Back to Uncommonsense Politics
The following is an email conversation I had with a liberal viewer of my website sometime around the end of 1999. Most of it remains current. All of it remains relevant. Enjoy.
Chrissy:
> "I believe in a small unintrusive government that does not go beyond the
> boundaries of our constitution"
>
> A quote from your page. Now I think I have heard everything. A
> conservative that says he wants an "unintrusive" government. Ha! What a
> laugh. Do you know what the Right-wing catch phrase "Less Big Govt." really
> means? More state Govt. That's all.
>
> See, an unintrusive govt. would imply not coming between a woman and Her
> Body. Her Choice. Her Right. See, you have the RIGHT in this FREE
> country to believe that Abortion is Morally wrong. In fact, You have an
> obligation to your beliefs to try to educate "confused" women that other
> options and alternatives are available to them. But no conservative, no
> republican, no Ditto Head has the RIGHT to outlaw and take away a Woman's
> personal choice pertaining to her body. You do not have the FREEDOM to
> decide for the majority of the population (women) what YOU believe is moral.
>
Curt:
There are some absolute facts that must be taken into account when contemplating the Abortion issue. The method of procreation chosen by God is that a woman must carry the baby inside her for a few months until it is ready to join the rest of us in the outside world. The baby is a product of two people and the rights of both those people and that of the baby all have to be considered. The constitution states that All men (and women and children) Are created equal and are guaranteed the right to LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I also stated on my page, that your rights end when they infringe upon the rights of others. Which abortion does do. Abortion is never medically necessary, there is always an alternative which would at least attempt to preserve both the life/health of mother and baby and is safer. It is therefore within my stated boundaries (a small unintrusive government that doesn't go beyond the boundaries of our constitution) that the government should protect the life of the baby and not allow abortion to be legal.
Chrissy:
> Also, an unintrusive government would be a government that didn't try to
> dictate who you can and cannot sleep with, love, and yes, marry (Gays).
> Liberals wouldn't dare attempt to do what conservatives, for some reason,
> feel is their duty as Christians to do. What In the world could be more
> intrusive then govt. dictating laws in the bed room? Liberals would never
> attempt tell YOU, or anyone else, that who you choose to love is
> unsatisfactory. Let alone, Immoral. So, why then, should Conservatives feel
> that they can? And are gays really not fit to serve in the military? They
> cant fight and die for this country because of their sexual preference? Come
> on! Who are conservatives to Judge their fellow man? I thought that Job was
> already taken.
Curt
Once again here you take liberties with what I've stated and what you believe conservatives stand for. Not all conservatives are Christians and some are actually homosexuals. But once again undeniable reality refutes your statements. God created unions of marriage between A man and a woman primarily for procreation. Government just acknowledges this union. There is no need for Homosexuals to marry since they will never by definition procreate.
As for the issue of gays serving in the military. One of the things many people don't realize is that in signing up for military service you give up some of your rights. One of the big ones is that you cannot be politically activist. Overt homosexuality would fall in that category and others such as sodomy which is also illegal in the military. While I served the unofficial policy was don't ask don't tell. Which worked well as far as I'm concerned. There were a couple of people we thought were homosexual in our unit but since they weren't bothering anyone (I.E., making it known to everyone) it didn't bother most people.
Chrissy:
You cant defend the "Sanctity of life" if your only intention is saving "> potential life" not yet realized. You cant say that "ALL" life is precious
> and then pass judgment, right or wrong, on your fellow man sentencing him to
> death. Either its ALL precious or its NOT. And the reason I say that, is
> because conservatives want to include even potential life (fertilized eggs &
> fetuses) as worthy of protection under the law. Even, have rights that
> extend beyond their host (the mother). So, it would appear to an outsider (> liberals) that When conservatives say "All life is precious" what they REALLY
> MEAN is "All Life We Deem As Precious" and that hypocriticalness doesn't sit
> well with most Lefties.
>
> But, for the sake of argument, if Conservatives were the defenders of life,
> wouldn't they want that life to have meaning and quality? Unintrusive govt.
> means allowing a suffering human being the right to decide how and when they
> meet God. Death is one of the most Private and intimate events in a person's
> life. And the fact that conservatives want, and actively do, interfere in
> that event speaks volumes. At the very least it doesn't lend credit to the, "
> LIBERALS are the ones who want intrusive govt." theory. When you support the
> Death Penalty and not Euthanasia, there is irony there. Through the death
> penalty, conservatives imply that, in fact, not ALL life is Precious. So, it
> leads a liberal to speculate. If a man accused of murder is allowed to have
> his "precious life" taken away, then surely so can an innocent man who is
> suffering and wants that suffering to end?
Curt:
You answer this point yourself and yet you don't realize it. The differences in the various methods of the ending of a persons life NO INNOCENT person should ever have his/her life taken from them. The key being INNOCENT. No baby born or unborn has ever murdered anyone. And yes someone that has murdered someone should by all means have their life taken as a fitting and proper punishment.
As for someone taking their own life that isn't something I would suggest to anyone, however I don't have any problem with a terminally ill person in unabateable pain taking their own life. However this doesn't mean I agree with someone helping that person do it.
Chrissy:
> What it all comes down to is morals. And the line we cross when we impose
> those morals on other people. The world is a big place, filled with many
> kinds of wonderful, and terrifying souls. And when you limit your world to
> strictly black and white, you are missing out on a big part of the human
> experience. You want to teach your kids values? Teach them that "love," no
> matter what package, shape or form it comes in, is always right. That guns
> do not solve all the problems in the world. Only Education, better
> environments to live and work, and Helping those who need help, can do that.
> That we should worry more about the safety and lives of our fellow men then
> our pocket books. And that the bible has its time and place, but it has NO
> place in our schools.
>
> I hope this cleared up some of the gross assumptions and generalizations
> that seem to be littered throughout your Home page. At the very least, I
> hope it gave you some insight as to why not everyone believes that
> Conservatism is best for this country. Feel free to comment, I have no
> problem defending any part of what I wrote. I look forward to it.
> Chrissy
> >^..^<
>
Curt:
Depends on what you call "love." I agree as long as your not referring to sex. That is clearly not always right. There is only one way in which sexual love is right and that is when it occurs between a married woman and man and then only when appropriate.
Guns do solve many problems. They serve as a major deterrent to those that wish us harm and they aren't sure if we are unarmed. Fortunately we in the United States benefit from the world being afraid of what we could do to them if they acted aggressively toward us. We haven't had major attack on the US in over 50 years (other than an occasional terrorist attack). Many countries around the world face attack daily. The reality is there are people in this world that wish us harm. The more they fear our retaliation should they be inclined to do us harm, the better we, and most of this world is.
"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference -- they deserve a place of honor with all that is good." -George Washington
Of course the bible has it's place in our schools. Our country is based on a core belief in God and the teachings of the bible. It is the fundamental foundation of our laws and whole judicial system. So of course our children should learn that. And unfortunately no one seems to have taught you that.
As always when someone disagrees with me it makes my site much better because I can clarify my stances on issues.