I saw a “questionnaire” posted to Chicks on the Right‘s wall … very likely by a troll who was doing the whistling “but I’m a moderate” schtick. By the time I finished my reply to the comment, the post had been deleted.
Still, I thought … idiotic as these questions seem if you know your stuff… they still need to be answered. They are echoes that need to be stopped. And we all need to be very comfortable answering them with rational answers.
- Why shouldn’t education and health care be free? when the US spends an abhorrent amount of money on the military and defence, & isn’t making a world a better place, and would appear to be on the brink of imperialism with its foreign policy.
Because nothing’s free. Somebody pays for everything, or somebody is forced to do it without due compensation. One is robbery, the other is slavery. There are lots more good reasons, but that’s the bottom line. There’s also the problem of market distortions. Artificially low price drives up demand, which drives up real price. Which, again, somebody has to pay.
National Defense is in the enumerated powers of the Federal Government in the Constitution. “Free” Health Care is not. We can argue the finer points of how our defenses are deployed and projected, but at least does fall under the official list of things the Federal Government is tasked with. And it’s a mighty odd imperialist that hands countries it has “conquered” back to its people and helps reconstruct them.
“I predict future happiness for Americans, if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.” ― Thomas Jefferson
- I am a keen target shooter, I don’t push for bans on rifles like the AR-15 etc but I can’t help but notice that 10’000 + homicides are committed with firearms and the current system doesn’t work, why is a mild form of gun control off the cards?
And before firearms they were committed with knives and poison and bare hands. People murder. Always have. They use what’s available to them. There is something to the saying “God made man, but Sam Colt made them equal.” A revolver removes the difference between a 260 lb man and a 130 lb woman. We have a right to protect ourselves, whether the criminals are in an alley or oppressing us within the government. And the gun isn’t going to get un-invented.
There are lots of forms of gun control right now, mild and otherwise. Thousands of gun control laws. What we don’t want is de-facto removal of our right to keep and bear them, or de-facto gun registration so that when the statists finally get their way (call it “the stupidity of the American voter”), government officials know exactly whose houses to go to and what they need to confiscate. Except the only people who will register are those with a strong aversion toward breaking the law. Which will leave all of the remaining firearms in the hands of those who do NOT have an aversion toward breaking the law.
60% of those “homicides” are suicides, and again, a gun is a very effective and quick tool for the job. If it weren’t there, they’d kill themselves with something else. And a huge chunk of the rest of them is gang violence. How about we address the problems and not the symptoms?
The second amendment isn’t about target shooting, or even hunting — though it does cover both.
Don’t just read the Constitution, read the Federalist Papers and the discussions that went into the Constitution. It’s all documented.
- Why should the right put people like Ted Cruz in a position to be overseeing NASA and Science in the US when he is anti science? Doesn’t that seem counter intuitive for a nation that hopes to lead the world in innovation and research, all held back by a man who believes genesis?
What makes you think Ted Cruz is “anti-science” outside of left-wing talking points? Because he’s Christian? Do you realize how many great scientists were and are Christian? Somehow we managed to get to the moon before we made being Christian suspect. Lots of Christians in that program, and others.
Why does the right support creationism ? The overwhelming number of scientists (the people who’s job it is to find fact rather that just take an old books word for it) have a perfectly sound scientific theory which contradicts the unsound view of creationism.
Creationists are generally on the right, but being on the right does not necessarily mean you are a creationist … it doesn’t even mean you are a Christian. We have Atheists on the right. We have agnostics, Jews …. even some Muslims.
Why does the right push a Christian agenda (claiming america is founded on Christian values) yet the the only time religion is mentioned in the constitution is for separation of church and state? (not to mention the beliefs of atheism, deism, agnosticism amongst the founders)
Because America was founded on Christian values. Western Culture is deeply rooted in Christianity. Oh, there’s been a rebellion against it, but the values are still there.
“Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” – John Adams
Have you read the Preamble to the Constitution? “all men are created equal, and are endowed by their creator certain inalienable rights” … Again, read the documents surrounding the creation of the Constitution. There is lots of talk about God. They put a chapel in the freakin’ Capitol, fer Chrissakes. Pretty much the rest of the Constitution deals with what the structure of the Federal government, how it is to do things, and what it is NOT allowed to do.
There is no mention of “separation of Church and State” in the Constitution. In the first amendment to the Constitution (which is part of the Constitution, as all amendments are) the part that mentions religion says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” That’s it.
An “establishment of religion” isn’t the same thing as religion in general. It basically means establishments like “The Methodist Church” or “The Catholic Church” or “The Lutheran Church”. Not generic Christianity or generic “religion”, where there are no church officials to dictate things. The purpose of this language was to avoid a Church of England type situation where unelected Church officials had official government positions of authority, so that the government would not be allowed to suppress other Churches. This has been misinterpreted and bastardized to the point where it is used to do exactly that, the opposite of its intent. In any culture of free people, laws will necessarily reflect the values of the people. It was most certainly not to keep the values of We the People from being reflected in law. If the peoples’ values are generally Christian, those are the values they’re going to reflect. This is not the same as having some Bishop make law by fiat.
There were deists among the founders, and the Christians of the time were very tolerant of that, as were the deists of Christianity – even deferential to it. Deism was informed by a Christian culture and carries forward, albeit in a very generic form, those values.
A rose, cut from the vine, still has the qualities of a rose though it is put in a jar. The longer it remains cut and separate from the vine, though … it withers and dies and produces no fruit.
Surely is would be absurd to say every political decision ever made by Obama (and I am not a fan of him) is wrong ?
It wouldn’t be absurd to say, if it were true. Still, it’s not quite true. A stopped clock is right twice a day. But as a rule of thumb the values that guide him tend to guide him to make decisions contrary to our founding principles. And I don’t think it’s an accident.
Why push Faith as being a central part of the political right ? (Faith is an insertion of absolute conviction that is assumed without reason and defended against all reason)
Again, people of faith are a part of the political right, they do not define the political right. You are going to find a lot of people of faith on the political right, certainly — as their values lead to our founding values — that is where they are going to be most at home. And on top of that, every belief system is based, ultimately, on faith in something. Even yours.
Here is a big difference. The political right can hold the two opposing concepts in its head … that something can be wrong but not against the law, and that something can be right but the law should not compel it. This allows some latitudinal variations in the details of disparate peoples’ beliefs. But there must be some homogeneity in a culture for it to be cohesive and have meaningful law. If any belief is admissible, the logical end is that any behavior is justifiable, and every behavior is also unjust. Sounds great in Philosophy class, but it’s no way to run a nation.