The American Spectator

Reader Mail

States' Rights

5.14.09 @ 6:01AM

(Page 2 of 3)

"A better option is to remain true to the foundational principles of conservatism, of which traditional marriage and family are a critical plank. Conservatives can do a better job of nuancing the issue, but they should never forfeit the principle itself….The GOP needs to do some soul searching, no doubt. Part of that should be the acknowledgment that social conservatism in general, and marriage protection in particular, is not responsible for the party's fading fortunes."

I didn't know that American conservatism was based on cranking out as many kids as you could. I thought it was based on freedom. Gay marriage may be a popular issue in some places and unpopular in others, but what conservatives aren't willing to face is their own ideological inconsistency. You're either for personal liberty or you’re just a member of a sort of Taliban Lite, trying to enforce your methods on others because you can’t countenance people not looking and acting like you.

Which will it be? Doesn’t the love between two people count? Shouldn't people's ability to express that be protected? Leftists know exactly where they want to go, even if where they want to go is wrong. But they are sure of their principles. The real problem with conservatives is that they have forgotten theirs. The gay marriage issue shouldn't be imposed by courts. It should be decided by a free people through their votes and/or through their elected legislatures. But as a political movement, if conservatism cannot be self-consciously grounded in its own ideas of freedom -- ideas that time after time have been shown to work and to be good -- then it is just a run-of-the-mill cultural meme. It becomes a movement not unlike a Taliban Lite in which it is more important to play to people's prejudices than to reach down and really consider what freedom means in America and why this is a worthy and stable goal. To cling to marriage being the definition of a man and a woman is to lose track of this. And those who suppose that heterosexuals will suddenly stop getting married if gay marriage is legalized are nuts. Legalizing gay marriage does not mean the end of marriage. It is simply the advancement of freedom.

If one really was concerned with protecting marriage, you would roll back as much government interference in people’s lives as you could. You would get rid of all the nanny-state incentives and support structures that undermine the normal and natural inclination towards marriage and that instead substitutes the state as the husband or parent.

Not standing boldly by their principles is what is killing conservatives. To make the argument for gay marriage is not to pander. It is to truly understand our American style of freedom.
-- Brad Nelson

POLITICAL SCIENCE... LITERALLY
Re: Craig S. Lerner's Risky Business:

The scientific community is in danger of losing its credibility with the bulk of Americans if they continue to hitch their wagon to the Jackass Party and its agendas. For at least the last 50 years science has become more of a religion separate and apart from the lesser beings on this planet than an academic pursuit of truth. I worked in the space program in the early to mid seventies and it wasn't "consensus" that got the Apollo capsule to and from the moon nor gets the Shuttle off the pad and back down safely. There is no such thing as "consensus science." Charlatans and con artists promote "consensus" hoaxes, as Craig Lerner outlines. 

If we continue on this path of mixing politics with true science the day will come when a true crisis arrives and the general public has no faith in anything so-called scientists say and that could be fatal. True scientists aren’t interested in shouting down those that disagree with them, nor are they arrogant enough to believe that their theories can’t be wrong. The difference between a theory and true science is the proof or lack thereof. Far too many people, particularly politicians fail to understand the differences between inductive and deductive reasoning and its use as a substitute for scientific proof. Weather forecasting, climate and hurricane predictions all share the same problems: they are based on mathematical models built upon theories that don’t happen to be very accurate in the scheme of things. I can look at a simple precipitation radar map and predict three days out with enough accuracy to know it is going to rain on me while the weather service runs mathematical models on the most powerful computer systems in existence 24/7 trying to tell me right up to the last minute it will rain 1.2356 inches on Tuesday with 60% certainty (somewhere in my reporting area). The forecast changes every two hours... Likewise, the hurricane forecasters seem honestly disappointed that their forecasts don’t turn out as bad as they forecast just three months prior.

This is not science; it is a political agenda or religion for far too many. A broken clock is proving to be more reliable. The hoaxes put forth by the "scientific" community over the last 5 decades have done real damage to the pursuit of truth. Far too many people in the "community" are overly impressed with their "weight of paper" arguments and their own inflated self worth in the scheme of things. Those in the community that value truth and the positive attributes science can bring might want to step up to the plate before their fraternity becomes typecast like some of the world's oldest professions or worse.   
-- Thom Bateman
Newport News, Virginia

LIVE BY THE SWORD
Re: Jeffrey Lord's The Spanish Inquisition Meets The O'Reilly Factor:

My oh my what a tangled web we weave. It would appear that the incompetent judge and our less-than-illustrious speaker have found themselves tightly wound in the spider's cocoon. Good for them, I hope they find it impossible to untangle themselves!

This pair of imbeciles makes a perfect quinella; put them in a two-man footrace and they would both run dead last! 
-- M.J. Casey
North Miami Beach, Florida

I read your story with interest. The part I didn't like was the title. "The Spanish Inquisition" part could have been left out. It is a myth that should have died out a long time ago. The Spanish Inquisition was often the first law and order a Spanish town or city had other than a local prince yelling, "off with his head!" The vast majority of persons tried by the Inquisition were found not guilty. Less than one percent were sentenced to death and most of those had their sentences changed to prison terms. Overall your story was spoiled by a bad title that probably cost you readers. 
-- Michael Skaggs
Murray, Kentucky

THIS IS AMERICA, BY GOD
Re: Tom Bethell's Population, Blessings, and God:

An old Jewish blessing, "May God bless you with enough that you don't curse His name, but not so much that you for Him." 

Letter to the Editor