Lagboltz: Forgive me, as I'm once again going to be selective about to which of your comments I respond.
I think if behavioral rules are ever to be effective it should be done very early where there is more leverage on the kids mind before later peer pressure takes precedence. That depends a lot on the preschool period. I would think the majority of parents would not buy into that. However, outside of home there has to be no trace of religion. If the rules are too stifling people will ignore everything. Even abstinence campaigns failed. I don't think a program like that would be desirable. If a governmental system is set up for that kind of mind control, more serious brainwashing may be next. Remember that there were blatant lies in the nomination and presidential campaigns.
I'm in full agreement with you that behavioral rules need to be instilled early in childhood. I didn't attend kindergarten, but attended Bible School both before and after elementary school. In elementary school, we were regularly exposed to Aesop's Fables, as well as other similar stories aimed at developing good character. Since I was raised in a small town, and most children received the same kind of schooling, the peer pressure exerted by us and on us later in life was fairly "universal" among us. If that can be accomplished in a small community with schooling, it can be achieved if practiced and enforced legally and/or socially on a National scale.
I think you may not have expressed exactly what you intended when you said, "outside the home there should be no trace of relgion"?? If you meant that there should be no forced religious instruction or required involvement of citizens in religion, I agree. Obviously, the expression of one's religion as an individual and as part of non-governmental groups is a Right expressed in our Constitution, and can therefore not be publically "removed without a trace".
If such moral instruction as I described above develops more responsible citizens, I don't see it as "brainwashing"; certainly it's no more "brainwashing" than instruction aimed at convincing children that abortion doesn't harm anyone, or that a gay-pride parade shouldn't be criticized, or that "whites" can be blamed as an entire "race" for certain past, National ills????
I see some problems here. If I am allowed to speak for the left, I don't consider that we think of gay marriage and abortion as morally "Good". It's neither good nor bad. It just is. Gay marriage won't directly harm others. Sure some people would be offended, but that's their problem. As far as abortions, I am a male and have no right to make judgments on what women do with their bodies. It's just none of my business. It would be like the Taliban in assigning my codes to women.
We should probably not get into a debate on abortion, for that seldom turns out well; plus, I've taken a "like" to you.
My comments about abortion are intended to provide you insight into my Conservative thought processl
I'd argue that abortion is indeed "bad", and does harm others, since it's the taking of a human life. I'd also say that abortion cheapens "life" itself in our culture. Making the life or death of a child a simple matter of one woman's choice to give a "thumbs up" or "thumbs down" as to whether that life lives or dies makes a huge cultural impression on our children; not a good impression! While women on the left claim a "Right" to abort a child for their "financial convenience", I've not found one who would allow the father to pay only 1/2 the price of abortion if the mother wanted to bear the child..... for his financial convenience, you see? The present mother-father structure of Rights and Responsibilities doesn't fit with an equal-protection application of the law.
FYI, although I used Gay marriage as an example in my last post, I don't argue against gay or lesbian unions, including all the legal protections given to hetero couples. I don't like the term "marriage" applied to that union, but I suppose it's just semantics. However, I totally reject any effort to force religious leaders to perform gay-lesbian unions/marriages if their religion rejects the concept. I also argue that strict rules for child adoptions be enforced for both hetero-couples as well as gay/lesbian-couples.
To those of us who believe that abortion is "murder", the issue cannot be dismissed by us as being "neither good nor bad". Nevertheless, the societal pressures placed on us by our present government, the leftwing media, our schools, and leftwing judges, demonizes and effectively ostracizes us for our belief. That demonization and ostracization is not unlike that which was once prevalent toward gays/lesbians, persons of color, and dare I say it, "Atheists".
I'd argue that irresposible mothers and fathers who'd kill rather than bear, raise, and support their children are far more worthy of societal disdain than those of us who support life and personal responsibility, wouldn't you? Your comparison of anti-abortion law to the culture of the "Taliban" doesn't compute. Women in our nation, unlike nations run by Islamic terrorists, have a "freedom of choice" when it comes to birth control, and certainly have a choice to either have unprotected sex or not have sex at all. If an irresponsible driver kills a pedestrian due to the driver's carelessness, the driver is held legally responsible. If an irresponsible male impregnates a female, he's presently liable for child-support if the child is allowed to be born. The male has no choice in whether the child is aborted or born, but he's personally responsible for his actions financially in either case. A woman's responsibility if impregnated in our society is simply to decide what's in her best interest socially or financially, and doing whatever she wishes. That doesn't sound like "personal responsibility" to me.
I don't understand your reasoning that the left believes morality can be stated in law. Actions not stated in law are allowed and presumably moral. Roe vs. Wade, constitutional amendments, etc. does explicitly give people certain rights, but some groups believe Roe vs. Wade or the lack of gun control, etc. to be immoral and other groups feel the opposite. So it seems that morality in some cases is subjective.
Morality is certainly subjective, especially in the case of abortion in the eyes of many. In Roe v. Wade, the US Supreme Court "constructed" a Right that does not exist in our Constitution, effectively creating "Law". Poorly-written and poorly-interpreted anti-discrimination laws have in fact legalized discrimination against whites and white males in particular. If a law can be written or interpreted as requiring the prioritzation of a specific sex, a specific skin color, or a specific nation of origin, the Congressional and the Judicial branches of government are effectively writing such leftwing views of morality into law. Regardless of what some pundits and politicans and leftist judges may say, there is an absolute Right to keep and bear arms stated in the Constitution. Those who seek to ignore that Right, obviously believe that guns are bad, and they seek to not only legislate their concept of "good" and "bad", but to ignore our Constitution while doing so.
I don't understand what you mean by the Christian view of "morality" and the nature of the hypocrisy. Surely you don't mean legislating the ten commandments. Most are quite connected with religion. Only two of them are secular law. So, what do you mean by the Christian view?
You're right, I'm not suggesting that all 10 Commandments be written into law, for as you say, a few of them are laws already, and several others apply strictly to the practice of religion. What I was referring to was the historical, American-Christian view of "good" and "bad" when it comes to human traits such as "personal responsibility", civility toward all who treat you civilly, a strong work-ethic, respect for women by men (and vice-versa), and above all, the responsibility of each individual and family for its own welfare and well-being..... not unlike Aesop's fable of the Grasshopper and the Ant. The left writes laws that legislate in favor of the irresponsible Ant while punishing the Grasshopper.
If I were trying to talk you out of spiritual connections, I sure gave you an example that backfired. Well, to continue the metaphor, my cell phone keeps saying "no signal". When my cell phone does ring (maybe once a year), the message is from a local area network, not a wide area network.
