Comments on: Bristol’s Myth

By: dj spellchecka

dj spellchecka — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 14:18:06 +0000

i’m afraid mr frum’s confused….marriage does not create culturally conservative voters…church-going does…

just because lots of white girls from working class families in red states are having kids out of wedlock, not getting married or getting divorced doesn’t mean those places will be flipping to blue anytime soon or that those woman as suddenly not culturlly conservative..

the flip side is that the more educated unmarried practice birth control at much higher rates, wait longer to marry and divorce less…and studying 08 exit-polls, you find the more educated, outside of the south [and utah], have moved into the democratic column…..

that’s the real whammy….

By: Ouroboros

Ouroboros — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 20:25:00 +0000

You know what this means, right? Free quality education and healthcare for everyone = less children born out of wedlock. It’s hilarious that people are still talking about Burke. Burke is the nervous monkey, terrified of leaping from a branch or sharing his food with other monkeys. Everything he ever said flows from this. It is impossible for me to read the writings of Edmund Burke and not feel bad for how frightened he was of allowing the plebes one inch further towards stealing his daddy’s money.

By: Fitz

Fitz — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 17:58:08 +0000

Rhampton – thanks for the primer on Burke. I’m just here to defend marriage in law, culture, & amongst conservatives and the Republican Party. I find myself to be in good stead. Abstract appeals to a philosophical divide that has never been adequately drawn to anyones satisfaction throughout history are not enough to make me abandon my position. I consider my position on marriage to be mere superior public policy. It is authentically conservative & libertarian. As to ones conscience broad historical references are exactly that. They can cut either way. Most public policy ultimately rests on conscience. Reference to it no more requires me to abandon my position on marriage than it requires me to abandon my position on theft

By: Rhampton

Rhampton — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 15:45:26 +0000

Playing dumb only weakens your argument for social conservatism & traditionalism because it implies that you want to distance yourself from Burke and the modern American Tories — SEE: (1) “Conservatives and Creeds” by Yuval Levin, NRO; (2) “Can Libertarians and Social Conservatives find Common Ground?” by Hunter Baker, Acton Institute; (3) “Sandbagging Burke” by Rod Dreher, Beliefnet; (4) “What Conservatism Means” by Owen Harries, The American Conservative; (5) “American conservatism: still not dead” by Geoff Robinson, Australian Broadcasting Corporation; (6) “The Roots of Modern Conservative Thought from Burke to Kirk” by Edwin J. Feulner, Ph.D., The Heritage Foundation — SEE ALSO The Edmund Burke Institute for American Renewal http://www.edmundburkeinstitute.org

By: Rhampton

Rhampton — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 15:14:52 +0000

The people do not have a right to regulate minorities because that would infringe upon the fundamental Right of Conscience. James Madison’s “Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments” written in 1785 (as support for Thomas Jefferson’s Bill for Religious Freedom) explains why — (6) Because the establishment proposed by the Bill is not requisite for the support of the Christian Religion. To say that it is, is a contradiction to the Christian Religion itself, for every page of it disavows a dependence on the powers of this world: it is a contradiction to fact; for it is known that this Religion both existed and flourished, not only without the support of human laws, but in spite of every opposition from them… (8) …Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty, may have found an established Clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just Government instituted to secure & perpetuate it needs them not. Such a Government will be best supported by protecting every Citizen in the enjoyment of his Religion with the same equal hand which protects his person and his property; by neither invading the equal rights of any Sect, nor suffering any Sect to invade those of another. (13) Because attempts to enforce by legal sanctions, acts obnoxious to go great a proportion of Citizens, tend to enervate the laws in general, and to slacken the bands of Society…

By: Fitz

Fitz — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 12:25:20 +0000

Rhampton – I dont know were to begin due to all these assumptions. (Quoting dale carpenter??????) Daniel Patrick Moynihan said the great conservative insight is that its all culture and the great liberal insight is that the law can change culture, and save it from itself. My point was to allow the people to preserve their culture as they see fit.

By: Rhampton

Rhampton — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 22:26:38 +0000

Fitz — You have read G.K. Chesterton and you argue for traditionalism yet you’re unfamiliar with Edmund Burke, C.S. Lewis, Russell Kirk? That sounds very unlikely. It’s not a secret that Social Conservatives are essential Burkean ((see “Is everyone Burkean now?” by Dale Carpenter, May 5, 2008 @ The Volokh Conspiracy)) so I don’t see the reason for your objection — Now, as to your point about the sexual revolution. So what? A true conservative realizes that individuals freely chose that path. So the only proper response is to fight it out in the free market of ideas. And I’m sure you know that Conservatives do not like to regulate the Invisible Hand of the marketplace. Thus a Conservatism based on the American/Constitutional ideal protects the free choices of a free people. It’s not your place to choose for them, unless you want a Nanny State.

By: Fitz

Fitz — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 21:28:00 +0000

Rhampton
#1. infatuated? Seems a bit presumptuous and rude.

#2. I cant answer your question because I dont know anything substantive about “English conservatism” or Tories.

#3. I quoted Chesterton as a direct rebuke to multiple posters who seem oblivious to the massive social changes wrought by the sexual revolution. On that point, I think the quote was very much on point.

By: sinz54

sinz54 — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 19:30:41 +0000

loneislander: Polls show that more Americans would vote for a Muslim for President, than would vote for a Mormon. And more Americans would vote for a Mormon than would vote for an atheist. Evidently, to most Americans, believing in Allah is still better than believing in nothing.

By: Rhampton

Rhampton — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 19:29:01 +0000

Fitz — You regard Chesterton’s ideals of good governance as being more important than Jefferson’s or Maidson’s ideals. And it’s not just you. Many self-professed Social Conservatives seem infatuated with English conservativism from the likes of C. S. Lewis and Edmund Burke. So why is that socons such as yourself — who often claim the patriotic high-ground — are actually modern day Torries?