Freer? Yes. Better? No

  • Follow Letters

I would like to comment on Andy C. Reese’s letter “Liberals built freer world” (April 22). The title is correct: They did make a freer world – but not a better world!

They are the ones who removed the Bible and prayer from our schools, and the Ten Commandments from our courtrooms. They legalized abortions and pornography on the Internet, and in our schools children learn how to have safe sex. Teenage pregnancies are a problem. Legalizing drugs and sanctioning the homosexual lifestyle are part of the liberal agenda, and in each year 17,000 people will die in America from AIDS. None of this is of the character of Christians and conservatives.

The liberal teaching of humanism, socialism and atheism is taking its toll on our society. We can’t teach ethics and morals anymore because then we would be bordering on religion, and liberals don’t want that in our workplace, schools or government. Besides, religion and homosexuality in the classroom wouldn’t do well.

In Mr. Reese’s letter he seems to give credit to liberals for the development of virtually all inventions and science, which is not true! Search “the scientific 100” and you will learn that the majority of all fields of science were developed by Christians and the Jewish people.

Mr. Reese also gives credit to liberals for the writing of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and creating the abolition of slavery and freedom of religion. I don’t believe I even have to comment on that! If today’s liberals were living at that time, when America had to decide to fight for her freedom, we would still be under British rule!

Yes, today we have a freer world to do as each wills – but will we survive where this freedom is leading us?

Comments (29) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
karradur
2854
Points
karradur 04/24/13 - 12:05 am
4
8
Darn those gays.

Always mucking things up.

carcraft
26262
Points
carcraft 04/24/13 - 05:42 am
11
2
A Bill Ayer's Dream Come True!

Let’s look at this! Appears the Boston Bombers got welfare until just last year! http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/04/in-the-midnight-hour-it-is-revealed... . Not only that, but the youngest son at an Ivy League School. America what a wonderful place where a car mechanics son from Russia can go to an Ivy League School, be on welfare and blow people up. Gee I wonder if he took lessons from Bill Ayers? Soon he may be teaching in an Ivy League School near the home of the next President!

Bodhisattva
6307
Points
Bodhisattva 04/24/13 - 07:25 am
3
10
David Caudle says freedom's

David Caudle says freedom's slipping away. Gil says we evidently have too much freedom. Maybe they should get together and hash things out.

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 04/24/13 - 08:36 am
6
3
"Gil says we evidently have
Unpublished

"Gil says we evidently have too much freedom. "

checking........checking...........checking........... Nope..... I must have read the wrong letter, because the "Gil letter" I read didn't say that at all. But some never let facts and truth get in the way of rhetoric.

deestafford
27879
Points
deestafford 04/24/13 - 08:42 am
6
3
Liberals have a habit of changing definitions of words in

order to make their subversion seem acceptable. Just look at the word "gay" being transformed to ''homosexual", "investment" to mean "government expenditure", "loophole" to mean "legitimate deduction" to name a few. So have they done the same with "liberal" in changing it from its classical definition. Words mean things...unless you are a liberal and tying to sugar coat something to obscure your true meaning and intentions

The Founding Fathers were Conservatives!! They wanted to maintain the rights they enjoyed from tradition and custom. The American War for Independance was not a revolution in that the colonists did not seek the total transformation of society. The British Parliment and King were trying to reduce the autonomy which the colonists enjoyed. So, the were trying to conserve a way of life and as such were Conservatives just as the Conservatives of today are trying to preserve the American way of life and not try to turn this great country into some leftist Utopia which has only existent in the delusionary mind of collectivenists.

RMSHEFF
16203
Points
RMSHEFF 04/24/13 - 09:04 am
4
3
DEESTAFFORD

Good points, I would add, that if you could bring back"any" of the founders , even the most liberal they would be shocked at what they see. If you could bring JFK back he would be a conservative republican now. It is the old frog in a pot of water scenario. Steady, Continuous change over a long period of time will go unnoticed and accepted.

t3bledsoe
14290
Points
t3bledsoe 04/24/13 - 10:09 am
3
5
Too much freedom

I agree we have too many freedoms, and yes, I do believe that libs. are responsible for quite a number of "bad freedoms". Pornography should have never been legalized, and to ANY dope that sayes other-wise, "I am completely convinced that porn IS a direct cause of many sex crimes !" I don't understand why sex crimes are always treated by the corections department, and yet experts are convinced that these offenders have a mental illnesses. You know how the state lottery system has to put out a disclaimer about gambling adiction, I say the porn filth should be forced to do this as well !!

KSL
131325
Points
KSL 04/24/13 - 10:37 am
4
1
U Mass is a state school, not

U Mass is a state school, not an Ivy League school.

itsanotherday1
43814
Points
itsanotherday1 04/24/13 - 10:48 am
1
0
I catch a hint of people

I catch a hint of people wanting government to be in charge of morality. do you REALLY want that?

All I want from government is clearly spelled out in the constitution; and it really just boils down to national defense and protecting us from each other; whether it be laws against murder, or laws against discrimination, safe food, etc. A lot of staunch conservatives would argue that even food safety, product safety, etc. is not within their purview, but I disagree.

andyreese
8
Points
andyreese 04/24/13 - 10:54 am
3
1
Religious = Conservative, really

Mr. Ward implies that since most of Western science was developed by Christians and Jews, it must have been developed by conservatives. He will probably be surprised to know that there are liberal Christians and Jews as well as conservative members of those religions. Those who developed science at the beginning of the Enlightenment were LIBERAL members of their religions. Some were burned at the stake like Bruno and Servetus. Galileo was put under life-time house arrest. Spinoza was excommunicated by both the Jews and Catholics. Ninety-four percent of the current members of the National Academy of Sciences, the most prestigious scientific organization in the U.S., are self-professed liberals.

He, obviously did not read my response to comment on my original letter, so let me briefly repeat some of the points to back up some of the claims in my original letter that Mr. Ward disputes.

The Declaration of Independence was written by Jefferson and edited by Franklin, both of whom would have been quite comfortable with the way society has developed although astounded by the technological developments. The Constitution was drafted by Madison who was less liberal than Jefferson and Franklin, but still recognized as quite liberal for his day. (Mr. Ward makes the mistake of many non-historians by trying to judge the people and ideas of the past by current standards rather than the society in which they originally existed.)

As for liberals fighting for their freedom, it was largely the opposite. There were probably a little over a third of the population who strongly supported the Revolution, somewhat fewer than a third who opposed it, and a third who mostly just wanted to be left alone. There were liberals and conservatives in all three groups. But, and it is a big but, most of the loyalists were considered conservatives by most definitions. They were the ones who wanted to "conserve" their relationship with England with the certainties of place and practice rather than risking overturning that with the vast uncertainty about the future it brought.

I am surprised that Mr. Ward brings up the old canard about not being able to teach ethics and morals in our schools. The Supreme Court has ruled that those subjects can be taught, that students can hold prayer sessions on school property or have Bible study. What can't be done in publicly supported schools is to support one religion over another or over no religion. I have no idea what religion Mr. Ward follows, but I suspect, if he is Christian, that he would be violently opposed to Jewish teacher teaching that Jesus was not the messiah and including material to that effect on the test. Or the reverse, teaching his Jewish children or grandchildren that they will burn in hell if they don't convert. The restrictions protect us all.

The "liberal agenda" is to make it possible for mature, sane individuals to make the decisions that affect their lives or to have a say in collective decisions as long as the actions that result from those decisions don't limit the freedom of others to do likewise. This is where speed limits come in as well as regulations on business to ensure fair competition. Mr. Ward and I would probably disagree with how far these should go, and that is a legitimate discussion.

There are things that must be done for the common good that cannot be done by individuals - roads, police and fire protection, national defense, protect the water we drink and food we eat, etc. Again, Mr. Ward and I would disagree about just how extensive they should be, but we obviously need some of them and have to pay for them by paying taxes.

I will end by repeating what I said in my previous response. Liberals and conservatives have different strengths and weaknesses. We need both as checks and balances on each other.

grouse
1635
Points
grouse 04/24/13 - 11:07 am
0
1
The fallacies and
Unpublished

The fallacies and generalizations in this letter are too numerous to address, but there is no evidence that the Utopian Christian world that Mr. Ward envisions would be any better than the one he laments.

deestafford
27879
Points
deestafford 04/24/13 - 11:13 am
3
1
"Too much freedom"?

T3bledsoe's comment raises a philosophical question as to how much freedom is too much freedom. I really don't have an answer. I guess freedom can be on a continum with slavery all the way on the left in and anarchy all the way on the right side. I do believe that liberals and progressives think freedom should be skewed toward the left of center with the "elites" being the "parents" of the rest of us. The bottomline of liberalism is that it does not trust the American people to do what is right---things work only when "those who know best" are running the show; e.g, Mayor Bloomberg of NYC.

deestafford
27879
Points
deestafford 04/24/13 - 11:22 am
3
1
I believe andyreese is somehow equating advancements

and liberalism to be the same in that advancement comes only through liberalism. Once again, I think the use of today's word "liberal" is totally different from the classical definition. As a matter of fact the current usage of the word did not come into vogue until sometimes in the mid-20th century when the progressives/new dealers were looking for a way to camouflage their image and intentions.

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 04/24/13 - 11:28 am
5
2
bledsoe. Is there anything
Unpublished

bledsoe. Is there anything else that you personally don't like that you think no one should be allowed to do or have? By all means, let's stifle freedom based on YOUR morals alone.

t3bledsoe
14290
Points
t3bledsoe 04/24/13 - 12:01 pm
2
3
HA, I thought you of all conservs. would agree with me

How in the world did we "have our cake and eat it too"?! How can a "self diagnosed" female conserv. believe that porn should be a legal right? So you would become a lib. just to make the argument "that porn should be a legal freedom". I guess you are not as conserv. as you seem to claim to be.

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 04/24/13 - 12:06 pm
5
2
I am in favor of the
Unpublished

I am in favor of the Constitution, and of personal liberty. I am not in favor of constricting the first amendment JUST because someone does or says something offensive. If I were in favor of that, then I, myself would not be able to say many of the things I say. How does favoring the Constitution, and personal freedom mean I'm not conservative? How is NOT wanting to impose MY morals on others make me NOT conservative?

t3bledsoe
14290
Points
t3bledsoe 04/24/13 - 12:17 pm
0
4
HA let us pull out the old argumented 1st amendment

How in the name of ANY MORALS should porn be a given right under the 1st amendment ?! There is absolutely NO WAY the founding fathers would have ever agreed that the 1st amendment would legalize porn !!

Got to go, back at 1:30

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 04/24/13 - 12:25 pm
3
1
Because people have the
Unpublished

Because people have the freedom of expression even if it is offensive. Should we make a list of all the offensive things that should not be allowed to be spoken or written about? Who decides what is offensive? Where does it stop?

burninater
9627
Points
burninater 04/24/13 - 12:49 pm
2
1
I think many who oppose sex ed

I think many who oppose sex ed, and think there is a teen pregnancy crisis, would be quite surprised to learn that teen birth rates are at historic lows -- EVEN IF you remove abortions from the statistics.

America's highest teen birth rate year? The prim, proper, and morally upright year of 1957 -- you know, when all ladies had to do was keep their knees closed, as some Congressmen would say.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db89.pdf

Facts trump emotion when it comes to SENSIBLE policy.

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 04/24/13 - 01:08 pm
1
2
The link you posted says
Unpublished

The link you posted says nothing about removing abortions from the statistics.

burninater
9627
Points
burninater 04/24/13 - 01:37 pm
1
1
HA, meet Google. Look up the

HA, meet Google. Look up the rate of teen abortions. Subtract that from the differences in live birth rates between now and 1957.

Approximately one-third of teen pregnancies today are currently aborted. 1957 live births to teens were over twice the current rate. We have a 150% lower birth rate now than in 1957, AFTER removing abortions from the rates.

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 04/24/13 - 01:23 pm
2
2
Oh...I get it....look up the
Unpublished

Oh...I get it....look up the NUMBER of abortions....subtract that from the differences in birth NUMBERS..then compare THAT to the lower birth RATE we have today. Certainly wouldn't want to compare it to the LOWER NUMBER of teen births in 1957.

burninater
9627
Points
burninater 04/24/13 - 01:36 pm
1
2
No. These are all rates.

No. These are all rates. One-third aborted is a rate, and the CDC data are also rates.

I've corrected the language in my post to avoid confusion, sorry about that.

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 04/24/13 - 01:35 pm
2
2
All rates. "Look up the
Unpublished

All rates.

"Look up the number of teen abortions. Subtract that from the differences in live birth numbers between now and 1957. "

burninater
9627
Points
burninater 04/24/13 - 01:37 pm
1
1
Yup, all rates. My language

Yup, all rates. My language was poorly chosen.

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 04/24/13 - 01:39 pm
2
3
Figures can't lie.....but....
Unpublished

Figures can't lie.....but....

burninater
9627
Points
burninater 04/24/13 - 01:40 pm
2
1
But what?

But what?

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 04/24/13 - 01:45 pm
2
2
Google Mark Twain.
Unpublished

Google Mark Twain.

burninater
9627
Points
burninater 04/24/13 - 02:20 pm
2
1
Seriously. If I am to

Seriously. If I am to correctly interpret that post in the context of this conversation, you are claiming that because I used the wrong word in describing the data, that suddenly the data have become a lie? The error was in my language. The data is exactly what I stated as the conclusion: birth rates in 1957 were almost 150% greater than current birth rates, even after removing abortion rates for that age group.

You can't wish away data you don't like by implying the messenger is a liar. The data remain the same.

t3bledsoe
14290
Points
t3bledsoe 04/24/13 - 01:57 pm
2
1
Burninater, remember argueing with a sign post

Burninater, correct me if I am wrong, but you are saying that the comparitive rates of teen pregnancies are much lower today than in 1957, correct ? You also seem to be saying that perhaps one of the factors is probably sex ed today, correct ?

Was it Mark Twain that said, "Don't argue with a sign post" ?!

Back to Top

Top headlines

SRS shipments halted until 2016

Savannah River Site can't resume shipments of Cold War nuclear waste materials to an underground repository in New Mexico until at least 2016 when the federal government reopens the facility to ...
Search Augusta jobs