"And once again I ask the question: Just how many people will have to die, just how many lives will have to be ruined, before liberals admit that enforcing traditional morality is an absolute necessity for a healthy society?"

Despite their loud and continuous howls of feigned indignance, we do not refer to them as the "Culture of Death" because we wish to demean them, we are only telling the truth.

Speaking Truth to evil, as it were.

Keep doing it.

.

Mark,

The question isn't should we enforce traditional morals, bt whose morals get held as traditional?

Our traditional morals included slaves, and gentrification, and subserviance of women, among other things. Now I know it isn't right to equate the transgressions of morals of previous generations to our own, but we aren't too far removed from enforcing Jim Crow laws in the south.

So who get's to decide what is, and isn't "traditional"?

I don't get your righteous statements about the objectification of women; if that was such a huge concern of yours, then why don't we get to talk about issues like "Body Image", or beauty contests, or the grotesque marketing of fashion to our children?

It isn't that I don't believe you're outraged, the crime of forcing a woman to prostitute herself is immoral and wholly wrong, but this is an issue for the police. It's not a left-right issue to say that criminals need to be punished, but let's be realistic here, even in the most pious of days in this country, prostitution was going on, you can claim it is the fault of anyone you want, but that doesn't make it true. Criminals will engage in criminal endevours, this is why we pay police to do their jobs.

Everyday we buy clothes made by labor who is forced, through economic realities, to produce, yet I haven't seen you protest the American companies who reap large benefits from that labor; I would love to see you advocate a letter writing campaign against Nike, or Calvin Klein, or any number of other multi-nationals who take advantage of women and children for their own econmic gains. This isn't a left-right morals issue, it's an issue of basic human decency.

Mark Noonan,
Much like was asked of Senator McCarthy........"Have you no shame, sir?"
So now we're to blame for sex slavery in Europe as well?
Personally, I don't think you even believe half of the BS that comes from your posts.
Quite frankly, I think you're trying to be as over-the-top as you possibly can to fire up your right-wing blogger friends.

Mark, it's evil pure and simple.

Eeeeewwwwwwww. Legal brothels=sexual disease laboratories.

"And once again I ask the question: Just how many people will have to die, just how many lives will have to be ruined, before liberals admit that enforcing traditional morality is an absolute necessity for a healthy society?"

Here's your answer Mark: Not many because fascism sucks.

Traditional morals (from anyone's traditions, Third Eye,) have never stopped sexual misconduct. Even the most morally strict of all American cultures - the Puritans of New England - had adultry. The Witch Trials came about because the elders couldn't imagine their teenage daughters prancing around nude in the dark without the Devil's influence.
You can try several things to try to end prostitution - none of them likely to work.
1) Pre-arranged marriages. Every horny boy gets a girl at 14. Unfortunately, there won't be enough girls to go around, some will look "better" than others, and some guys will be so odious that no girl will take them. Plus, there will be some guys who will consider the grass greener down the road. Prostitution will continue.
2) Ignore it. Like the 50's, those whores just aren't there. Unfortunately, men will still find them. The 50s, repression and all, was the heyday of The best Little Whorehouse in Texas, and all their competitors, despite the morality.
3) Make pimping illegal. Licence the women, but put any man involved in the industry into the slammer. Unfortunately, this assumes that women will not be just as abusive.
4) Actually enforce the laws. If we went after the mob like we go after al-Qaida, these abuse cases would dry up like a shower in the Gobi. Unfortunately, too many people owe too many other people, and too many liberals would object to the amount of force that would be necessary.

Prostitution is not called the oldest profession for nothing. There will always be men who need sex, who cannot get it from a volunteer, or attract a wife, of be satisfied with cold showers. Like poverty in Africa, we are going to have these cases.
In defence of the Europeans, at least we are hearing about this kind of thing now. In the moral 50s, nobody knew what the women went through, and they had no advocates.

TEO,

Uh, the Judeo-Christian morals...you know, Ten Commandments and all that? Its really not all that hard to figure out.

You err when you say that slavery was traditional morality - it wasn't. In fact, it was Christianity which ended slavery in Europe, and it was Christianity which ended the slave trade in Africa, too. Slavery is a pre-Christian institution and it was only Christians who decided that as all are equal in the eyes of God, none should be held to bondage by another. Of course, you know this - and only bring it up to provide you with a absurd straw man with which to try and knock down my argument.

The plain fact of the matter is that the sex trade, so-called, has only gotten worse over the past 50 years as the traditional morality regarding sexuality has broken down. Its not that there was once a time when whores didn't exist but, rather, that there was once a time when it was universally considered morally reprehensible and was thus harried ceaselessly by law and custom and so it remained a much, much smaller activity than it is today.

Prostitution in legal in a lot of places in Europe - and not legal like it is out here in Nevada, where it is consigned to remote desert locations, but legal right in the middle of huge cities. It is legal, got that? So the police have practically zero incentive to keep tabs on it - this, as the article shows, has led to a vast increase in the number of women (and, I'll bet, men) who are victimized.

And the reason that prostitution is legal is because liberalism has been telling us for ages now that having sex is no big deal - something that every healthy person should engage in regularly, no matter if they are married or not...furthermore, it is something that we should never condemn.

Well, I'd like to see liberals explain this to, say, some 15 year old run away who is picked up by a pimp, raped repeatedly, hooked on drugs and then put out on the streets...tell her the theory about how sex is all for the good...

Here Mark goes again. Liberals either are the cause of, or support, sex slavery in Europe. Man, get a grip.

In fact it's your constant other perennial strawman, the feminist, who has worked most tirelessly to put an end to sex slavery.

... and I can't help but mention, that it's your (Republican) home state of Nevada that tolerates legal prostituion.

Try to explain how responsible adults having sex has anything to do with the the 15 year old run away, pimp, drugs, etc, Mark?

The traditional morality regarding sexuality has not broken down in the last 50 years, Mark, mankind is progressing too fast for you to deal with, isn't that your problem?

Winnow,

Hardly - the feminists are far too busy ensuring that more and more abortions happen...it is mostly Christian groups who lead the fight against all slavery, including sex slavery.

But as for blame - things don't just happen, winnow; they are all results of previous events. There is more sexual depravity today than ever before...and it didn't happen because conservatives were saying, "hey, ya know, this might not be such a good idea"...no, it happened because liberals were saying, "if it feels good, do it".

Susa,

No, its more a growing realisation just how degraded we have become. Its a bit of waking up, smelling the coffee and realising that my fellow human beings are suffering horrific loss just so some liberals can feel good about themselves...

Here's my contribution to the present sophistry:

Limousines make it too easy to engage in casual sex. I say we ban limousines. In fact, I say we ban all vehicles larger than a Porsche Boxer.

I agree. I saw several women without their faces covered the other day. One was even driving. And theese kids were watching the world cup as well. It's going to corrupt them I tell you. We really need to bring back theese moral values our religous leaders belive in

But as for blame - things don't just happen, winnow; they are all results of previous events. There is more sexual depravity today than ever before...and it didn't happen because conservatives were saying, "hey, ya know, this might not be such a good idea"...no, it happened because liberals were saying, "if it feels good, do it".

Fine, keep blaming liberals or "leftists" for every problem in the world. You are just sick, sick, sick.

And yes, christians groups are fighting against sex slavery, as are feminists. Don't be so damned self-righteous that you can't recognize you don't have a universal grasp on Good. Man, hell, plenty of feminists are also Christians. You live in such an insular little world..

I can't resist changing the topic(but ever so slightly)
Mark: regarding your comment "There is not now nor has there ever been a 12 year old girl sitting in class going, "know what? I think I'd like to be a whore when I grow up".

You are wrong, wrong, wrong. You forgot Ann Coulter, Media Whore

"There is more sexual depravity today than ever before...and it didn't happen because conservatives were saying, "hey, ya know, this might not be such a good idea"...no, it happened because liberals were saying, "if it feels good, do it"."
__________________________________________________

Exactly, BRAVO! High five!

Let's just say there is PLENTY of DEPRAVITY PERIOD! from the democratic communist!!

Most all democrats who come here are depraved!!

It's Pathetical!!

See, Mark? All you have to do is talk about (gasp!!) MORALITY and the anti-moralists come out of the cracks.

Christianity is about 2000 years old. Many many centuries before it codified its rules, civilizations recognized the dangers of anarchy, whether it related to civil or moral matters. But it's inconvenient to acknowledge that certain rules were made for the good of humanity, not just to impose some RELIGIOUS dogma on others.

And have you noticed that to the Left, if any bad thing ever happened, it precludes any change or any evolution from the previous status quo or even isolated incident? That is so convenient, because all they have to do is find something in the past to point to, and their work is done. They don't have to think, to analyze, to work for change. Hey, we once had legalized slavery in this country, so we can't ever be against slavery! Issue resolved! Someone gets paid very little to make Nikes, so we can't address forced labor in sex dens! Issue resolved!

But it is always the Easy Way Out for Liberals. It is always to do nothing, take no stand, establish no foundation, have no accountability.

So of course sex is just fun, just recreation, just a harmless victimless bump and tickle, and of course the only ones who think it is more than that are dismissed as hypocritical prudes trying to impose (gasp!) RELIGIOUS rules on the enlightened. And anyone who ever challenges that world view will most certainly be vilified, because it is very important to be able to justify ones' own indulgences. Look at NAMBLA. Just a bunch of loving guys, wanting to spread the love around.

Remember, Liberals are totally egocentric. So sex is just fun, no harm no foul---till a Lib's little girl gets raped by a man who believes that sex with children is just as rule-free as sex with anyone or anything else. Enslavement for the sexual entertainment of others is just fine, till some Lib's sister disappears while in Europe and shows up dead a few years later after serving in various whorehouses around the world. But don't try to make this a general issue of MORALITY, Mark, because Libs disdain MORALITY. It is all relative, and till something relates to them it's just intrusive to try to establish any kind of rules for anyone.

I think Mark put it exactly the way it was supposed to mean!

I commend him!

No beating around the bush!

He cut straight to the point and that is THAT, the left is CORRUPT, PERIOD!!

They have corrupted our whole nation!!

The christian nation has had ENOUGH of their disception, and lies!

Deleted - anti-Catholic slanders. Hey, Opie, you do know that a far higher proportion of public school teachers are child molestors than priests, right? I mean, you do realise that while teachers molesting their students is an ongoing problem, recent cases of priests doing it are exceptionally rare, right?

Or is it that you're just going, "oh, goody, a priest sinned, so now I'm off the hook"?

Winnow,

I'm sorry to put it this way - but are you really that ignorant of the feminist movement? Are you truly unaware of what they live and breath every day to the near-exclusion of all other things?

It is abortion, winnow - it is all they care about; all they want in the world - apparantly to salve their guilty consciences - is to have more and more and more abortions.

A quick check over at NOW - certainly one of the premier feminist groups in the US, right? - gives us on their main page:

An article giving pro-forma praise to Title IX; An article urging people to be part of Reproductive Freedom Summer '06; An article about "fake clinics" deceiving women in to not having abortions; an article stating what nasty, anti-woman place the United States is; an article stating that Ani DiFranco will get a NOW award...this would interest me but, quite honestly, I've never heard of the lady; an anti-Bush screed from the President of NOW; an article about the Duke rape case (this is a feminist issue?); an article about a woman who supposedly suffered for supporting abortion rights; an article offering excuses for why NOW couldn't carry the day in the CA 50th; an article against repealing the estate tax (this is a feminist issue?); a solicitation to gain employment at NOW; a plea for amnesty in immigration (once again, this is a feminist issue?); an article lauding a new cervical cancer vaccine...nothing about sex slavery, or any slavery.

What about in their "take action" section? Surely NOW is urging its members to take action against sex slavery, right? Well, while they do urge their members to support a raise in the minimum wage and, of course, right for various parts of abortion rights...not one thing urging people to fight against the sexual enslavement of women.

Hmmm...yeah, feminists are deep in the anti-slavery movement, aren't they?

Almiranta,

I also like how a post about sex slavery is taken by our lefty posters to be something to accuse conservatives of being prudes...I don't see them actually condemning the practice much...

Mark,

so you're defending the priests?
point made was those who live in glass houses...and I didn't only touch on Priests did I Mark?

what about the results of the abstinence programs Mark?

I noticed you don't condemn the acts of Dr Hager Mark, which is a perfect example of what happens when you have a sexually confused group of people such as yourselves..

See Mark, your problem is that you don't really care about these girls and boys who get caught up on the sex slave trade, you're only concerned with their standing as Christians. You hear these stories and realize these poor souls in such a confused state are easy pickens' for you and your sect, you could care less about what is happening to them, you're only concern is will they accept Jesus...

-People do not volunteer to become prostitutes. Period.

Or Christians Mark, period.

-There is not now nor has there ever been a 12 year old girl sitting in class going, "know what? I think I'd like to be a whore when I grow up".

Or a Christian Mark.

Lets see,

what two groups of people try to control the lives of others through fear?

what two groups of people actively recruit those who are in desperate situations?

what two groups aren't school teachers?

I'd ask more Mark, but you most likely wouldn't post it, would you Mark....

Opus,

Just what made you such an anti-Christian bigot? Nun rap you on the knuckles too hard once? Geesh, get over yourself.

I care about the people caught up in the trade as human beings who are suffering so that the wicked may have pleasure...that is all.

Mark,
Just what made you such an anti-Christian bigot?
Oh I see, now I'm a bigot, that's real Christian of you Mark.

Why are you so afraid Mark? Why can't you have faith you yourself to do the right thing instead of relying on the acceptance of magical people from a fairy tale? Maybe you need to work on yourself and realize what is really important in THIS world before you chastise others about the next. It'll be ok Mark, we can get though this together....

I care about the people caught up in the trade as human beings who are suffering so that the wicked may have pleasure...that is all.

-maybe you should be concered about cleaning you own house fist Mark, then you can save the world...

The Europeans are not Pius people. They have not been Pius for years. Liberalism does not equal piety.

Do not be fooled...

Sophistry: 1. Plausible but fallacious argumentation. 2. A plausible but misleading or fallacious argument.

I'm guessing most libbies are against slavery, including (but not limited to) sex slavery. Anti-slavery, anti-discrimination, equal rights -- isn't all that stuff what libbies are all about? So to suggest that they support sex slavery is ludicrous on the face of it.

Mark, you indicated that your real issue was not the sex part that had you up in arms, "but the treating of human beings as mere objects for personal gratification." What if we changed the sentence to read... "but the treating of human beings as mere objects for personal gain." Would you be as outraged? If not, why not? Forgive me if I'm wrong, but that sounds like a central libbie talking point. In fact, I hope it is one that everyone would embrace. I mean, how can anyone with ANY sense of morality be in favor of human trafficking for any purpose whatsoever? In that regard, whether nefarious individuals are trafficking in humans for the purpose of the sex trade, for the garment industry, or for anything else, is irrelevant. It's simply wrong.

If you read the article you referenced at the head of your topic, Mark, it would become clear that the women it purported to be about were totally duped into prostitution. It wasn't like they were making an ill-advised, unsavory choice, they weren't making any choice at all! They thought they were being recruited for a completely different type of job. They were taken advantage of by criminals. And only those criminals were the ones that served to gain. The Russian mafia are some seriously rutheless people. And I doubt many of them are liberal. They're just criminals.

Another argument the article made was that the legalization of prostitution in Germany and elsewhere made the trade that much easier because the cops were less inclined to investigate the operation of said brothels. But I looked into it a little bit. And it turns out that the law (at least in Germany) was formulated to reduce the incidence of human trafficking, not increase it. In other words, it was designed to make a bad and intractable situation better, not worse. Whether it has worked as anticipated is very much open to question. And that is indeed an important question, but it's a completely different one. It's easy to try to view all problems the world over through the prism of the situation in the US, but it is also erroneous. Germany has a serious unemployment problem that they have been trying to recover from since the integration of West and East.

You additionally argue... "Sure, you can find a few odd women who will assert stoutly that they are volunteer prostitutes...but if you check their backgrounds, you'll find a litanty of sexual abuse, drug addiction, alchoholism and other degradation which makes their claim nonsense. There is not now nor has there ever been a 12 year old girl sitting in class going, "know what? I think I'd like to be a whore when I grow up".

So what's your point? I guess it has something to do with whether or not prostitution is a victimless crime. That prostitution is, for the most part, an occupation that is more forced upon a person than chosen. I don't know that much about it, but I'm inclined to agree. For many I am inclined to believe that it is the only way they see to keep from starving to death. So... what are the alternatives? If their backgrounds are filled with a litanty of sexual abuse, drug addiction, alchoholism and other degradation, what do you have to offer them? Should they enlist or simply starve to death? I'm guessing the services would have to drop their requirements even further for that to be a viable option. So... what?

You additionally argue that NOW should have an active, on-going crusade against sexual slavery in Europe. I guess it would be nice. But what does the "N" stand for? Isn't it "National"? But just for the heck of it I went up to their site, entered "slavery" in their search box, and these are some of the things I found...

Worldwide Tragedy: U.S. Not Immune to Sexual Slavery
http://www.now.org/nnt/summer-2000/slavery.html

Slavery, Violence Against Women Continue Worldwide
http://www.now.org/nnt/summer-2000/slavery.html

Sexploitation: Trafficking, Prostitution & Pornography
http://www.now.org/organization/conference/2005/workshops.html

In conclusion Mark, I find your original post and your following comments full of examples of sophistry. If you want to argue that prostitution is wrong, fine. I agree. If you want to argue that human trafficking is wrong, fine. I agree. If you want to argue that libbies are to inclined to accept permissive attitudes to the detriment of society, fine. I agree. But at least do it in an honest way. To do it like you did it makes you look like you are full of bull poo, and more interested in your own ideology than you are in truth. And I can't accept that. We have enough differences along the political divide without having to make them up.

Opus,

Ah, but human beings will never be perfect - if I were to sit around saying I can only help others after I become perfect, then I'll never help others.

In the end, I'll stand my fairy tale against yours (yours being that it all started from nothing and developed by accident - show me the mathematical equation for that...) and rest content. I'll also keep praying for you. Wonderful thing about being a Christian - we are sure to win.

Ricorun,

Huh? You agree with my central points, but say I'm using sophistry? Seems to me that you are using a bit of sophistry to avoid, at all costs, the conclusions which must inevitibly be drawn from the confluence of legalised prostitution and the spread of sex slavery.

There is a reason I'm not a liberal, Ricorun - it is because liberalism is wrong. It is inherently wrong - it can't possibly get it right because if proceeds from a false premise (at bottom, that nurture is all). Anything built upon an incorrect idea will always end up with more incorrect ideas. I'm conservative because after careful study, it is the only possible set of beliefs which can work.

When I get in to a discussion like this, I always like to bring up the Hapsburg Empire.

This, of course, is held up as the acme of reactionary obscuritanism...an Emperor who claimed to rule by divine right and who held captive various nationalities, all the while aligned with that oh, so anti-liberal Catholic Church which just lives to keep people ignorant and complaisant. So, the fall of the Hapsburgs was a good thing - except it wasn't.

The Hapsburgs kept in check various nationalistic movements which, left unfettered, would - and eventually did - rip Europe to pieces and utterly destroy the pre-eminent place of European civilization. Hooray! Lets destroy the Hapsburgs - they are conservative! Old fashioned! Out of touch with modernity! Hooray for liberalism...it will destroy the Hapsburgs and usher in....well, as it turns out, first the Nazis, then the communists.

Good job, liberalism...is there any other pillar of order that you'd like to take down for our benefit?

Human beings can be bad, Ricorun - you know this; in fact, everyone knows this. Because human beings can be bad, there has to be strong checks upon the unfettered action of humans. People can't be allowed to do whatever they please because this will allow wicked people to do evil.

Liberalism has spent the last 217 years (ie, since the French Revolution started in 1789) trying to rip down the old, Judeo-Christian order, promising all along that as soon as we clear out the Judeo-Christian cobwebs, everthing will be just swell...It hasn't been, not once. The first affect of liberalism was to remove the legal and social protections the poor had against the rich...the worst of capitalist excess in the 19th century was the result of liberalism, ya know?

By allowing the clever rich to grind the faces of the poor - something those pathetic, out of touch Christians never allowed - desperation crept in to the poor...they had to get out of it some how...and so they became easy prey for other liberals, become communists, who exploited the hopeless masses for purposes of violent revolution.

But that wasn't the end of liberal gifts to mankind...lets not forget that liberalism first held that women shouldn't have to work...that the man should work while the woman stays at home and instructs the children in enlightened, liberal ideals. What, you didn't know that liberalism first held it an advance that women were taken out of the farm and factory? You mean you really thought is was the White Male Patriarchy which did it?

How about free and compulsory education? That is a great thing, right? Oh, yeah, we're must better educated than we were before...'cept it seems that our college graduates can barely write proper English...funny how before liberalism took over the universities, they could not only write splendid English, but Latin and Greek as well...ah, well, who needs to learn Latin? Much better that they take post-feminist studies courses, right? I mean what is more important, Cicero or Gloria Steinem?

Liberalism fails and fails and fails - it is all it can do. It is forgivable because genuine liberals are at least generous of heart and mind...they are just muddleheaded. The baleful ones are those lefists who grow out of liberalism...taking the anti-traditional views of liberalism to an absurd extreme. Still and all, liberalism just gets it wrong...and among the many things they got wrong, sexual morality ranks right up there...its been a disaster, the liberal prescriptions for sex...so, yeah, I blame liberalism for the spread of prostitution and sex slavery...

Noonan. You are an extremist and a complete raving lunatic too boot. That all I will say, no more is necessary, you cannot be reasoned with.

Canuckguy,

Go back to school and maybe you can learn some of that stuff, and then you'll understand it!!

Jeremiah: Bite me. What a bunch of knuckledraggers you guys are. You and your kind are poison to a healthy society.

" Bite me"

Now watch it bouy, you play with a tiega, you just might get bit.

You betta wun fast bouy!

;) Now smile weal big fer tiggers sake. LOL

Mark,

I'm sorry to put it this way - but are you really that ignorant of the feminist movement? Are you truly unaware of what they live and breath every day to the near-exclusion of all other things?

It is abortion, winnow - it is all they care about; all they want in the world - apparantly to salve their guilty consciences - is to have more and more and more abortions.

Umm, I'm a male, but I am also a feminist. Are you telling me what I believe? Because this sounds awfully like your standard strawman arguments, where you revert to a ridiculous stereotype to cover up your lack of focused ideas.

Please actually address my original points: do you think those of us who believe in equality for women are for sex slavery? Or that the concept of equal rights of the sexes is anathema to Christianity? Because, sorry to say, that is exactly what your cheap shot rebuttal has implied.

It was Christ who said: "Just not lest ye be judged." I'm judging here, but you fall far short of the ideals you claim to represent, and, frankly, you annoy the shit out of me. If you were capable of honest debate, I would retract that. But you are much more interested in judging everyone who has the slightest disagreement with you, and ascribing the darkest motives to their beliefs. And, again, that is sick. You call yourself a Christian?

I don't know, why don't you actually try to help these women? No one does. They're ignored as the scum of society. This stuff goes on just as much here as it does elsewhere. Rather than putting prostitutes in jail, we need to be trying to stop the illegal slavery.

Keeping prostitution legal or illegal really isn't the point. Helping the suffering is.

Sadly, you'll never hear a right winger talk about God punishing America for its hard-heartedness towards the poor, the suffering, the drug addicts, the prostitutes, etc. God seems to only get angry at the homosexual agenda and Democrats.

Self righteous Christians who yap but do nothing make me sick. How many hookers have you tried to help today?

Almiranta,

It wasn't morals that brought us out here, it was making sure when you maroons are engaged in your rhetorical circle-jerks, that an adult is present to provide you with a few facts; if you re-read the article, Mark is attempting to lay anything he can, including this criminal case, squarely at the feet of liberals. Stop slobbin' his knob, and think for yourself miss

In fact, it was Christianity which ended slavery in Europe, and it was Christianity which ended the slave trade in Africa, too. Slavery is a pre-Christian institution and it was only Christians who decided that as all are equal in the eyes of God, none should be held to bondage by another.

Holy moly...what planet are you on, Noonan? It sure ain't Earth, whatever it is. Christianity ended slavery? Uh, Christianity was complicit in the slavery that America participated in, and Christianity--like just about any group one could mention--is complicit, if not active engaging, in the even more pernicious form of modern slavery.

Of course, if you had bothered to do any research--any research at all--you would know these things. But you fear learning because learning tends to rupture your sad little calcified comic book view of the world.

You're in way over your head, Noonan. You "blame liberalism" for sex slavery because you are completely naive. Learn a little something before you open your maw.

Mark said: "When I get in to a discussion like this, I always like to bring up the Hapsburg Empire."

Gee, I can't imagine how you wouldn't. Anyway, my condolences to the Hapsburgs. And for your sake, Mark, I guess I'm sorry that the American Revolution was such a rousing success. But I can't say your latest post was an example of sophistry. To qualify it would have to be plausible.

There are no traditional values, only sticks-in-the-mud who want it to be 1909 forever.

Give me a break Mark, you wanna control the whole world because your afraid of the human body, ur just a damned little kid. Your goal and all the dumb fools who follow you is to keep this world as infantile as you are. Humankind is maturing. And that scares the **** out of you. No more dressing in darkness in modesty. No more hiding ankles, covering the legs of tables. We are maturing and acting like grown ups. This is how it will be and you are powerless to stop it, and the progression will only advance, and you'll continue your cry-baby routine.

Just look at it this way Liberals are for progression, so if we were talking about a plant, the liberal would be watering it, helping it grow, and the Republican would stamp it out in fear and call it degrading.

If you can't figure out right and wrong with that analogy...god knows.

Can't you see the entire progression of history has been Liberal?

Ricorun,

That wasn't even a good dodge...pathetic. For crying out loud, can't you even defend your beliefs?

SUSA,

If you've taken a wrong turn, then continuing down the road isn't progress...it is just more and more wrong.

You might want to delve in to your mind a bit and think about why you believe I am afraid of sex and sexuality...as a married man who has sex on a regular basis, I think there is a flaw in your theory about me.

Perhaps you should think quietly a little bit. Can't hurt, might help.

Mark said: "For crying out loud, can't you even defend your beliefs?

Interesting you should bring this up, given that your Hapsburg comment made no attempt to counter anything I said with anything approaching any level of specificity. So give me a clue -- where do you want me to start? Do you want me to point out that the French Revolution (which you obviously defile) was inspired to a great degree by our own American Revolution? Do you want me to argue the merits/demerits of the American Revolution itself, and the meaning of the phrase "all men are created equal"? Do you want me to explain why I think Teddy Roosevelt was a great president? Or Ronald Reagan? Or do you want me to explain why I think the legalization of prostitution does not, or at least should not, have anything to do with human trafficking, whether it occurs in Germany, or in the Netherlands, or in San Francisco, Las Vegas, or in the Marianas Islands, or whereever else? In short, do you want me to explain why it is ridiculous to assume that "liberals", as currently defined at least, are behind everything that is wrong with society for the last 217 years? My time is limited. Can you constrain the topic a little? Or is your strategy to enlarge the sophistry you engage in to such a level that it cannot be constrained to any reasonable level? If so I have to ask, is that an honest strategy?

You take exception to the whole concept of "nurturing", without explaining what you mean. But in apparent contention to it you appear to claim that any attempt at nationalism, at gender equality, at racial equality, at equality in opportunity in education or employment, are all things that should be eschewed rather than applauded. You mention that, "The first affect [sic] of liberalism was to remove the legal and social protections the poor had against the rich." In your words (or perhaps you were parroting me, hehe)... Huh? What protections do you mean?

The issue isn't so much that I don't want to defend my beliefs, the issue is that you keep expanding the territory. Moreover, it appears that you wish to expand the territory to such an extent that you want me to not only argue the fundamental elements of sophistry, but those of solipsism as well. In which case you go beyond the fact-based community into a territory that I won't follow. That's the territory where "moral relativism" reigns unrestricted.

Mark said: "For crying out loud, can't you even defend your beliefs?

Interesting you should bring this up, given that your Hapsburg comment made no attempt to counter anything I said with anything approaching any level of specificity. So give me a clue -- where do you want me to start? Do you want me to point out that the French Revolution (which you obviously defile) was inspired to a great degree by our own American Revolution? Do you want me to argue the merits/demerits of the American Revolution itself, and the meaning of the phrase "all men are created equal"? Do you want me to explain why I think Teddy Roosevelt was a great president? Or Ronald Reagan? Or do you want me to explain why I think the legalization of prostitution does not, or at least should not, have anything to do with human trafficking, whether it occurs in Germany, or in the Netherlands, or in San Francisco, Las Vegas, or in the Marianas Islands, or whereever else? In short, do you want me to explain why it is ridiculous to assume that "liberals", as currently defined at least, are behind everything that is wrong with society for the last 217 years? My time is limited. Can you constrain the topic a little? Or is your strategy to enlarge the sophistry you engage in to such a level that it cannot be constrained to any reasonable level? If so I have to ask, is that an honest strategy?

You take exception to the whole concept of "nurturing", without explaining what you mean. But in apparent contention to it you appear to claim that any attempt at nationalism, at gender equality, at racial equality, at equality in opportunity in education or employment, are all things that should be eschewed rather than applauded. You mention that, "The first affect [sic] of liberalism was to remove the legal and social protections the poor had against the rich." In your words (or perhaps you were parroting me, hehe)... Huh? What protections do you mean?

The issue isn't so much that I don't want to defend my beliefs, the issue is that you keep expanding the territory. Moreover, it appears that you wish to expand the territory to such an extent that you want me to not only argue the fundamental elements of sophistry, but those of solipsism as well. In which case you go beyond the fact-based community into a territory that I won't follow. That's the territory where "moral relativism" reigns unrestricted.

Mark said: "For crying out loud, can't you even defend your beliefs?

Interesting you should bring this up, given that your Hapsburg comment made no attempt to counter anything I said with anything approaching any level of specificity. So give me a clue -- where do you want me to start? Do you want me to point out that the French Revolution (which you obviously defile) was inspired to a great degree by our own American Revolution? Do you want me to argue the merits/demerits of the American Revolution itself, and the meaning of the phrase "all men are created equal"? Do you want me to explain why I think Teddy Roosevelt was a great president? Or Ronald Reagan? Or do you want me to explain why I think the legalization of prostitution does not, or at least should not, have anything to do with human trafficking, whether it occurs in Germany, or in the Netherlands, or in San Francisco, Las Vegas, or in the Marianas Islands, or whereever else? In short, do you want me to explain why it is ridiculous to assume that "liberals", as currently defined at least, are behind everything that is wrong with society for the last 217 years? My time is limited. Can you constrain the topic a little? Or is your strategy to enlarge the sophistry you engage in to such a level that it cannot be constrained to any reasonable level? If so I have to ask, is that an honest strategy?

You take exception to the whole concept of "nurturing", without explaining what you mean. But in apparent contention to it you appear to claim that any attempt at nationalism, at gender equality, at racial equality, at equality in opportunity in education or employment, are all things that should be eschewed rather than applauded. You mention that, "The first affect [sic] of liberalism was to remove the legal and social protections the poor had against the rich." In your words (or perhaps you were parroting me, hehe)... Huh? What protections do you mean?

The issue isn't so much that I don't want to defend my beliefs, the issue is that you keep expanding the territory. Moreover, it appears that you wish to expand the territory to such an extent that you want me to not only argue the fundamental elements of sophistry, but those of solipsism as well. In which case you go beyond the fact-based community into a territory that I won't follow. That's the territory where "moral relativism" reigns unrestricted.

Darn that blue screen!

Sorry for the double post.

wow, didn't think this board was still going...

Don't know if Mark's still reading, but hey, allow me to show how wrong he is:
-In the end, I'll stand my fairy tale against yours (yours being that it all started from nothing and developed by accident - show me the mathematical equation for that...)

Here's your mathematical equation Mark...now write it down so you don't forget...1+2=3 it's called logic, how does it work, well when 1+x=3, you try to find what X is...but Christians don't, you've given up, you found a make believe story that tells you what x is and not only did you accept it, but you try to push it on others.

I don't know how it started, I'm not saying it came from nothing, I'm secure enough to say "I don't know" but you're not, you seem to be afraid of not knowing so you make up fairy tales to make yourself feel better...why is that, why can't you admit you don't know how it started or what happens afterwards...what are you afraid of Mark and why is it that you and your kind continue to feel you must help others to avoid finding the truth, what ever that may be?

Opus, for the record I am a Christian -- a Catholic as a matter of fact. And I take my faith very seriously. True, I disagree with Mark often -- even on issues that he bases upon faith and/or morality. I guess our difference could most succinctly be encapsulated in the quote by Abraham Lincoln, "Don't pray that God's on our side, pray that we're on His side."

In other words, I believe with all my heart that it is right and just to pray to God for enlightenment, but never for justification -- not for any worldly action anyway. So be very careful when you lump "Christians" into some sort of overly simplistic group of your own making. For that matter, be careful about lumping any group into some sort of category of your own making. But I'm not just talking to you, Opus. By the way, I likd your nickname. Are you a fan of Berke Breathed? He did a cartoon for the UTexas paper (the Daily Texan) while I was there called "Academia Waltz". I don't recall Opus from those days, though. I think Opus only appeared later, in his Bloom County strip. That was post-UT.

This is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. Two men will be in the field; one will be taken the other left. Two women will be grinding with a handmill; one will be taken and the other left.
Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come. But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what time of night the thief was coming, he would have kept watch and would not have let his house be broken into. So you also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect Him."Who then is the faithful and the wise servant, whom the master has put in charge of the servants in his household to give them their food at the proper time? It will be good for that servant whose master finds him doing so when he returns. I tell you the truth, he will put him in charge of all his possessions. But suppose that servant is wicked and says to himself, 'My master is staying away a long time,'and he then begins to eat and drink with drunkards. The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the hypocrites, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Matthew 24

My friend if your relationship with Jesus christ is not like this (+) then there is something wrong, and you need to take it to the cross in prayer!!

Just remember that if you have a need in your life? JUST TAKE IT TO THE CROSS!!

Jeremiah

This is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. Two men will be in the field; one will be taken the other left. Two women will be grinding with a handmill; one will be taken and the other left.
Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come. But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what time of night the thief was coming, he would have kept watch and would not have let his house be broken into. So you also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect Him."Who then is the faithful and the wise servant, whom the master has put in charge of the servants in his household to give them their food at the proper time? It will be good for that servant whose master finds him doing so when he returns. I tell you the truth, he will put him in charge of all his possessions. But suppose that servant is wicked and says to himself, 'My master is staying away a long time,'and he then begins to eat and drink with drunkards. The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the hypocrites, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Matthew 24

My friend if your relationship with Jesus christ is not like this (+) then there is something wrong, and you need to take it to the cross in prayer!!

Just remember that if you have a need in your life? JUST TAKE IT TO THE CROSS!!

Jeremiah

This is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. Two men will be in the field; one will be taken the other left. Two women will be grinding with a handmill; one will be taken and the other left.
Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come. But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what time of night the thief was coming, he would have kept watch and would not have let his house be broken into. So you also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect Him."Who then is the faithful and the wise servant, whom the master has put in charge of the servants in his household to give them their food at the proper time? It will be good for that servant whose master finds him doing so when he returns. I tell you the truth, he will put him in charge of all his possessions. But suppose that servant is wicked and says to himself, 'My master is staying away a long time,'and he then begins to eat and drink with drunkards. The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the hypocrites, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Matthew 24

My friend if your relationship with Jesus christ is not like this (+) then there is something wrong, and you need to take it to the cross in prayer!!

Just remember that if you have a need in your life? JUST TAKE IT TO THE CROSS!!

Jeremiah

Re the Habsburg Empire.
As a European and a historian I must point our Mark's poor grasp of history.
It was the Habsburg Empire, aka Austro/Hungary, that started the First World War by attacking Serbia.And thus plunged Europe into the abyss.

Some role-model !

Ricorun,

You're still dodging...but I'll give you another shot at it:

My contention is that liberalism is wrong because it proceeds from a false premise: that nurture is everything. In other words, liberalism is based upon an idea that people are inherently good and that only poor societal structures cause them to be bad. This is asinine - as shown by the vast number of people who grow up in wealthy, well-ordered and loving homes who still manage to go bad. Nurture is important, but sometimes people are just bad, and there's an end on it - conservativism proceeds from that presumption: that people can be bad, so have a care.

People who believe that nurture is all are, of course, in denial of Christian revelation - Christian theology holds that mankind is fallen - that men are inclined to evil and thus need salvation...and careful control until such salvation is achieved. You say you are Catholic, like me...and once upon a time I believe I advised you that a Catholic cannot be liberal - and that is why; liberalism denies things which are bedrock in Catholic belief.

Of course, even when Catholicism ruled, people were still inclined to evil and so much evil was done - some of it by people who claimed to be working on behalf of the Catholic religion. But ever since liberalism first reared its ugly head in the French Revolution - ever since, that is, a set of principles which denied Christian truth were introduced into western civilization, liberalism has just gone from bad to worse. It is true that some of the inspiration for the French revolution came from the American revolution - but in France the liberals ruled the roost...and they were determined to war on religion and to leave themselves unfettered in their desires to gain power and wealth, everyone be damned, even as they piously claimed to be working for the people (another problem with liberalism is that it denies absolute standards of right and wrong, and thus all sorts of crimes are rationalised by liberals).

Liberalism and its socialist, communist, Nazi and fascist offspring have been responsible for more death and destruction than any thing ever created by the hand or mind of man - only conservatism; only, that is, an adherence to Judeo-Christian, bedrock moral strictures can save us from complete destruction as a society...and our society is only as healthy as that percentage which continues to adhere to Judeo-Christian morality. The reason, in my view, that the US is still a strong, growing and vibrant society while Europe is dying is that a majority of Americans still subscribe to the old morality, while only a small minority (about 10%) of Europeans still do.

Now, defend your beliefs.

Ashley,

No one ever said it was perfect...but the liberal idea of national self-determination, ie the break-up of the Hapsburg Empire, left the power vacuum in central Europe first filled by Hitler, then by Stalin.

Great job, liberals.

Okay, let me start with two simple postulates. The first is one that I propose. But I think you, and everyone, could agree with it to a large extent. That is this:
1. "Liberal" and "conservative" define the poles of a continuum.

In other words, it is impossible to be less liberal without becoming more conservative, and vice versa. Granted, it could be argued that there are at least two such liberal/conservative continuua, one fiscal and the other social. But here we are talking about social conservatism/liberalism, so we can effectively ignore the fiscal domain.

The second postulate I got from you, Mark. So you can't possibly argue with it. And that is this:
2. "Liberalism" is characterized by the concept of "nurturing is everything".

Because conservatism is diametrically opposed to liberalism, it therefore follows that conservatism must be characterized by the concept of "nurturing is nothing." Now, if you don't agee with that, then one or the other postulates is wrong.

I'm reasonably sure what you're going to say -- you're going to try to argue that conservatism is not characterized by the concept of "nurturing is nothing", that nurturing does have a place even for rabid conservatives. But if you argue that then you must also accept that withholding nurturing (which I would construe as some kind of punishment) has a place in the thinking of even for rabid liberals. But of course if you do that, your premise breaks down and you are once again open to charges of sophistry.

You could also argue that I ignored your explication of the "nurturing is everything" concept. And you did flesh it out a bit. You said, "liberalism is based upon an idea that people are inherently good and that only poor societal structures cause them to be bad." Perhaps so. But what is the contrast of that? If conservativism is the opposite of liberalism, then it follows that conservativism is based upon the idea that people are inherently bad and only ideal social structures cause them to be good. So I ask you, what's the difference? Interesting how diametrically opposed points of view lead to the same place, isn't it?

Like I have said many times, if you stop the bomb-throwing and the ad-hominem attacks and really think about things, liberals and conservatives -- in this country at least -- aren't really all that different. We all want the same things, we just have a different approach.

Mark, you also mentioned that at one time you "advised" me that "that a Catholic cannot be liberal". You did. At some point as well (I don't recall how contiguous they were) I "advised" you that perhaps you should read your Matthew again, particularly Chapters 5 - 7, the Sermon on the Mount.

The fact is, Mark, that I reject your premise that "Liberalism" is characterized by the concept of "nurturing is everything". I'm at something of a disadvantage in the sense that I don't characterize myself as liberal (although I'm sure some here would dispute that, but in my defense I point out that I have been called both a wingnut and a moonbat on this site with approximately equal frequency -- and with disturbing regularity), so I can only go on my impression of what libbies think, on the basis of what I've read and heard from friends. And my impression is that it may be true that liberals may stress nurturing over punishment. But there can be nurturing in punishment. It's the whole concept of "tough love". And in that respect, if you were to argue that tough love is concept that is embraced by the Catholic church, I would very much agree. In fact, I can attest to that with first-hand experience -- lots of it, lol! But inherent in the concept of "tough love" -- indeed an indispensable part of it -- is the love. Without the love part it ain't Christian.

At some point, Mark, I hope you realize that Christianity in general, and Catholicism in particular, are big tents -- far bigger than any political party, far bigger than any nation. To suggest that Catholicism and/or Christianity are off-limits to our libbie friends is ludicrous in the extreme. That's another example of your sophistry -- by assuming that belief in God is off-limits to liberals, you feel justified in concluding that any political movement that denies His existence is inherently liberal. That's so patently ridiculous that it doesn't even rise to the level of sophistry. It's pure delusion is what it is.

Don't pray that God is on your side, Mark. Pray you are on His.

Ashley,

With all due fairness to Mark, your explanation of the cause of WWI, vis-a-vis the Hapsburgs, was rather superficial -- not to mention more than a bit off the point. But I would be very much interested to hear what you have to say if you were willing to flesh out your thoughts more. But I warn you -- this site is not for the faint of heart. You need to come packin', lol!

Ricorun

Yes! Opus is from Berkeley Breathed, I got a little carried away when I was younger and now have an Opus tattoo on my shoulder! My Wife makes me keep the Opus painting in the garage..it's a piece of art!

and I am sorry if I've offended you as a Christian and a Catholic, but I do have to stand by what I said, I just can't respect any point of view that puts stories ahead of a search for knowledge...

Ricorun,

I don't think God actually takes sides in politics - though if He wishes a certain political outcome, it will happen. God isn't a Republican - but he also isn't a liberal.

God has provided us a set of rules designed to compensate for the fact of our fallen nature - if God says we are fallen, then I am not about to dispute my Creator on that point...and thus, as I said, liberalism has it fundamentally wrong. The liberals may argue with God about this all they want, but I can't see that changing anything.

Christianity is the biggest tent - it is for all; but I must continue to state that if one becomes a Christian, then any liberal notions one has must conform to Christianity, not the other way 'round. A liberal can find common ground - both liberals and Christians insisting upon a decent provision for the poor, but while both want to help the poor, Christianity also makes severe demands upon the poor, while liberalism tends to an "its not your fault" excuse-making for the poor - not all of whom are mere victims of fate, but victims of personal irresponsibility (this is especially true of the poor in the fabulously wealthy nations of the West). The excuse making has to be dropped...pour out the cash to the poor, but the poor also have their responsibility...including, of course, a deep gratitude and respect for those who help them.

It is a hard faith we have, Ricorun...it isn't for the faint hearted; it makes very strong demands, and the longer one moves on the Christian path, the more stringent the demands become...on the flip side, the more we walk with God, the more grace we'll be given to handle the increased load.

To get this back to the original post - I hold that people are responsible for what they do. Know what I'd like to see some day? Some one interviewing, say, Mick Jagger to ask this question:

"So, Mick, all that glorification of sex and drugs - a lot of people bought that program and paid the price with their lives. Do you ever feel guilty for being one of the Pied Pipers for that amount of personal destruction?"

When we say that sex is ok no matter when it happens, then we are responsible for all that irresponsible sex which is happening...including the women kidnapped into prostitution and abused by men in whore houses. To be decent human beings, we MUST say that sex is to be confined within strict limits and if you are outside those limits, no sex...and no liberal can ever say that. So, liberalism is at fault - and don't get me wrong, for many a long year I held the liberal view about sex, so I'm at fault, too. I shudder in 2006 to think of how many people I helped to moral destruction merely by participating in the sexual depravity of our times. I pray they got out of it, I pray they will forgive me...

Opus,

And what have you got other than stories? Unless you are the actual research scientist, you are just relying upon stories that other people have told you. You can't function as a human being without reference to Authority.

You'll find that most Christians believe the same scientific assertions you do - but what most Christians can't understand is how anyone can look up at the night sky and say, "yep, just an accident".

Mark,

In spite of the fact that you acknowledge that God doesn't take sides in politics, you make curious distinctions between "liberals and Republicans" on the one hand (arguing that God is neither liberal or Republican), and between "liberals and Christians" (arguing that liberalism has it fundamentally wrong about man's fallen nature). I don't know if those false dichotomies were offered up intentionally or by mistake. It seems to me that the proper dichotomies are between liberals and conservatives, between Republicans and Democrats, and between Christians and non-Christians. It also seems to me that any attempt to deflate any one continuae into any of the others is erroneous, at least in part.

At any rate, I reiterate my previous point that whether or not you believe man is fallen makes little difference in terms of constructing policy. Effective societal structures are essential regardless of whether you view it as preventing man from succombing to evil or helping him finding salvation.

Christ commanded us to help the poor. But I don't recall Him discussing the merits/demerits of any particular policy. Personal responsibility is certainly required of those who choose to follow Him, but it does not necessarily follow that any Christian should require that of those they help. Charity for charity's sake is not un-Christian. It is, however, bad policy, IMHO. That opinion has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with my own pragmatic assessment of the human condition. In other words, I believe that the most effective policies are those that provide incentives, not just hand-outs. It's fine to want to do the right thing. I think most of us, on either side of the aisle, want to do that. But, as I've said many times before, a desire to do the right thing isn't enough. You have to do the right thing right. Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, but teach a man how to fish and you feed him for a lifetime. That sort of thing. Without an eye towards effective policy, you can be absolutely pure in heart with respect to your intentions, but at the same time absolutely wrong in your expression of those intentions. And it is on that basis -- and that basis alone -- that I disagree with many policies espoused by either side of the political divide. Bull poo knows no ideology and no faith. And regardless of which party, ideology, or faith provides the fan, if you throw bull poo into it, it will get all over. Said in a slightly different way, no matter how fervently religious you are, or how dogmatically Republican/Democrat you are, or how rabidly liberal/conservative you are, if you don't attempt to think and reason to the best of your ability you're still an idiot. I hope no one takes that personally.

Finally, let me address one more contention (or series of contentions) of yours, Mark. That of which I speak is embedded in the contents of the last paragraph of your last comment to me, the one that starts off with this sentence: "When we say that sex is ok no matter when it happens, then we are responsible for all that irresponsible sex which is happening...including the women kidnapped into prostitution and abused by men in whore houses."

Actually, there's a little kernel of that that I agree with. But the concepts involved are so hopelessly convolved that it makes your conclusion essentially meaningless. Here's the way I see it: the guys responsible for this travesty (which apparently is the Russian mafia) have perpetrated it for money. Their primary motivation is avarice, not sex. And, I argue, that is true of ANY criminal enterprise, regardless of how it is expressed. Considered in that light, it is hard not to conclude that the fundamental evil is not sex, but avarice -- the single-minded pursuit of wealth to the exclusion of any other principle. How many times, and in how many ways did Jesus warn us of that? Then again, it doesn't require a belief in God to recognize the evils inherent in the unprincipled quest for wealth. It's just good policy from a purely pragmatic standpoint as well.

Okay, I'll try to post this thing one more time. I apologize if this is a duplicate, but sometimes it doesn't work out that way. Anyway, here goes...

Mark,

In spite of the fact that you acknowledge that God doesn't take sides in politics, you make curious distinctions between "liberals and Republicans" on the one hand (arguing that God is neither liberal or Republican), and between "liberals and Christians" (arguing that liberalism has it fundamentally wrong about man's fallen nature). I don't know if those false dichotomies were offered up intentionally or by mistake. It seems to me that the proper dichotomies are between liberals and conservatives, between Republicans and Democrats, and between Christians and non-Christians. It also seems to me that any attempt to deflate any one continuae into any of the others is erroneous, at least in part.

At any rate, I reiterate my previous point that whether or not you believe man is fallen makes little difference in terms of constructing policy. Effective societal structures are essential regardless of whether you view it as preventing man from succombing to evil or helping him finding salvation.

Christ commanded us to help the poor. But I don't recall Him discussing the merits/demerits of any particular policy. Personal responsibility is certainly required of those who choose to follow Him, but it does not necessarily follow that any Christian should require that of those they help. Charity for charity's sake is not un-Christian. It is, however, bad policy, IMHO. That opinion has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with my own pragmatic assessment of the human condition. In other words, I believe that the most effective policies are those that provide incentives, not just hand-outs. It's fine to want to do the right thing. I think most of us, on either side of the aisle, want to do that. But, as I've said many times before, a desire to do the right thing isn't enough. You have to do the right thing right. Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, but teach a man how to fish and you feed him for a lifetime. That sort of thing. Without an eye towards effective policy, you can be absolutely pure in heart with respect to your intentions, but at the same time absolutely wrong in your expression of those intentions. And it is on that basis -- and that basis alone -- that I disagree with many policies espoused by either side of the political divide. Bull poo knows no ideology and no faith. And regardless of which party, ideology, or faith provides the fan, if you throw bull poo into it, it will get all over. Said in a slightly different way, no matter how fervently religious you are, or how dogmatically Republican/Democrat you are, or how rabidly liberal/conservative you are, if you don't attempt to think and reason to the best of your ability you're still an idiot. I hope no one takes that personally.

Finally, let me address one more contention (or series of contentions) of yours, Mark. That of which I speak is embedded in the contents of the last paragraph of your last comment to me, the one that starts off with this sentence: "When we say that sex is ok no matter when it happens, then we are responsible for all that irresponsible sex which is happening...including the women kidnapped into prostitution and abused by men in whore houses."

Actually, there's a little kernel of that that I agree with. But the concepts involved are so hopelessly convolved that it makes your conclusion essentially meaningless. Here's the way I see it: the guys responsible for this travesty (which apparently is the Russian mafia) have perpetrated it for money. Their primary motivation is avarice, not sex. And, I argue, that is true of ANY criminal enterprise, regardless of how it is expressed. Considered in that light, it is hard not to conclude that the fundamental evil is not sex, but avarice -- the single-minded pursuit of wealth to the exclusion of any other principle. How many times, and in how many ways did Jesus warn us of that? Then again, it doesn't require a belief in God to recognize the evils inherent in the unprincipled quest for wealth. It's just good policy from a purely pragmatic standpoint as well.

Ricorun,

We're still working on the posting issues...

My view is that a liberal cannot come up with correct policy because his fundamentals are flawed...it is like something trying to do algebra who thinks that 1+1=3...the heart might be in the right place, the desired end might very well be correct, but because the underlying premise is fault, only disaster can result. Liberalism and Christianity are fundamentally in conflict because liberalism does not say mankind needs a saviour but that mankind can save himself via wise legislation an