Quote Originally Posted by emmett View Post
Me too Crin, and it actually does lend something to our debate.....AND....as much as I am pleased to say....supports my side sir. Not that I think you wrong! It simply supports of of the very difficult point I was trying to make in some of the first posts, which I failed on at times to articulate properly which left you with what could have been a miscommunication on my behalf.

Example: I am certain that not all of those over 1 million citizens that congregated to demonstrate this past weekend were in agreement about every single thing on each's agenda. I'm sure many of them had your opinion of a strong religious based society of law, while mine were more liberal in that particular sense and while believers, think it necessary for each to choose his own way so long as it does not immediately infringe on another's liberty. The thing they all had in common was obvious and together they made quite an impression on both you, as you admit you feel better than you have in decades, and me, as I do as well. Hmmmm!

Sort of goes back to the point I made about finding common denominators first! Such as Liberty! Freedom! Choice! Rights! Smaller Government. These are Libertarian core beliefs. I'm sure I need not explain that to you as I have never meant to say you did not understand that. My point has always been to accuse you of being slightly narrow on the religious end and that I felt it was a violation of one's liberty to allow people to decide for others how they should live. That creates BIGGER government and goes against everything liberty stands for. Liberty is not elastic Crin, you can't have Liberty in a country where any sect, Christian or otherwise, has the ability to tell others how to live.

This does meran to suggest that I do not think it is right. I simply refuse to compromise on a belief that Liberty comes first. Absolute Liberty....not a watered down version but real true liberty.

Again...I repeat that in a perfect society there would be no homosexuality or abortions as far as I am concerned.

The folks we saw over the weekend had one thing in common....what was it?

That is my point! AND......they made theirs together while I am sure there differences among them of some regard.
My point or argument as it may be is more of moral stand than actually a religious stand. When I read the founding fathers, there is absolutely no doubt that they intended a moral society for us to live in. As I read their writings I find that they were quite convinced that the only way for our country to survive and our liberties to be preserved was through a moral society. Without a particular guide for morality you end up with what we have now in our society and the losses of liberty that we are seeing from our overreaching, heavy-handed government. Morality cannot be subjective, there has to be a guideline and for our founding fathers that guideline was the Bible.

All I actually want is for our country to be restored to the vision of our founding fathers.

It seems as though your view of liberty is a lawless, immoral society where every man does what is right in his own eyes. Because that is what you will end up with if every man does what is right in his own eyes. Now don't get me wrong, I understand that you oppose the immoralities of our previous conversation, but you would allow them. Where do you draw the line? I would never suggest that we go and check peoples beds to see what they are doing, but it also cant be considered the norm and given free run.

Absolute and unfettered liberty will only result in tyranny because the biggest and baddest with the most people and weapons will rise up and dominate. Its the unchecked nature of man to do so.

My friend, liberty only works in a moral society.