Barry Goldwater on Religion and Politics
On religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both.
I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in "A," "B," "C" and "D." Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me?
And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of "conservatism."
Speech in the US Senate (16 September 1981)
I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in "A," "B," "C" and "D." Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me?
And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of "conservatism."
Speech in the US Senate (16 September 1981)
Previous comments... You are currently on page 2.
You realize many passages in the bible are not from the original scriptures...right? "Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone", while wise, has nothing to do with something Jesus said.
Your note is an excellent example of how religion can be manipulated and used to control people on a massive scale. The inquisition is another. Persecution and murder of mormons and amish are others. Presently, persecution of gays and people the church deems promiscuous are others. The bible is full of interesting thoughts, some are wise. The bible is also full of errors, which are not in the original scriptures, due to rewriting, or simply lost information. The bible is one book of thought among thousands to be used to develop objective ideas doe social behavior. It is not more than that.
If one seeks to assert religion is a foundation for how we must behave, one has all the task in front of them to demonstrate 1) its veracity and 2) its fundamental value as a basis for legislation or to otherwise limit people's freedoms. There is no such hurdle to maintain freedom.
American Quakers were long-time opponents of slavery. The Methodist, Presbyterian, Congregationalist and Baptist Churches took lead roles in the abolitionist movement; many stops along the Underground railroad were churches.
Note also the role of Black churches of various denominations in the northern states in the Abolitionist Movement. They have not been given the credit they are due until recently. A good place to learn their story is Timothy McCarthy and John Stauffer, Prophets of Protest, New York: The New Press, 2006.
Check into the driving force of Great Britain's abolitionist movement, William Wilberforce and the background of the Slavery Abolition Act of 1833.
They tried to install a new, national religion, based on pseudo historical interpretations of the religions of ancient Germanic tribes.
In many churches, likenesses of Christ were removed, replaced by Hitler's portrait.
Too many church leaders in Germany remained silent until it was too late. Perhaps you've heard of Friedrich Niemöller, or read his famous quote:
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.
First driving a car by a five year old is neither consent among two adults, or the action or any adult. Neither is providing the button for a nuclear weapon to an infant. The consequences can be to separate bystanders, not consenting in the decision. This analogy has no relevance. An analogy is also a fallacy of logical argument. Quite interesting to see it in immediate response following chiding regarding the "strawman fallacy".
"Power and it exercise ALWAYS come with responsibility for proper use."
Power over another comes with special responsibilities...like driving a car. Power over ones self comes with self responsibility, just like what you eat, personal hygiene, what one chooses to study and freedom of speech. You are right (consensual) sex is no exception to power over one's self. There is no third party. It is no different than a personal hygiene decision shared between two consenting adults.
I let my friend try beers and wine from my glass all the time, and they often let me try theirs as well. We both consent. Some bodily fluids are exchanged. We variously get the advantage of trying before we elect to buy a full glass or bottle.
Please do explain the real tangible difference between sharing drinks and sex. Please note, in the case of sex, protection is generally employed among rational and foreign partners.
Let's just square away this simple part before you before you move on to your Watchtower sermon.
We are not talking about children yet. We are talking about sex, out of wedlock between two responsible adults. No 5yr olds. No IV drug users. No statistics on poor people without condoms. Children is a completely secondary issue... unless you seek to argue that either 1) intent or 2) possible consequences of actions should form the basis of legislation, just like "hate crime" regulations and gun control.
Goal of a "moral system"...yeah...Good luck with this one sweetie. Government isn't part of my moral system, and if it is part of yours, you should proceed directly to the republican party and skip the Gulch altogether.
So let's engage in a little analogy: say driving a car. Do you put a five-year-old behind the wheel? Do you choose to drive into oncoming traffic? Do you just ignore the signals and road signs? And would you propose that this is the way EVERYONE drives? That is the argument for "unlimited" freedom and it is a clear fallacy. Can you not see what an obviously absurd argument that is?
Power and its exercise ALWAYS come with responsibility for proper use. Sex is no exception.
"This is statistics, not morality."
No, it is statistics that demonstrate the results of a particular moral stance. It is evidence of the test of a hypothesis. Nothing more, nothing less. That you would dismiss it is evidence of bias - not of a scientific approach to the matter. You show me scientific evidence supporting your position and you'll have a leg to stand on.
"Regarding no religion being brought up, this entire thread was predicated on religion. However, if you want to reduce the scope to just science and data, ok."
It wasn't me who was flinging around the claims of religious bigotry despite the obviously open can of worms in the post's title. Debates are all about assertion and evidence or rebuttal. Lack of evidence is in and of itself a rebuttal. I was simply pointing out that you were engaging in not only an unfounded assertion, but an ad hominem attack as well. A bigot is one who refuses to consider an alternative despite having evidence which favors that alternative. I ask you: what evidence has been presented and for which side of the argument to this point in the debate?
"So what do you advocate in place of sex?"
See the above analogy related to driving. I am not advocating that no one have sex, even though you intentionally misrepresent my position as such (and for which I docked you). Having sex is an irrevocable act with many consequences. It falls to any responsible individual to use that power with respect for those consequences.
The indiscriminate use of sex leads to higher STD rates. That is fact and one you even acknowledged. Abstention eliminates ALL chance of contracting an STD, does it not? The position you are taking is that the risk is worth a temporary endorphin rush. That is a value decision, but it should not overlook the severity of the consequences and the prevalence of each disease - many of which are communicable long before symptoms arise. And that is just the epidemiological side of the story.
Children are the result of sex. Indiscriminate sex leads to all kinds of sociological problems in children, as studies continue to prove. Children without their biological father AND biological mother in the home are at substantially higher risk themselves of perpetuating the cycle: bad grades, dropping out of high school, getting in trouble with the law, and their own illegitimate children. The effects cascade. Studies have also shown how futile efforts at "prophylactic education" have been - and not for lack of trying.
There is also a growing body of evidence regarding premarital sex (one of which I cited) showing the adverse effects it has on the future abilities of adults to form permanent relationships, and thus provide a stable home for children. This is aside from the emotional damage caused by broken relationships. Having personally seen the results of several types of broken home scenarios and the emotional (and sometimes physical) damage caused, I find it not only surprising, but astounding that anyone would advocate the behavior which dramatically increases the chances of such.
If the entire goal of creating a moral system is to identify and live by principles which endure from generation to generation, this seems to me to be a very clear cut case. It is frankly quite astounding to me that given the preponderance of evidence there is so much unfounded opposition.
You want to know what would really help out family relations, protecting property rights - which means eliminating the IRS, welfare, and the regulatory state. But no you going to focus on your god and the stupid commandments.
Most importantly by focusing on property rights and not the religious right, we would solve so many more problems. Religion on the right and left has been a disaster for freedom..
"it does show your inability to focus on the topic at hand"
So now you're going to devolve into ad hominem attacks? The topic of the post is "religion and politics" and YOU opened the window. And despite the obvious opening, I haven't ONCE used a religious posture in my comments. Not once - and in the face of all the unfounded accusations. ALL my arguments have come from published, scientific studies. You are the one claiming that "religion" (an incredibly vague term you twist and redefine as you wish) is holding me back, yet all I see is _evidence_ supporting a principle held by many faiths and civilizations for thousands of years. I find it logically compelling that two starkly different methods both arrived at the same conclusion and even more compelling that social studies have confirmed this wisdom. Which is the approach requiring more blind faith: the approach that is supported by evidence, or the one which isn't?
Freedom in a more general sense is having the right to choose our own direction and accepting the accountability that all these choices entail.
Politics and religion should remain separate from each other. First, politics/government is a public matter. It is a shared communal, state and national duty/responsibility that every citizen should participate in; religion, on the other hand, is a personal and private matter which remains the choice/decision of the individual.
Private religion should never be forced on public government and public government should never interfere with private religion.
If the argument is just academic (of course it didn't start that way), then I suppose I can be drawn in to respond. No idea who Sowell is. You'll have to point me to his biased conclusions.
Regarding STDs relating to sex outside marriage...You know, there is no air pollution on the moon either. Driving cars puts one infinitely more likely to be injured or killed in a car accident. Sure its true, if you have sex with more people, you'll run a greater chance of getting an STD...shocking! This is even worse without protection. STDs are the argument of an insurance salesman. This is statistics, not morality. One doesn't need references to argue math.
This is just so much limited, prudish raving from people who fear "promiscuity", not a bit different and with considerably weaker evidence than the fear liberals have in guns. You are afraid of it, because you are ignorant of it. Fear of gays is exactly the same.
Regarding no religion being brought up, this entire thread was predicated on religion. However, if you want to reduce the scope to just science and data, ok.
So what do you advocate in place of sex? I assume you then are a major proponent of either straight abstinence, early marriage or masturbation. Since the overwhelming result of excessive abstinence is buggered boys or dead postal workers, that is probably out. Early marriage generally results in divorce (personal experience as well). Therefore, I conclude you must be an advocate of masturbation, well ok then. Now perhaps we are to a middle ground. Since you and Barwick seem so keen on STDs, maybe we can expand the scope beyond vaginal sex. Would oral sex or external manual sex" be ok?
Health benefits of sex:
http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/g...
http://www.forbes.com/2003/10/08/cz_af_1...
Before you bring up anymore "studies" of problems from sex out of wedlock, the "facts" need to be corrected for education, drug use, income, etc, with a control and experiment...oh, yes, we are scientists here. Of course higher premarital sex exists among the poor, where wisdom may be lacking, prophylactics are not used, responsibilities are avoided, marriage often doesn't happen, drug use is rampant, health care is poor, life spans are low, STDs abound, on and on.
Since you presume to influence us and take our rights, you carry the burden of proof. Please do show us, and eliminate the noise and external factors from your "data".
My data? I sure feel a lot better after sex. I sleep wonderfully. I don't have any STDs, and never have. It doesn't hurt me chemically. It doesn't hurt my partner. Basically, it is a beautifully feeling, elimination of cholesterol and a little exercise. It is good for you. The sex I had before marriage was also great. I never felt negativity or remorse, and if I ever end up single again, I guarantee there will be premarital sex. Every close friend I can think of feels exactly the same (yes we talk about this stuff, really). This is data, at least data among a population largely of producers. What ridiculous cause-effect are you guys selling?
Intellectually conflicted? Sure...
This topic is inane and of very little significance in the big scheme of the world, but it does show your inability to focus on the topic at hand and your obsession with christian agenda, which is anti-reason and anti-individual - thus the focus on the family.
See Sowell's study. He finds that there is a very direct correlation. Deny the evidence at your own peril. Or do you deny that the single largest correlating identifier among inmates is the lack of a father in the home?
"you have made up your mind and are manipulating the data to support your argument..."
Then present me data that backs up your side of the argument. So far, I've seen NOTHING presented to support your assertion but your own opinions. Not one iota of data! Do I have an opinion? Yes. Is it unsubstantiated, however? No. Far from it as I have have shown. I've presented to you sociological and epidemiological studies that support my position. And just as telling, I've seen zero studies that show that premarital sex improves one's future. Who is being more irrational - the one whose opinion is based on evidence or the one who's only response is the red herring fallacy of crying "religion" - especially when no religious arguments were even brought up!
"The concept of prohibiting sex out of wedlock is completely unnatural, unhealthy and supported only by those clinging to religion."
The CDC's statistics on STD's and their rise in the population directly contradict such a claim. So do the sociological studies. I think you have the wrong definition for "unhealthy" at the very least. Or do you assert that STD's are _not_ contracted through sexual contact or that the rates of infection have _not_ been steadily on the rise since the 60's - not inconsequently the same time of the "sexual revolution" and destigmatization of extra-marital sex?
"Normal people have long realized..."
Straw man fallacy - among others. Such an assertion is to say that only people who arrive at your conclusion are worthy - that somehow you are the only one capable of coming to the "right" conclusion. An Objectivist doesn't predefine who can come to a conclusion nor do they predefine the outcome. Both of those are fallacies in and of themselves and deny the Objectivist's primary tool (logic). If you want to make your argument, show me the facts to support your point of view. One who has reality on their side has no need for name-calling or disparagement. Such are the refuges of the intellectually conflicted.
What is your criterion for what is possible?
You christians go around spreading you nonsense everywhere but not here. You will be down voted and hidden if you continue your Prosthelytizing.
Trying to verify more, I went to the Arizona LP website but found nothing about the beginning other than a copy of it's "Amended and Restated Articles... dated in 1999. During those years afterward, I was not in Arizona, but am aware that the LP lost it's credentials in many states by failing to meet requirements of some/many states to meet vote-getting requirements. More I know not.
Load more comments...