Are the newspaper collapse and the Protestant Xtian collapse connected in any way?

I like to think that the silent majority (no, not the Falwell one) of us are simply tired of the bullshit promoted by both of these industries.

I think it has to do more with the fact that people no longer consider abominable many of the things hard core Christians are against.

Gays, drugs, sexual immorality, etc.

A lot of this has to do with new understandings fostered by science and products (birth control) created by technology. Without birth control and STD treatments Biblical sexual morality is a very good idea.

Most people have come to the conclusion that the drug war (most prominently promoted by "conservatives") not only doesn't work but is also a very bad idea.

All this taints "conservatives". What is needed is a return to true American Conservatism. Liberty. Economic and Cultural.

Another view of religion in America.
Photo essay, "Churches ad hoc", at www.efn.org/~hkrieger

Another view of religion in America.
Photo essay, "Churches ad hoc", at www.efn.org/~hkrieger

Don't kid yourselves. These people have or will find new superstitions which they will claim authorizes them to dictate to others.

Big Science, anyone?

That poster: the usual straw men. I would love to meet an atheist who dared to expose him/herself to religion in its more sophisticated forms.

Brett,

Science is self righting over time because it is based on doubt.

Religion has no similar mechanism. Unless you count schism and religious wars.

True science unencumbered with personal aspirations does right itself.

In the hands of those of tyrannous mindset, it remains a superstition.

I know you know this.

Brett,

As a man of science myself I can tell you that science was never ever unencumbered by personal aspirations. That is a fairy tale. Newton was quite the mercenary. daVinci was always looking for scientific or artistic commissions. Franklin was always angling for government contracts.

What ultimately checks that ambition is doubt. Which gives new guys with personal aspirations a chance to overthrow the old order.

What keeps science honest is evidence based faith. If the evidence does not support the faith it is not the true faith.

“Moral socialism. The idea that government should tell people how to live.”
Yeah, that whole separation of church and state thing doesn’t exist at all. You know the one where everyone starts screaming bloody murder if a coach wants to say a quick prayer before a football game. Yep, it’s all state mandated religion around here.
And I’ll take shared values over moral relativism any day. Taking your thinking to its conclusion, I should be able to go over to my neighbor’s house and rape his wife if I don’t believe it’s wrong.
It’s important to have a set of laws everyone shares. That our laws are partly based on the shared ideas of religion that our founding fathers had is merely a part of our history. You can ignore it, you can push against it, but it doesn’t change the fact that we are based on a Christian society. And I don’t think a few sky-is-falling newspaper fillers is a sign that society is ready to give up on faith.

Nice straw man Joel. I never gave a green light to harming others. I do believe you can't prevent people from harming themselves. Not only that I believe such policies enrich the criminal class and has turned Mexico into a narco state. Excellent outcomes. Glad to see you supporting the creation of violent criminal gangs. Never heard of alcohol prohibition I guess. Pity.

But I get your point. We need to keep people from harming themselves. We not only need drug police. We need food police too.

And we have to force people to have the same values at the point of a gun. People should have no right to determine who they associate with. Because that will work.

What we need in America is despotism. Because some people can't handle Liberty. People with Liberty might make bad choices. Moral Socialism in your case is too mild a term. Moral Fascist is more to the point.

And I don’t think a few sky-is-falling newspaper fillers is a sign that society is ready to give up on faith.

Quite so. The election returns are a better gauge.

I so love the Republican's whistling in the dark. Typically it takes 16 years in the wilderness for the out of power political party to wake up. So let me see 2006 + 16 = 2022. Patience my friend. In 2022 religion will not be an issue in the election (for the most part).

“Straw Man”? What, is that the new phrase that pays everyone is throwing around, like “Gravitas”?
And if you think the point of my comment was I disagree with the term “moral socialism” because I think the government’s job is to keep people from harming themselves…then I think you’re the one making hay while the sun is shining.
My point is there is a constantly vigilant section of the country making sure there is separation of church and state, whereas you seem to be saying that while no one was looking the church snuck up behind the government and took it over. I’m asking where you draw the line between “wrong” and “only wrong to narrow minded people that think it’s wrong”. Yes, the rape example is harsh, but I only used it because I’m trying to figure out where you draw the line, or if you have a line to draw. At some point theory has to meet reality.

“I so love the Republican's whistling in the dark.”

Who said I was a Republican?

The straw man Joel is that because I think the government should have no control over the foods you eat or the medicine you take that I favor rape.

You are a bit thick (as are most prohibitionists) so I will give you a pass in not understanding my point.

But hey drug prohibition is being used as an excuse for gun prohibition. Because - you know. Prohibition works.

Prohibition has made a paradise out of the drug producing countries of South America. And they love us for it. They are cutting down the rain forests to gain ground for cocaine production. And our friends in Mexico are doing well because of our prohibition policies.

OK. You are not a Republican. You are a fool whistling in the dark.

Thick. Prohibitionist. Fool.

I guess you’ll never re-name the site “Classical Maturity”.

For some reason you’re just dying to label me; like some sort of Alinsky victim. Legalize drugs, I could care less. I am a gun owner and an avid hunter, so the “straw dog” that I’m anti-gun doesn’t really hold water either.

“I think this bodes ill for the Republican party unless it becomes less faith based and more liberty oriented. Something I have been saying for quite some time and especially post the 2008 election. Moral socialism is not the big seller it once was.”

Renaming “Shared Values” to “Moral Socialism” because it makes it sound evil and un-American isn’t particularly honest. The point I was trying to make, and maybe I was just too foolish to do it correctly, was that the same values that prohibit violence from being acceptable often spill off into other areas as well. Here’s a made-up term: “Moral Cohesion”. The idea that if you by some of it, you may have to pay for more of it than you want because it’s all stuck together. But I just can’t get behind the idea that religion and faith is the root of all that is wrong with the Right.

And to cut you off at the pass a little bit, I’m not a “bible-thumper” either. I don’t even go to church.

Shared at the point of a gun is socialism.

That tired but true old canard is an economic truth, but it�s not valid as a moral one. If someone embezzles from a company, can they say it�s not fair to be prosecuted because they just don�t share the company�s values? (Does that satisfy the non-violence test?)

There is a simple test:

Does the thief want his property stolen? Does the murdered want to be murdered? Does the embezzler want to be embezzled?

OTOH do I give a damn that you prefer water to beer? That you want to be a vegetarian?

But you know. It doesn't matter re: drugs what you think. After 95 years of prohibition the prohibitionists are losing the argument. Science is winning over superstition. Thank God.

The question as always comes down to a simple question: who owns your body? You or the government? I'm in the self-ownership camp.

“But you know. It doesn't matter re: drugs what you think. After 95 years of prohibition the prohibitionists are losing the argument. Science is winning over superstition. Thank God.”

I already said I don’t care if drugs are legalized. Obviously that is a big deal to you, but it’s a non-issue to me, and it’s not anywhere near what I’m talking about. Let me give you a lame analogy that you can summarily mock:

You are driving a car as fast as you can towards a cliff. At the bottom is a pit called anarchy. Your definition of liberty is to get as close to edge of the cliff as you can without going over. The problem is it’s not your car. You don’t know exactly how well it handles, if the brakes are in good shape, steering, etc. I’m sitting in the passenger seat, and I just don’t trust you’ll stop in time knowing your penchant for wanting to get as close to the edge as you can.

Oh. I don't propose anarchy. I'd like to get back to the government structure we had around 1800. Sans slavery of course.

And why do I care about drugs? Well for one thing I'd like to reduce the 2,000 innocents a year killed in the dug war crossfire to zero. I'd like to end the destabilization of the drug producing countries. I'd like to reduce support for criminals. I'd like to see an end to the corruption (currently fairly well hidden) that any black market supports. I'd like to end turning our poorer neighborhoods into war zones.

But the real deal is: I trust people with their own decisions. And in any case a country founded on rebellion is going to have a hard time getting people to follow laws they don't agree with. And it only takes 5% dissent to create a hell of a mess.

So pass all the laws you like. Good luck getting them obeyed.

I know you don’t propose or support anarchy. It’s called the law of unintended consequences. You don’t really want to go over the cliff, and you’d be surprised as anyone that you did.

If your passion is legalizing drugs, I say go with it. You’ll get no argument from me, no matter how much you want to label me something I’m not.

What I’m trying to get back to time and time again is not drugs, not guns, not prohibition. It’s the idea that belief in God is somehow everything that’s wrong with the Republican Party. Or the country in general.