On the topic of gay marriage Bill O'Reilly seems to be taking great umbrage at conservatives who seek to uphold marriage AND to respect those who recognize the Bible as God's Word. Go to this Business Insider article. Embedded therein is a clip of him literally having a temper-snit at Laura Ingraham. I can only conclude that he knows he is incorrect and is lashing out over a stung conscience. In this BI clip, you'll see the video of Rush Limbaugh to which O'Reilly and Ingraham allude in the first clip.
In CNS News, Father Marcel Guarnizo has published his own rebuttal of O'Reilly. He focuses not so much on the "Bible-thump" quip as much as he dwells on more fundamental issues. Father examines what seems to be libertarian underpinnings of O'Reilly's erroneous attitudes towards "gay marriage" and the inevitable harm that will be wrecked on all concerned: including gay people themselves. It will not be a "quick read" but one well worth your time.
While I'm sure this hasn't occurred to Father, he makes a cogent (if unconscious) argument why the libertarian philosophy cannot be considered true conservatism. It cannot even be considered moral.
Showing posts with label libertarianism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label libertarianism. Show all posts
Sunday, April 21, 2013
Friday, April 29, 2011
Ron Paul And Libertarianism - Deadly For This Country
About six weeks ago, I posted my opinion that Ron Paul's position on abortion makes him unacceptable as a presidential candidate. I've no doubt that he personally abhors abortion, but he is of the libertarian mindset that the federal government has no say in the matter. In that earlier post, I explained why that mindset doesn't pass the "smell test".
It now turns out that Paul voted to repeal the "don't ask don't tell" policy. In other words, he would compromise the effectiveness of our military and allow gays in the armed forces.
The man is a libertarian, not a conservative. The two are NOT equivalent by a long shot. The true consersvative recognizes the indispensible role that morality plays in public life and in the government whereas the libertarian will turn a blind eye to all sorts of depravity as long as he/she perceives that his/her parade isn't getting wet.
Some of the Tea Party seem to be of the libertarian mindset. Some have gone so far as to advocate the setting aside of "social issues" in favor of "economic issues". They are dead wrong. As long as we fail to put God and His laws before all else, including our wallets, our nation will continue its slide towards oblivion. The libertarians of the Tea Party - and of anywhere else - had better wake up and do some serious soul-searching. If the Tea Party embraces libertarianism, it will have consigned itself to the dungheap of irrelevancy.
It now turns out that Paul voted to repeal the "don't ask don't tell" policy. In other words, he would compromise the effectiveness of our military and allow gays in the armed forces.
The man is a libertarian, not a conservative. The two are NOT equivalent by a long shot. The true consersvative recognizes the indispensible role that morality plays in public life and in the government whereas the libertarian will turn a blind eye to all sorts of depravity as long as he/she perceives that his/her parade isn't getting wet.
Some of the Tea Party seem to be of the libertarian mindset. Some have gone so far as to advocate the setting aside of "social issues" in favor of "economic issues". They are dead wrong. As long as we fail to put God and His laws before all else, including our wallets, our nation will continue its slide towards oblivion. The libertarians of the Tea Party - and of anywhere else - had better wake up and do some serious soul-searching. If the Tea Party embraces libertarianism, it will have consigned itself to the dungheap of irrelevancy.
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Why Ron Paul Is NOT An Acceptable Presidential Candidate
I thank Mr. Paul for his candor about the role that he feels the Federal government should assume in protecting unborn children. Actually, it would be more accurate to say "should NOT assume". In a nutshell, he believes that abortion is murder, but he also believes that the Federal government has no role in making any decisions regarding the same. It "should be left to the individual states".
He's a big advocate for states' rights over federal obtrusiveness. Generally, I'd agree with him, but not here. There are matters that trump even states' rights - such matters are the rights of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", and IN THAT ORDER! One of the prime functions of government is to protect its citizens from unjust aggression - all of its citizens. If abortion is outlawed in one state, but embraced in next state, that means some citizens are imperiled while others are protected. That's not morally acceptable by any stretch of the imagination - and perhaps a violation of the 14th Amendment to boot.
Some might say, "hey, if you don't like a state's law, you can move to another", with regard to abortion. Oh really? Let's try a little common sense here. The person who has the most at stake in this question, the unborn child obviously lacks the ability to "just pick up and move". He or she deserves no less protection than does anyone else.
This is one primary reason why I believe this "libertarian" position is immoral and is not compatible with true conservatism nor Christianity.
He's a big advocate for states' rights over federal obtrusiveness. Generally, I'd agree with him, but not here. There are matters that trump even states' rights - such matters are the rights of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", and IN THAT ORDER! One of the prime functions of government is to protect its citizens from unjust aggression - all of its citizens. If abortion is outlawed in one state, but embraced in next state, that means some citizens are imperiled while others are protected. That's not morally acceptable by any stretch of the imagination - and perhaps a violation of the 14th Amendment to boot.
Some might say, "hey, if you don't like a state's law, you can move to another", with regard to abortion. Oh really? Let's try a little common sense here. The person who has the most at stake in this question, the unborn child obviously lacks the ability to "just pick up and move". He or she deserves no less protection than does anyone else.
This is one primary reason why I believe this "libertarian" position is immoral and is not compatible with true conservatism nor Christianity.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Ayn Rand and the Culture of Death
I have long believed that what commonly passes as "libertarianism" is incompatible with Catholic morals. I may be wrong, but one of their main tenets is that "man is his/her own". No. While man is not property of the State, he/she is that of God.
Read this article as some "food for thought".
Read this article as some "food for thought".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
