[no text]

Abortion was legalized under the tenure of a Christian President in a monogamous, committed relationship (Gerald Ford). He was preceded by a Quaker who, as far as I know, was not involved in any sexual peccadillo (Nixon), and was defeated by an evangelical Christian in a committed, monogamous relationship (Carter). As far as judges go, I don’t really know enough about the Blackmun Court or the personal biography of its members to say one way or another so feel free to correct me on this point, but it doesn’t seem to me that the personal character of the judges in question was such that one could have avoided Roe v Wade by seeing their profiles prior to their appointments to the court.

Conversely, abortion rates and crime declined under Clinton. GWB was honorable in his personal life, but I don’t see that his election particularly effected the morality of the nation, or that the social indicators present during Clinton’s term changed markedly one way or the other.

I would agree that character matters for general reasons of competence — but not nearly as much as a consistent record does. At any rate, I’m still not sure what Rick Perry or anyone else could do to change culture and society in the way that social conservatives would wish, without also trampling all over people in a way that social conservatives would find neither desireable nor acceptable.

I actually am not sure how high abortion would be in the US sans Roe, tbh — it seems to me that there would probably be less than there is today, and it’s surely not just to allow infanticide to happen under color of law — but I look at our drug laws, and at Chile (country with the strictest and IMO best laws on the matter in many ways), and it makes me wonder. I would prefer to have laws regardless, but enforcement presents a vexing dilemma.

of the clergy; there’s hypocrisy, of course, but that’s true anywhere. Most of what I saw in ministry was people trying to help people and understand God better. Most of my philosophy is derived from my very positive experiences with getting things done in voluntary society, actually. I have a great family that volunteered in church often; I saw the lives transformed as a result. I’ve concluded that political activism for the sake of creating a moral society is not only a waste of time, but counterproductive when you can use that same time to act locally through voluntary institutions.

With respect and no intention of offense, you could have found this all out by asking rather than assuming. I made no negative assumptions about you in the course of our conversation; I would appreciate the same from you. Even if I actually were bitter, would it make a difference? The kindest person can be utterly wrong; the biggest jerk can sometimes be in the right. Hopefully that didn’t come off sounding like a lecture. I think that we (social conservatives and libertarians) are generally in agreement, I just think it’s good to make sure that we are investing time and political capital in productive endeavors, rather than divisive and ultimately fruitless ends (i.e., trying to make people moral).

Let me address them in the order that they are presented:

“If I recall, I did ask. And if you are going to post in a public forum, you can expect to be challenged on what you say.”

I’ve never had a problem with being challenged on what I say. I do find it irritating to have to answer to things that I have never said, and which are untrue. For example: I am a preachers’ kid, but I’m by no means bitter about it. Quite the opposite, actually. I don’t really mind if you don’t believe my self-characterization, but even if you don’t, it’s really not productive to restate that I’m “bitter” about it when I’ve already said my say on it. I like addressing points that can be rebutted, and which are relevant to the discussion. My bitterness, or lack thereof, is neither: none of us can prove that I am bitter, or not, about my experiences as a preachers’ kid over an internet forum. We can, however, be civil and not presume that the other person in a civil discussion has a crippling and profound psychological problem which accounts for his or her views, even if we secretly believe that to be the case

“I notice a pretty consistent theme in your posts and while you seem to think they are benign conclusions or opinions, a lot of what you write is biting and borders on insulting social conservatives.”

There’s a difference between insulting and challenging. I don’t think that asking avgjo to back up his views on morality is insulting, and he didn’t seem to take it that way. I re-read my posts in this sub-thread, and I don’t feel that I was particularly rude or insulting; other people might disagree (you seem to). I won’t pretend to hold views that I don’t hold, though; I like most social conservatives on a personal level, but I won’t pretend that I agree with them. I’m hostile towards pretty much all politicians and cynical about their intentions; that might be what you’re picking up.

“So, yeah. I did major in psychology and find myself curious about why people act and think like they do. And your answers confirmed my suspicion that there is something in your background that informs your hostility toward people who are concerned about morality.”

This is… unhelpful. You are assuming that I am hostile towards people who are concerned about morality; as someone who is concerned about morality himself, I can assure you that this is not the case. More importantly, I did not provide my personal information so that you could perform an online diagnosis of me; it was intended as a show of good faith and to defuse the tension.

“Comments like these are loaded with assumptions and innuendo if you really break it down. Just who said they are being politically active for the sake of creating a moral society?”

You mean, the assumptions inherent in the post that I was replying to? The OP tied the country’s moral foundation to social issues and their priority in the GOP, and to Gov Perry as a candidate. Several others on this thread made similar comments. My response did not emerge out of the ether; it was a reply to the comments I saw.

“Or, are you trying to say keep your morals to yourself in the public square? ”

I never said that. My point in this thread has been very narrow (to reiterate: laws and politicians do not create moral societies).

“Basically, you are saying that morals are irrelevant to politics and if you are concerned about them, take it someplace else.”

I have never and would never say that. I have said several times that morality in government is not as easy as a straight application of Biblical precepts or “common sense”, and that creating morality isn’t as easy as repairing a pothole on the I-10.

In conclusion, I do wish that you would stop arguing with Strawman Aesthete: he seems like a very nasty fellow, riddled with neuroses and a horrible disposition. Probably eats the wings off of flies. The real aesthete is perfectly willing to engage in civil discussion; he will, however, decline from participating in pointless arguing over what psychological afflictions he suffers from.

is that I used to self-identify as a social conservative: i.e., I supported the War on Drugs, laws against gambling, decency laws and laws against pornography. I still support quite a few things that social conservatives would support and my personal worldview remains unchanged from those days — I still see families as essential, the church as a positive influence and (more importantly) in possession of Salvation truths. I don’t particularly care for drugs or the people who use them. Over the years, however, the concept that morality is a function of laws, and that engineering the moral society is a simple affair, is a belief that I dropped. This, in addition to a strong preference for leaving people alone over criminalizing behavior that is bad, ill-advised, or churlish, puts me at odds with most social conservatives, so I no longer self-identify as one out of respect for those differences. I don’t mind if someone else is one, but I can’t in good faith call myself one. Sorry if that seems condescending, but it is not meant to be any more condescending than a former liberal describing his conversion to conservatism, or a former Buddhist describing his conversion to Christianity.

As far as what you personally think about my denials, as I’ve said: it really doesn’t concern me what people think about me on a personal level; that can’t be helped and I have enough people in real life who like and love me that I’m not bothered if someone on the internet doesn’t like me, or thinks bad/inaccurate things about me. I just don’t care to debate the finer points of my mental condition over the internet with someone I don’t know: that’s not the reason that I joined RS, and I doubt that it is the reason that you decided to read and comment. With respect, however, I doubt that most people in real life or the internet would be particularly patient with a stranger insisting that they have a mental condition: it’s patronizing, un-productive, and is not provable one way or the other in a casual setting. Even if it’s true, does it matter? I could be a big jerk with a chip on his shoulder who consorts with Satan daily — and still, if I said 2+2=4, I’d be absolutely correct! Likewise, the veracity of my claims about social conservatism are correct or incorrect independent of my mental condition; whether you’re correct or not about my outlook, it has nothing to do with my claims about social conservatism.

I’d suggest that explaining to me the superiority of a non-”black and white” view (perhaps first explaining what you mean by this) would have been more helpful and relevant than harping about a hostility that I don’t intend or detect, and which has not prevented others from responding to my post on-topic.

do you believe are effective towards the end of greater societal morality? Have any of them been implemented, and is there evidence of their having performed as advertised?

The policies which I have seen advanced successfully under the rubric of fostering a greater morality are striking for the paucity of evidence that they levy to support their claims, and the unintended consequences left in their wake. Prohibition, for example, does not appear to have done much at all for national trends: in the years prior to Prohibition, alcohol consumption was already on its way down, and Prohibition did not alter this trend one way or another. It did make organized crime much more lucrative, though, and made it so that the federal government was arresting people whose only crime was getting a drink. The War on Drugs, whether you support it or not, has similarly seen many unintended effects attached to it, and has been remarkably ineffective at meeting any of the goals that its supporters hoped for. In foreign countries, this trend only gets worse — until, disturbingly, it gets better once you start looking at countries for which freedom is no object, and for which brainwashing, purges, and a police state are SOP.

Social conservatives want this no more than I do — yet, those are the means by which their goals can be advanced by government. Even then, it’s definitely inconsistent: Christianity has a history of growing like tumbleweed in the places that like it least, after all.

Finally, I think that relying on cowards and the weak-willed to uphold your morality is a losing gambit in the long run. The sort of people who are likely to equate morality with legality are too pathetic to mount a vigorous defense of morality; they are the paper tigers that Bin Laden referred to. They are fickle weaklings who cower when they see a master approach. It is my belief, as well as my hope, that successful free societies require, and have the capacity to produce, people who are independent in a meaningful way; this excludes lickspittles who would have a lawyer’s parchment tell them what is right.

Sorry I haven’t gotten back to you. I appreciate that your reply was on-topic and did not delve into ad hominem, and applaud you for having an answer that is substantial.

Now that I know where you’re coming from, I will speak for myself and say that anti-decency laws and censorship at the state level are not desireable. Censorship is an issue that I take a hard line against: it seems to me that bad ideas should be battled against openly, not shunned. Would it do us any good to simply never talk about or say the word “Marxism”, or is it better to rebut it as a bad idea? Methinks that censorship for adults essentially encourages intellectual and moral laziness — after all, you have a government-appointed censor doing the hard work of choosing good and bad for you! In the long run, this is a bad thing: it means that the only people who have thought about the issue for long are those who are immoral, and letting them have the better argument has never sat well with me. I will confess that regardless of its effectiveness, I am against government censorship directed at adults (though I am open to censorship aimed at children, i.e. regarding school literature and such).

I’m OK with laws criminalizing sexual behaviors in the streets or such, as well: it is easily enforceable, exposure to the public is unavoidable enough that there is not a reasonable expectation for parents to use discretion, and the public areas that this applies to are generally a commons paid for using tax expenditures (i.e., public parks). Beyond that, though, I’m not sure what level of restriction you prefer, or what it has to do with morality. For my part, laws against spitting or uncouth behavior seem to have little effect or enforcement, but I assume you’re not talking about those sorts of laws.

We are agreed that public schools are a mess and that abortion is wrong. I don’t think that criminalization of the latter will have much effect on public morality, though — and the former is something that can be best fixed by removing government to the extent possible (i.e., vouchers for religious private schools and strong homeschooling rights). I would also add strengthening parental rights.