The left does not understand why conservatives are so upset with them, and why Christians are so offended by their attempts to achieve social change through humanistic reform. I am a firm believer that enlightenment, as defined by the left and their new age cousins, is simply an attempt to do away with consequences, and to enable the government to promote and provide, provide, provide.
It is not the government's position to provide any more than basic security from foreign invaders, and ultimately provide protection of life, liberty and property. Otherwise, for the most part, government should be limited. Now, my liberal friends, don't go thinking I am calling for anarchy, that is not what I said, and there are more functions to the government I think should be in action, but the point is, I don't believe that it is the government's place to provide me with a decent standard of living (that is up to me, through my hard work and dedication to myself and my family), I don't believe that government has any business taking control of the corporate world (like that idiotic statement by Hillary about taking more from the oil companies because they made too much profit - what is this? Penalties for success?), and I guess overall I am saying that I don't believe there should be a centralized government dictating what is in the public's interest, and what is not. As Bill O'Reilly has stated, "It is not the job of government to promote and, if possible, provide more freedom, a better environment, broader prosperity, better health, greater fulfillment in life. . . " It is the government's job to protect our freedom, and to provide regulations to assist in protecting the environment to a point (but not to the point that it is overly zealous and breaking the back of industry). It is up to the individual to provide himself (or herself) with prosperity, a healthy life, and fulfillment in life. If someone wants to die of obesity instead, that too, is their right.
The more I read and watch society and observe the politicians the more I realize that the left believes that success should be penalized by distributing the wealth because surely any successful person did not truly make it on their own - surely societal assistance was in there somewhere in regards to their success (no such thing as a self-made man, I guess). The left believes that terrorism exists because of America's existence as a superpower, and that the United States is just as guilty of terrorism (if not more so) than the Islamists with its military being all over the world. Responsible people, in their eyes, do not become so from parental discipline, and society cannot allow discipline of our criminals to continue - punishment is not the answer in their eyes, treatment is. Any idea that there may be a higher power is hogwash, and anyone believing such a thing should not be allowed to promote such beliefs in the public square, or anywhere else other than in the darkest corner of their home, because it might offend someone somewhere. Offending Christians is a minor offense. Everyone should live peacefully together, talking out their differences, and peacefully working together.
Great. But you forgot something. Human nature.
Human nature dictates that a person usually desires being the best they can be (in most cases) and striving for whatever it is the person desires be it independence, a home, a nice car, a cool stereo system, whatever. Human nature also takes advantage of situations, pushing the envelope, seeing what one can get away with. Our welfare system is a great example of that. Right is right and wrong is wrong, and most people know the difference, and they know the difference between right and wrong because of Biblical values. This is why the left hates people of faith so much. Followers of God see them for what they are, and call them out.
Let me go back to the consequences thing. The left supports the legalization of drugs. The idea is to eliminate the crime element by no longer making it a crime. That is idiotic.
What about the consequences for deviant sexual behavior? Their argument is that it must have something to do with something in the genetic makeup in the individual, so now there are no consequences for such actions. Homosexuals are now being treated as if they are their own race striving for equality, and sex offenders have minimal terms so that they may be treated of this horrid disease. No matter that the victim is affected for life. After all, according to the left, we can't judge anyone on their personal behavior, and God is judgmental, so those Christians must be pushed down.
While they are at it, the left also thinks (as I understand it) that world consensus is needed to use military force. That's one of the reasons they are so mad at Bush over Iraq. He did it without everyone in the world being in complete agreement.
I suppose doing nothing when it comes to the terrorist element is the better option. I suppose become isolationists, or dancing through the daisies with our socialist neighbor to the north and the nations of Europe that have forgotten that socialistic ideals failed in Soviet Russia is a better idea. Apparently the left forgot what happened in southeast Asia after we abandoned Vietnam. A similar bloodbath awaits Iraq if we cut and run. The left seems to have amnesia in regards to history. And for those lefties that argue that they agree with Afghanistan, just not the invasion of Iraq, that's like saying that we should have declared war on Japan after Pearl Harbor, but not Germany or Italy.
Okay, now I'm going on a tangent. Let's list this properly so that Tom and MK can respond properly. Direct question, no word twisting allowed, so don't misrepresent what I am saying here. Yes or no: Does the edicts you follow include that making a judgment regarding someone's personal behavior is wrong (including things like, oh I don't know, Christianity's view of homosexuality, for instance); Anyone who believes in God shall not acknowledge Him in public (be it in politics, at public school, etc - because such recognition of a God is offensive to everyone else); The wealthy must "pay their fair share", essentially giving to the poor, including seizure of private property if necessary; parents cannot be and shouldn't be the only provider of moral values to children, especially when relating to abortion and sexual education, which "must" be taught to such children through the public schools; abortion is a mother's right, euthanasia is a dying person's right, but murderers must not be put to death for their pre-meditated murder of another individual because killing is wrong; military force cannot be used as a preemptive measure, and any military campaigns must be approved by the global body; All people are entitled to their own personal gratification therefore narcotics should not be prohibited (Amsterdam?); Government must provide a good life for its citizens, raising taxes to provide health care, housing, jobs, and whatever else because citizens are entitled to these things just for being citizens, success such as earning riches must be punished, taken away from the wealthy, and redistributed. Is that correct? Do I have that right?
This is why you don't like the Conservative Right. The Conservative Right believes that personal behavior when it comes to morals that will adversely affect society should not be rewarded, Biblical Values are the values this nation was founded upon, and has prospered because of. God Bless America. Wealth gained by an individual helps the economy when their business grows and provides jobs - taxing the wealthy too heavily creates a stagnantation of the economy. Persons that have not earned their living has no entitlement to a free handout. Parental rights are paramount, and a parent has the right to discipline their child through spanking or whatever manner they see fit (as long, of course, when it isn't obvious abuse), and should be the sole providers of the moral concepts their child receives. Innocent lives are precious and should not be terminated by abortion, especially in the name of "choice", and if an established life can be saved it should be (I was in a coma, and essentially a vegetable that completely relied on machines to keep me alive for a while -- good thing my wife didn't believe in pulling the plug), and a punishment should fit the crime. Multi-death murderers should be sentenced to the death penalty. People who abuse little children sexually should be imprisoned for life. If military action is necessary to protect the nation it should be carried out. Obviously, recklessness is not encouraged, but when a dictator with ties with terrorist organizations has weapons of mass destruction (and has a history of using them) and vows to provide them to your enemies that have continuously practiced terrorism against you and your allies, an attack is justified. Drugs are dangerous to the person taking them AND those around that person, and should never be legalized. The government will not provide for me what I am capable of providing myself. Regulate some things if necessary? Fine. But I don't want any gifts, and I don't want my tax money used to reward people for not working, etc.
Now, I am sure the liberal readers of this post will twist this, convolute it, and so forth. So, before you open your traps, let go of "where's your sources," and anything else you normally throw out there. I understand this is hard for you because it is a large dose of common sense and among the left I don't believe that common sense is common at all. And remember this, you can't convince me otherwise. If I agreed with you, we'd both be wrong.
Now for the shameless plug - don't forget the premiere of Political Pistachio Radio at BlogTalk Radio this Saturday 4 pm Pacific Time/7 pm Eastern Time (That's 6pm for you folks in Minnesota). Call in when the show is live! Number is (646) 652-2940. Or if you miss it, listen to it later by going to the archive.