Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 4 of 5
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
urbanmonk





Joined: 12 Jul 2007
Posts: 307
Reputation: 16.8Reputation: 16.8
votes: 5

PostPosted: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

crazymamma wrote:

I am against abortion, you are against abortion. You are willing to use the state to enforce your want, where I am more prone to educating

I am more prone to "want" our laws against murder apply to everyone, even if it's inconvenient!
SFrank85





Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 2269
Reputation: 59.8
votes: 4
Location: Toronto - Scarborough Southwest

PostPosted: Sat Jan 10, 2009 8:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

crazymamma wrote:
Ya know Justin to equate Ceasar, the ambitious ruler of an empire, ever grasping for more lands and slaves, waring on others to achieve his goals to a libertarian who shuns any form of the state enforcing, coercing them into an abhorrent action is silly.

About the abortion issue your objection to libertarianism is question of degree only. I am against abortion, you are against abortion. You are willing to use the state to enforce your want, where I am more prone to educating, discussing, learning from a group like MADD who has used this approach to change the societal mores. Making it a socially unacceptable thing to do.

You do know that your tax monies do pay for abortions don't you? Unless you withhold your taxes from the government,you are kidding yourself that you are more moral and ethical about your objections to abortion then your average Libertarian who objects, Because you still finance it . Like I said, it's about degrees isn't it?


Mother Against Drunk Driving does influence government decisions. Who uses the state to sponsor the R.I.D.E programs? MADD

Withholding your taxes is against the law. We want the state to stop financing abortions, because it is paid through our tax money.
fiscalconservative





Joined: 08 Dec 2008
Posts: 1043
Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9
votes: 6

PostPosted: Sat Jan 10, 2009 9:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

urbanmonk wrote:
crazymamma wrote:

I am against abortion, you are against abortion. You are willing to use the state to enforce your want, where I am more prone to educating

I am more prone to "want" our laws against murder apply to everyone, even if it's inconvenient!


Does this apply to the destruction of eggs at a fertility clinic ? Is there a difference between an egg disposed of in a test tube and one that is removed from a uterus ? If we take this further, each sperm cell is a potential human being. Should we charge a teenage boys with genocide ?

I can't see any reasonable moral argument that aborting an embryo containing only a few cells is equal to murder.
Their are religious arguments of course, but even there its really vague. No where in the bible does it say "though shall not commit abortion" (abortions were practiced back then).
There are passages that imply that one becomes human at conception, but others imply the opposite. Thomas Aquinas said its not until 40 days or something like that.

Now I would certainly agree that abortion a 8 month old fetus would be wrong (its got a brain), but if you want to argue all abortion is wrong, its going to be tough to convince anyone that a single cell organism is human life.
crazymamma





Joined: 18 Aug 2007
Posts: 1011
Reputation: 71.8
votes: 14
Location: The kitchen

PostPosted: Sat Jan 10, 2009 9:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

SFrank85 wrote:
crazymamma wrote:
Ya know Justin to equate Ceasar, the ambitious ruler of an empire, ever grasping for more lands and slaves, waring on others to achieve his goals to a libertarian who shuns any form of the state enforcing, coercing them into an abhorrent action is silly.

About the abortion issue your objection to libertarianism is question of degree only. I am against abortion, you are against abortion. You are willing to use the state to enforce your want, where I am more prone to educating, discussing, learning from a group like MADD who has used this approach to change the societal mores. Making it a socially unacceptable thing to do.

You do know that your tax monies do pay for abortions don't you? Unless you withhold your taxes from the government,you are kidding yourself that you are more moral and ethical about your objections to abortion then your average Libertarian who objects, Because you still finance it . Like I said, it's about degrees isn't it?


Mother Against Drunk Driving does influence government decisions. Who uses the state to sponsor the R.I.D.E programs? MADD


I must be posting using Bangladeshi or something.....

I simply said that a lot can be learned from organizations Like MADD. They have managed to take drinking and driving and change it from a completely socially acceptable behavior to something that is big time frowned upon now, almost no one thinks it's an OK thing to do anymore.A successful PR/education program like that needs to be examined and used for the benefit of many an excellent cause..

Quote:
Withholding your taxes is against the law.


Well dah......not advocating someone break the law, I never once suggested such a thing. But to judge folks on their line in the sand on an issue is just so much vacuous self congratulation. Unless you are willing to go the wall on an issue you have no right to disregard the intensity of a persons commitment based on how far they are willing to go.

Quote:
We want the state to stop financing abortions, because it is paid through our tax money.


Then we are totally on the same page on this one.
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

SFrank85 wrote:
Mac, when you have the state taken to the extreme of prosecuting church leaders because they refused to have a same-sex couple get married in their church?

Who said I wanted the state prosecuting church leaders for following their religious convictions? As long as there is a process for same-sex couples to be married, the state fulfills it's obligation. If the couple pushes to force the church to go against it's dogma, they should be politely their freedom against discrimination does not and will never outweigh the freedom of religion.

SFrank85 wrote:
As Justin Hoffer has stated, the state needs to recognize the difference between marriage and unions. Marriages are a ceremony that takes place under the guidance of the church leader. Civil licences are given at city hall. Civil licences, not marriage is what entitles you to spousal rights.

It still sounds like an argument about semantics to me.

If your assertion is correct, the churches need to get out of the business of doing civil marriages since that process is apparently profane. Of course, that means anyone married in a church will no longer have the state recognize their status as a married couple so their estates will lapse back to the families of each individual, power of attorney will go to their parents or siblings, etc.

Does this mean, in your view, the polygamous marriages of the elders of Bountiful are more legitimate than the marriages done by a Justice since the former are religious and not registered with the state and the latter are civil?

SFrank85 wrote:
When you have the state redefine marriage, then you have the state get involved in the decision of churches. When you have the state involved in the church, then you see church leaders sent to Human Rights tribunals because they refused to marry a same-sex couple.

Actually, it's more a question of the state making an appropriate decision for a change. The state recognized it was discriminating against some of it's citizens and ceased to do so. If you want to call that redefining marriage, sobeit. The state should not (and did not) impose the duty to marry same-sex couples on those whose religious convictions forbade doing such. As far as the HRCs go, we all know they've gone rogue.

SFrank85 wrote:
This is what libertarians donít see when they support the re-definition of marriage.

Are you being forced into a same-sex marriage, SFrank85? If not, then why are you trying to use the government to force your convictions about marriage on others?

What you might be missing in all of this is that I will argue every bit as vigorously against the state imposing on the religious freedom of the churches in the matter of marriages. Religious leaders must be free to follow their conscience in these matters and the state must never attempt to impose on that freedom.

The state should be the servant of the people. Some of those citizens are same-sex couples. Since the state confers different taxation status and other powers to heterosexual couples as a result of marriage licences which they issue, the state cannot therefore discriminate against same-sex couples.

Justin Hoffer wrote:
To you, its semantics, but to someone religious, it is much more, and it feels like someone else is pushing their ideology on us. I'm Jewish and believe marriage is between one man and one woman, and this has been the common definition of it for at least 2 thousand years. The government forced a change in definition, and that is the problem here.

Justin, I'm Protestant and my wife is Jewish. If we had decided to be married in the Jewish faith, should I have asked the government to force the rabbi to marry us if he declined to do so because I refused to convert and join his congregation? I would hope the government would refuse if I made such a request. It's the same thing for same-sex couples if they try to force any church to marry them against their dogma.

Although the Jewish faith's definition has been around for a long time, the issuance of marriage licences (and all that goes with it) are relatively modern inventions. If folks want to opt out of state-issued marriage licences (and all that goes with it), good luck with that but stop pretending the world will come crashing down around our ears!!

-Mac
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mrsocko wrote:
Maybe people who don't get married in church could call themselves Unionized. That would make comrade Layton happy. :lol:

Since it's a civil ceremony, could we call them "civilized" instead? :lol:

-Mac
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

crazymamma wrote:
I must be posting using Bangladeshi or something.....

How's the weather over there? :lol:

-Mac
fiscalconservative





Joined: 08 Dec 2008
Posts: 1043
Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9
votes: 6

PostPosted: Sun Jan 11, 2009 6:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Justin Hoffer wrote:

2. We are wrong. A woman is inconvenienced for nine months.



More like 20 or more years. In addition many woman who abort children do so because they are not capable or inclined to raise them. Yes you can give up a child for adoption, but giving away your child once born goes against every human instinct and in many cases does not happen.
That is not even getting into those children who are aborted because of severe defects.
urbanmonk





Joined: 12 Jul 2007
Posts: 307
Reputation: 16.8Reputation: 16.8
votes: 5

PostPosted: Sun Jan 11, 2009 9:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

fiscalconservative wrote:
Yes you can give up a child for adoption, but giving away your child once born goes against every human instinct and in many cases does not happen.

Taking the life of your child certainly goes against every human instinct. This is why a very high percentage of moms and dads who have been convinced it's an option live with a lifetime of regret and turmoil after they commit this act.
This isn't an abortion thread so I won't go on about it but I will post for your benefit a couple of the pictures that those 'fanatical Pro Lifers" like to wave.

16 weeks....97% of abortions are done within the first 16 weeks.


20 weeks....this it when you can tell if there will be abnormalities and abort if you don't like what you see.
SFrank85





Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 2269
Reputation: 59.8
votes: 4
Location: Toronto - Scarborough Southwest

PostPosted: Sun Jan 11, 2009 11:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

fiscalconservative wrote:
Justin Hoffer wrote:

2. We are wrong. A woman is inconvenienced for nine months.



More like 20 or more years. In addition many woman who abort children do so because they are not capable or inclined to raise them. Yes you can give up a child for adoption, but giving away your child once born goes against every human instinct and in many cases does not happen.
That is not even getting into those children who are aborted because of severe defects.


You have just contradicted yourself on that one. It is against human instinct, but aborting your child is not?

Mac, you seem to be missing the point. The state did get involved in marriage, and now the state is getting involved in the church. The HRC might be rouge, but they are seen as legitimate through the state until the state dos something against it.

Also, churches are losing tax exempted status because they will not recognize same-sex marriage. They now have no other option but to close some ministry programs because of this.

Civil unions are legal through the church, because all the state requires of you is a witness, and the minister/pastor/preacher acts as the witness. As for the polygamist marriages, I am personally against polygamy; therefore I would not consider them legitimate.
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Sun Jan 11, 2009 1:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

SFrank85 wrote:
Mac, you seem to be missing the point. The state did get involved in marriage, and now the state is getting involved in the church. The HRC might be rouge, but they are seen as legitimate through the state until the state dos something against it.

Just because I don't agree with your interpretation doesn't mean I missed your point. As I suggested, the church should refuse to have anything to do with state issued marriage licences if they consider that process to be profane. There's nothing to stop them from continuing their own marriage, asking God's blessing on the union of a man and a woman, but it would be separate from the state.

The various taxation and other benefits of having a licenced-by-the-state marriage are all matters which deal with the government and the courts, not the church. The marriage licence is a form of contract. In the times before the state was involved, people resolved their own problems and didn't look to the government (including the legal system) for resolution.

SFrank85 wrote:
Also, churches are losing tax exempted status because they will not recognize same-sex marriage. They now have no other option but to close some ministry programs because of this.

I've heard rumbling from so-cons of such a thing but I've yet to see any evidence of such. Do you have any such reference?

SFrank85 wrote:
Civil unions are legal through the church, because all the state requires of you is a witness, and the minister/pastor/preacher acts as the witness. As for the polygamist marriages, I am personally against polygamy; therefore I would not consider them legitimate.

Actually, the provinces require those acting as witnesses to be licenced to do so as there are some due diligence issues regarding bloodlines, legal status, etc. It isn't quite as simple as being a witness on a standard legal document. For instance, I have been appointed as a commissionaire for the swearing of oaths as part of my duties but I'm not qualified to do marriages.

-Mac
SFrank85





Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 2269
Reputation: 59.8
votes: 4
Location: Toronto - Scarborough Southwest

PostPosted: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mac wrote:
SFrank85 wrote:
Mac, you seem to be missing the point. The state did get involved in marriage, and now the state is getting involved in the church. The HRC might be rouge, but they are seen as legitimate through the state until the state dos something against it.

Just because I don't agree with your interpretation doesn't mean I missed your point. As I suggested, the church should refuse to have anything to do with state issued marriage licences if they consider that process to be profane. There's nothing to stop them from continuing their own marriage, asking God's blessing on the union of a man and a woman, but it would be separate from the state.

The various taxation and other benefits of having a licenced-by-the-state marriage are all matters which deal with the government and the courts, not the church. The marriage licence is a form of contract. In the times before the state was involved, people resolved their own problems and didn't look to the government (including the legal system) for resolution.

SFrank85 wrote:
Also, churches are losing tax exempted status because they will not recognize same-sex marriage. They now have no other option but to close some ministry programs because of this.

I've heard rumbling from so-cons of such a thing but I've yet to see any evidence of such. Do you have any such reference?

SFrank85 wrote:
Civil unions are legal through the church, because all the state requires of you is a witness, and the minister/pastor/preacher acts as the witness. As for the polygamist marriages, I am personally against polygamy; therefore I would not consider them legitimate.

Actually, the provinces require those acting as witnesses to be licenced to do so as there are some due diligence issues regarding bloodlines, legal status, etc. It isn't quite as simple as being a witness on a standard legal document. For instance, I have been appointed as a commissionaire for the swearing of oaths as part of my duties but I'm not qualified to do marriages.

-Mac


There is no media reports on these because the media refuses, or does not wish to cover these news items. The Salvation Army has been in trouble from the state, and there was a homeless shelter forced to close in Southern Ontario because of it.
crazymamma





Joined: 18 Aug 2007
Posts: 1011
Reputation: 71.8
votes: 14
Location: The kitchen

PostPosted: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

SFrank85 wrote:


SFrank85 wrote:
Also, churches are losing tax exempted status because they will not recognize same-sex marriage. They now have no other option but to close some ministry programs because of this.

I've heard rumbling from so-cons of such a thing but I've yet to see any evidence of such. Do you have any such reference?

SFrank85 wrote:
Civil unions are legal through the church, because all the state requires of you is a witness, and the minister/pastor/preacher acts as the witness. As for the polygamist marriages, I am personally against polygamy; therefore I would not consider them legitimate.

Actually, the provinces require those acting as witnesses to be licenced to do so as there are some due diligence issues regarding bloodlines, legal status, etc. It isn't quite as simple as being a witness on a standard legal document. For instance, I have been appointed as a commissionaire for the swearing of oaths as part of my duties but I'm not qualified to do marriages.

-Mac


Quote:
There is no media reports on these because the media refuses, or does not wish to cover these news items. The Salvation Army has been in trouble from the state, and there was a homeless shelter forced to close in Southern Ontario because of it.


The irony of this is full force and one of the reasons I as a Libertarian/Christian do not want to use the state as a source to impose my will on others. The more powers you give a state the more willing they are to flex them, sometimes in a way that will not be pleasing..

Never use or utilize/legitamize a weapon/device that can be turned and used on you.
fiscalconservative





Joined: 08 Dec 2008
Posts: 1043
Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9
votes: 6

PostPosted: Sun Jan 11, 2009 5:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

SFrank85 wrote:
fiscalconservative wrote:
Justin Hoffer wrote:

2. We are wrong. A woman is inconvenienced for nine months.



More like 20 or more years. In addition many woman who abort children do so because they are not capable or inclined to raise them. Yes you can give up a child for adoption, but giving away your child once born goes against every human instinct and in many cases does not happen.
That is not even getting into those children who are aborted because of severe defects.


You have just contradicted yourself on that one. It is against human instinct, but aborting your child is not?


Yes. Human instinct is developed from millions of years of evolution. The ability to abort a child on purpose has been around only a couple thousand (and for the vast majority of the worlds population probably less than 100 years).
The genes of mothers who abandon their children would not have been passed on and as a result only the genes of mothers who want to keep their children would be passed on. This forms "human instinct" Maybe in a few thousand years, it will be human instinct not to have abortions (since pro-lifers" would have more kids. But we are not their now. For right now, abortion is an abstract concept to "human instinct".
Habsrwfan





Joined: 04 Oct 2008
Posts: 688
Reputation: 49.8Reputation: 49.8Reputation: 49.8Reputation: 49.8Reputation: 49.8
votes: 5

PostPosted: Wed Jan 14, 2009 7:26 am    Post subject: Re: Why I don't trust Libertarians. Reply with quote

Justin Hoffer wrote:
Some people look at Libertarianism as a good thing, but I disagree. This has a lot to due with how Libertarians view other ideologies, especially conservatism.

I've yet to meet a Libertarian who isn't an atheist who hates religion. I've met a number who believe in "reeducating" or even locking up people who are religious, which is, in reality, completely anti-Libertarian. Yet, they don't seem to think there is a contradiction with this thought process.

They have completely flawed ideas about preventative law measures, like seat belt laws, prostitution laws and speed limits. They are convinced that if you remove these laws, it won't cause harm, even though historically they do.

I've yet to meet a single libertarian that is willing to take Israel's side in the Middle East, and many of them are actually anti-semitic. Just look at the numbers of neo-Nazis that voted for Ron Paul in the last American election.

While drugs are a matter of debate, it should be obvious to anyone that at least the harder drugs should be kept illegal, such as Meth and Crack-Cocaine. But they don't see an issue with making these drugs legal and accessible in a corner store.

They will claim that we should not be involved in other areas of the world unless they are our allies or they request help. Israel is an ally of Canada, and yet they are steadfastly against Israel. Afghanistan has requested our help, and yet they are steadfastly against staying in Afghanistan. The same goes for Libertarians in America.

I can't find much logic in Libertarian thinking at all. I've even met a number who don't think a military is necessary for our country.

I do not trust Libertarians, and it is things like this that made me move to Conservatism rather than Libertarianism. Until Libertarians can show some logic in their thinking, I don't think I'll ever trust someone who claims to be a Libertarian.

Cross posted at <a href="http://ragingtory.blogspot.com">The Raging Tory</a>.


I think that most libertarian ideas come from a fairly reasonable, and logical, place.

The thing is that, as with almost any political ideology, there are unsavory folks out there who find a lot of things appealing about it, and try to twist it to their own oppressive purposes.

The "libertarians" that you met aren't so much libertarians as they are anti-religion bigots who can't handle people with different beliefs and worldviews than theirs. They want to force religious people to think and act like them, but at the same time they want the state to completely leave them alone - hence, by the combination of the two, they don't have to deal with people who disagree with them.

I've met people like this myself - they're selfish hedonists who refuse to tolerate any viewpoint contrary to theirs.

Obviously, this is utter hypocrisy, that any consistent and respectable libertarian would want nothing to do with.

The two most prominent figures in libertarianism today are probably Lew Rockwell and Ron Paul. Both are Christians, to the best of my knowledge.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 4 of 5

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum


Why I don't trust Libertarians.

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB