lays with public policy. Here I think the misguided efforts of government have undermined the nuclear family. If you look at Black families prior to Johnson's Great Society and ever since, the rate of divorce, abortion, and single parenthood have skyrocketed along with levels of government assistance. The reality is Government is not the answer.
I am speaking philosophically about what I perceive as a deficit. I agree that it is not within the realm of government to fix it. I would be satisfied if the government just didn't make it worse.
The fact that many in society do not perceive a true-north does not mean it does not exist--it's codified in the Judeo-Christian foundations of our law. It's the reason that our civil rights are founded in Natural Law (God-given) and not gifts of the state. Lack of a moral compass simply means they do not have the self-awareness of the deficit or the remedy. Lack of awareness of a problem does not mean the problem or its consequences (dysfunctional nuclear families) do not exist. Gay marriage is a good example because without a moral compass, it's not possible to perceive the threat it poses.
No...you didn't really answer it. If Congress passes a law in violation of a constitutional freedom, not only do I have the freedom to choose not to follow it, I have the obligation not to follow it. Yes--you have the personal choice to have an abortion or use contraception. You do not have the personal choice to make a church pay for either if it violates their religious beliefs. Nor does Congress or the President have the authority to impose that duty on the church in violation of the Constitution. Here's what this president thinks of the constitution...
Thanks for the Wapo link. This is a very smart apporach by the USCCB to ensure the issue is framed as a constitutional one in contrast to the Left's attempt to frame it as a women's health issue or a "war on women".
The real bottom line
Why do we have to look at Black Families? Because Obama is black? Are you hoping that there are white families going on welfare that would like to blame a black president?
So if government is not the answer then how could you say that government is the cause? Not only the impoverished have broken families so what does government have to do with anything you are talking about?
Generally, women resent their role of thanklessly having to do it all and men resent their role of being neeed as a souless paycheck, so everyone finds their happiness elsewhere. Right?
I think people want meaning in their lives, to be needed, to take care of someone more than crazy financial success. I think the core of that comes from family life.
You can't be a selfish person and be good for your family but that is exactly what is expected of you when it comes to how you survive in this country and what you're supposed to value over time with your family. Being a good parent is judged by how much money you have.
Some problems we have in this country is extended family support is minimal. You have to trust people that aren't in your family to take care of your kids. "Lifting the ban" on prayer isn't going to fix that.
Oh give me a break. Its not possible to perceive the threat. blah blah blah. What threat does it pose?
And in your opinion: do only religious people specifically grouped, god fearing folks have a moral compass?
What is a good neighbor?
Why do we have to look at
Are you serving up a red herring for Lent? (sorry...a little Catholic humor). Your attempt to frame this as racist notwithstanding, poor black families are an ideal demographic to look at because they have been specifically targeted for government assistance for decades! It would frankly be racist and irresponsible to NOT look them and see if government policy has had a positive or negative effect. Or are you suggesting that black families are not worth the scrutiny of programs that might be doing them more harm than good?
I'm saying government has contributed to the problem more than the solution. And I have lots of company in that opinion.
No. That's NOT right; it's right up there with "everyone knows" as a universal generalization that means nothing. I think anyone who really believes that is incredibly sad. It's a bitter and cynical view of human relationships. I hope for your sake this is just hyperbole on your part.
...that is exactly what is expected of you...by whom? By whose standard of parenting do you feel judged by how much money you have? How each person answers these questions reveals their values and where their moral compass points. That's not a judgment--it's just a fact that we choose to accept or reject the judgment of others according to our own moral values. My moral conscience makes those statements nonsensical and irrelevant. Those who may choose to judge me on the basis of that criteria have no relevance to my life. I would not be acceptable in their circles and they would not feel comfortable in mine.
Of course not. Everyone has a moral compass--they are just not oriented to the same "true north". Their true north may be social acceptance, drug addiction, money, power, fame, socialism, Jewish Law, submission to Allah, Christianity or whatever. But whatever individual choice orients their moral compass, it dictates the direction of their lives. And when the individual choice of orientation does not include the Judeo-Christian values that are the underpining of American society, the consequences affect more than the individual; they affect American society as a whole.
Your attempt to frame this
You are quite the professional bs-er. MY attempt to frame this?
You think the nuclear families in America trouble because of government assistance given to black families? I'm supposed to take this seriously? I know! the nuclear family is in danger because of the existence of hoodies. That's what it is!
What the hell is wrong with Florida?!
I'm bitter and cynical when I mention a common problem in marriages but you're of a healthy mindset believing that black families on welfare are why nuclear families are breaking up? And then we have your not so subtle digs about moral compasses. I would much rather talk to Rick Santorum than someone who refuses to be honest about what he thinks. I'm done with this thread.
You think the nuclear
Never said that at all. If you look again, you might notice that I gave that as an "example" that highlighted the point--that government assistace produces more harm than good for the nuclear family. There are many others--I chose one. You chose to frame it as racist, which completely dodges the point and the evidence that supports it.
I have no idea what you are talking about. I merely answered your rather loaded question whether only religious people have moral compasses. I answered it philosophically in the universal and did not "dig" anyone. We all choose what orients our moral compass and we all accept the consequeences of that choice. It's not me judging anyone (not my job); it's just reality. Sorry if that offends you somehow. That was not my intent.
Specifically, these have
Are you going to discuss any of this?
Hard to believe a Republican candidate could be considered conservative if not for even one of those tenets.
In my experience you could be for many of them but if you are passionately against one you are a liberal. Then there is also interpretation of what is listed there. I could think I agree on some but we could mean something just enough different to not agree.
I like Santorum in that he is up front about what he believes and what changes he wants to make. You are not being so upfront about this so there is not really much to talk about. Why be shy about how you want American society to change? I think it is strange that you would want to vote for an activist and pretend that he's not what he says he is. Maybe you are waiting for the right person to talk to.
Hoping that you or any other person with similar views will answer the questions I asked you. I am honestly curious. I dont expect to change your mind. Its just knowing who you're talking to.The process is the fun.
I learned a lot from Saida because she didnt hold back anything. We still managed to stay friends except I am socially retarded online but that is another story..
But before we can discuss the
The bullet list that followed my quote constitutes my discussion. I figured we'd get to more depth in our discussion. No time for me to write a paper on the subject.
I think the Republican tent is big enough to accomodate a wide range within the social conservative laundry list. For example., McCain is one end of the spectrum and Santorum is the other. Both are Republican...though McCain is largely seen as RINO.
I have to hand it to Mitt
I have to hand it to Mitt Romney. He was handed a gift on a silver platter--the opportunity to take a public stand for fiscal and social conservatism. And he hit it out of the park! This will play well for uniting conservatives of all varieties.
Romney tells heckler to “vote for the other guy” for “free stuff”
Now THAT embodies social conservatism in a nutshell!
I think the Republican tent
but he isnt considered a social conservative. He needed Palin for the social conservative vote. Remember?
I would be surprised if that wasn't staged.
You know, women don't get pregnant on their own. Guys are pretty happy about birth control too. Why don't we hear social conservatives calling out to men to keep it in their pants?
Teenage pregnancy means theres more teenage fathers or adult men are getting teenage girls pregnant. What about that crisis? Why are men left out of that family problem?
"...but he isnt considered a
He isn't considered a social conservative by whom? It's a matter of perspective. Among the Liberal left, I suggest he might well be seen as socially conservative and I think he views himself as socially conservative. He is just not in the same league of social conservative as Palin who represents the far spectrum. The fact that McCain chose her proves my point that the Republican tent can accomodate a wide range of conservatism.
Because this is NOT about birth control. It's about who pays for it and why it is the responsibility of the government to force someone to pay for another's birth control against their conscience. For social conservative, it is about having THEIR conscience violated by government mandate, not whether women or men have access to birth control. This is not a Conservative war on women; its a Liberal war on the constitution.
He isn't considered a social
Make up more crap Mike. You said he wasn't considered a social conservative when we talked about this in 2008.
It is about birth control. Catholics are against it. The best kind of birth control is not doing it so why don't they talk to the guys about restraint to help this problem with unwanted pregnancies? No that wouldn't make political points. Men supposedly just follow their victimized penis where ever the wind takes it and women are directing the weather.
Often teenage girls get abortions because for one the adult man will pay for it and for another she doesn't want to lose her boyfriend. In short the man doesn't want the child. If he didn't want to have kids with a teenager or any woman he should keep it in his pants and not make bringing a life into the world a burden on the mother or make the prevention of bringing a life into the world only the responsibility of the woman.
But as most people know when a man doesn't want a child and there isn't access to birth control or abortion these women are often in danger. That is where I can't be against legalized abortion. There is no getting away from someone like that.
But the fake family values party, the hysterical rabid lying theoconservatives arent really concerned about any of it. They're jumping on this issue in the Affordable care act with much drama and fanfare-- hoping to feed the passionate ignorance about Obama being against Christianity, secretly a muslim. etc. If youre a Christian you should feel threatened and fear the end times are coming to make sure you vote R and allow someone like Santorum to impose their personal choices into laws for everyone.
As a public policy, why anyone against abortion would also be against birth control is beyond comprehension-- unless you think of these insecure male freaks everywhere that feel threatened by their inability to control women by keeping them home and pregnant and out of their work place away from being able to choose another man. Or if not married, single moms should be hiding in shame dependent on their families to take care of their kids.
From Feb. 10th
You had to have known this, people reading this thread must have known yet no one said anything. I'm not here for a private conversation but thats what you get here. Sharing information is what its all about. Right? I think so.
I am counting on people
I am counting on people reading this thread to be smart enough to put aside your emotional arguments, ignore the hysterical hyperbole about women's health care and anti-religion bias, dismiss the "dominating male freaks" crap, and discern the REAL issue is about the US CONSTITUTION and limiting the intrusion of government in the lives of its citizens! That's what social conservatives want more than anything else.
Americans have the constitutional freedom of religion and cannot be lawfully compelled to violate their conscience. This is NOT about abortion or contraception which are legally and easily obtained without forcing opponents to pay for it.
Absolute lie! The key is "won't have to directly pay for it" since religious organizations and hospitals still pay premiums to same the insurance companies that provide the benefit. Why do you think "indirectly" paying for it is any better? The insurance company cannot provide anything for "free"; the benefit is paid out from the revenue (premium) received whether you acknowledge it or not. Nor does this address organizations that are self-insured. What insurance company is providing "free" contraception to the employees of self-insured entities? None! Somebody has to pay the bill! You have to be completely deluded to believe this transparent and moronic lie.
Americans have the right to expect Congress to obey the constitution. They have a right not be compelled by virtue of their mere existence to buy any product (Obamacare), no matter how good the government believes it to be for them. What else will the government arbitrarily decide "is good for you" to do or buy? That is the slippery slope to totalitarianism and it stops here and now at Obamacare.
All the rest of what you offer is useless rhetorical chaff, if you cannot address the basic constitutional argument. Since you missed it the first time, let me highlight the bottom line for you again.
Nice to see that hard
Nice to see that hard questioning today by the Supreme Court and lots of liberal angst over the "train wreck" of a defense presentation in support of Obamacare is proving my point.
“Sharp questioning by the Supreme Court‘s conservative justices has cast serious doubt on the survival of the individual insurance requirement at the heart of President Barack Obama’s historic health care overhaul,” the Associated Press concludes.
The L.A. Times has some of the questions from inside the courtroom:
What other products will the government decide you must buy in your own best interest? How about death insurance? After all, everyone is going to die and it gets pretty messy if all those corpses are left lying about. Why not an additional individual mandate for everyone buy insurance to ensure their body is disposed of when Obamacare comes up short?
Post new comment