"Social Conservative"?

I've got a real problem with pigeon holes. We used to have a bunch of "pigeon holes" called States. We fought a rather bloody war in the 1860's because quite a few thought their States' came before the Union. It was rather understandable back then, but the States' lost and the Union won and we moved on. Today, a lot of folks think they need to be "Conservatives" or "Liberals" and we seem to be in the middle of a "Cold Civil War". Ain't life grand? Never a dull moment.
 

I've heard a lot of people say they don't vote because there's no choice anymore. I ask them, "When is there ever a clear 'Totally Good' and 'Totally Bad' choice?" That would make it too easy. It's kind'a like the story of the "Talents", the fool who was given only one went and buried it. Or, in other words, he stayed home and didn't vote. What happens when Good People don't vote? Answer: Bad People make the decisions. To be blunt: Good People Better Vote. If they don't, they're just burying their talent.
 

Morning folks,

Anon, indeed, never a dull moment.

I understand the disadvantages of labeling, but proudly would label myself a socon. While there may be other socons who would disagree with my restrictive definition, it's a large enough, but restrictive enough, umbrella to get the main idea.

Your analogy is interesting. William Bennett offers a different idea of the states/union conflict. He seems to indicate that it was not the states that made the union, but the people. Perhaps it is just symantics, but an interesting thought that gives deeper significance to the phrase, "We the people."
 

rue-mur

Socons take voting very seriously; the decision not to vote even more. I hope good people have good people to vote for.
 

That's a very weak argument. You could just as easily go out and throw a protest vote for a minor party like the Constitution Party that is anti-abortion. You aren't using your voice for moral principle, you're just being silent. Sorry, but that's just the way it is. If you don't like the Republican, vote for a minor party. Go in and write down the janitor of the state Constitution or Libertarian Party if that's what it takes.

I am generally a social conservative as well, but only in so far as my moral worldview. I vote Libertarian in most elections because I am a reformed protestant and believe that good works by heathens are, in the words of Isaiah "like filthy rags." It only hurts my neighbor if his vice consumes his life. It is also upon his conscience and I cannot force him to live a righteous life by choice.

I voted LP in 2004 for President in no small part because Badnarik said that while he is pro-abortion, he is vehemently opposed to the logic behind Roe v. Wade and that he, as a libertarian, couldn't trust any nominee who could see a right to abortion in the Bill of Rights. Look at all the Bushies who got suckered into supporting Alito, Mr. "I'm only against **unregulated** abortion."

God is not going to judge your salvation on your voting, but on your submission to Jesus Christ. Christ is the only thing sufficient for all sin (well except blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, I suppose).
 

Good morning Mike T.

A weak argument? I don't think so.

A "non-vote" can easy be confused for voting apathy, but they are not the same thing and should not be confused. Here, I am not suggesting that a socon should or should not vote, I'm simply stating that some will not vote because of the lack of good options. I am suggesting that because SoCons take voting seriously, the Republicans party might should not take their votes for granted--especially those who vote against the basic principles of SoCons.

I appreciate libertarians, except when I don't. I think we have a lot of agreement.
 

If they won't vote even with a write-in vote for their pastor, then they need to shut up. The Republicans are usually a bad choice, and if you don't believe me, then I have a list of things for you for the past five to six years to consider here. They talk the good talk, but if religious people are going to actually get anything out of the electoral process, then staying home is not the answer.

I think the distinction needs to be made, though, between social conservatives and religious voters. I am not a political version of the former because I am a reformed protestant. I don't believe that there is any evidence in the Bible that state-imposed morality beyond the moral commandments against violent crime have any efficacy in terms of keeping people in line or more importantly, making them holy in God's eyes. To paraphrase Martin Luther, if you try to save through the secular system, when you turn your back, they'll revert right back to being heathens.

I've seen first hand how the state is powerless to stop many of the moral issues that upset social conservatives in the political realm. My father, for example, is an extreme alcoholic. I know for a fact that he has drunk moonshine before. Prohibition wouldn't stop his inner demons. Seeing him now, I realized a while ago that such excessive alcoholism ends up looking a lot like an advanced heroin addiction.

If gains are going to be made on areas like abortion, then people need to start examining the words and actions of the politicians. The LP's 2004 take on Roe v. Wade was a much greater shot across the bow of abortion than Bush's talk. Badnarik said flat out that he couldn't stomach appointing a judge who could see such arbitrary rights hidden in the US Constitution.

America is a fallen country, and it is increasingly falling apart. The truth is that social conservatives have fallen into their enemy's trap by relying on the state. Government has sponsored most of the society-killing depravity in human history.

There are legitimate spheres of sovereignty outside the state, but it is the nature of the state to try to consume them. Those who are ideologically predisposed to seeing a state-centric solution to social problems also tend to be people who will aggressively promote anti-Christian values. It shouldn't surprise you that social conservatives have only a track record of bitter loss since they have been fighting on these "progressives'" home turf.