The Moral Majority

In every nation there exists something called the “moral majority”. It’s a self identified group of holier than thou activists who believe  that they are so wholesome and good that their way of life is the only way of life to follow. These people are usually self identified as religious, either right wingers or identify as libertarians (primarily because real society forces on us a series of rules that prevent the kind of dickishness that the moral majority dream that they could apply to the rest of us.). A good example of the fight for morality is the Moral Majority Alliance in the USA which includes such stellar organisations as the Family Research Council, the American Family Association and Liberty Alliance. It boggles the mind as a foreigner that such associations can name themselves such while being anti family and anti liberty.
For example the Liberty Alliance actively campaigns against Hate Speech Laws. The rules that protected black people from racists also helps protect homosexuals from… well people in the Liberty Alliance. They actively campaign against laws protecting against discrimination, because freedom means freedom to be a giant bigot. They think that the bible gives them the right to define what marriage is, preventing gays from getting their marriages recognised. They think that gay people should not mention their personal lives in the military solely because of who they chose to have sex with.
It doesn’t matter what you do as a gay man. It doesn’t matter how brave you are as a lesbian. Your skills as someone aren’t what’s important to them your associated gender is. In short nothing you do matters to them, what you are does. Just like racists in the 50s and 60s who ran the American apartheid, who actively fought against black rights solely because the achievements of black people didn’t matter so much as the colour of their skin. To the so called Moral Majority your achievements don’t matter if you are one of their two favourite whipping boys.
To put it into perspective, they are actually reducing the liberties of 5% of America (The rough population of GLBT across the USA) based on the idea that the USA is a judeo-christian nation, completely forgetting that there are some awfully unchristian ideas that the USA was born out of. The equality of man, the idea of a republic and freedom are not biblical notions, they are humanist ones. It is the Kingdom of Heaven that they seek, not the Republic or Democracy. In their world view it is they who dictate what rules we follow and they are attempting to achieve it through their use of the Tea Party and the Republicans.
The Moral Majority and hate go hand in hand. The whipping boys of the Jews have given way to the threat of Islamofacism. Hating Jews is so very 1900s, however Muslims are a more credible threat.
The problem is that there is a real issue with Islamic Terror, by turning Islam into a bogeyman you find a lot of misnomers and a lot of nonsense being bandied around in place of real attempts to stop Islamic terror.
A good example is Bryan Fischer’s adage that muslims in the army would carry out Islamic attacks on us completely forgetting that the same can be applied to the various Christian terror groups across the land. 
Perhaps the English Cricket Team should drop Eoin Morgan because he is Irish and everyone knows all irish people are either leprechaun chasing stereotypes or belong to the IRA. And we just can’t take that chance!

Oh wait, that’s fucking retarded. If I suggested that in reality rather than as a sarcastic point then I would need to have my head examined. Bryan Fischer’s actual claim is similar. That belief in the Abrahamic God under the name of Allah prevents you from taking any oath, THUS setting a horrific precedence to make muslims unfit for any public office. By that logic any contract because “fuck it they are dirty camel fuckers”. This is so fucking backwards that it belongs in the rulebook of the Nazi Party and not on any person who you would allow to speak with any authority. But politicians in the USA regularly listen to Mr. Fischer’s hate speech completely forgetting that this sets a dangerous precedent.

See if you can declare that muslims aren’t allowed to do stuff because of their faith you set something called a precedent and since it only applies to people who call the Abrahamic god Jehovah not Allah, it also rules out Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, Atheists, Wiccans and the umpteen other pagan groups out there who don’t believe in the Abrahamic God (but who do believe in either other belief systems or none at all). The USA has just stopped being the land of the free and has turned into the land of the Bible which is a horrific thought.
Remember, for every line about how homosexuals are bad are lines about how women should marry rapists, how pimples should be treated by banishment and how locusts are delicious while bacon is not. I can literally force through regulation asking for teenagers to be thrown to the wolves if we are being biblical about things since Leviticus places rules in place regarding skin lesions and they usually involve banishment and being treated like a leper. Because back then they only knew about leprosy and an acne outbreak may have resulted in you being kicked out and forced to wander around.
At the heart of this hatred lies the misconstruction of the lines of Taqqiyah. The Koran has a provision that a muslim under duress or wishing to protect someone can lie about his faith or commit acts anti-thetical to their faith. In the same way that under duress or threat we can chose to break the laws of our nations. If someone holds a gun to a random stranger’s head and asks us to rob a bank then we are not at fault for robbing the bank. Likewise a muslim can chose to lie about their faith to protect themselves or someone else.
Because the Koran is not all crazy, the Moral Majority use this caveat to the Islamic faith to make it seem that all muslims are lying and doing so to kill you and your family and your little dog. Even the nice ones… All the time.
Again the moral majority does cater to a lot of people who consider themselves as American libertarians or people who call themselves libertarians. See the issue with these people is that they want big government out of “their lives” but not the lives of those they don’t like. Hence the restrictions on Muslims and Gays (and to some extent Atheists, often by association rather than a malicious backlash against us. We are relatively rare and less of a bogeyman than those two groups.) A lot of conservative christians in the USA call themselves “libertarians” without understanding the meaning of the word and indeed without understanding of what libertarianism entails. And indeed many bandy around ideas that are NOT libertarian.
A simple example are their reasons for standing against gay marriage despite that being something that the libertarians would want to not legislate. They actively include themselves in that group solely because government prevents them from spreading their hate. Here are some arguments culled from the Family Research Centre.

Marriage is not a privacy issue. Civil marriage is a public institution. Homosexual activists once demanded that the government stay out of their bedrooms. In attempting to legalize same-sex marriage, they are now inviting the government into their bedrooms.

This argument is foolish because what the argument was that gay people wanted the government to let two individuals who are consenting adults have sex without being arrested and locked away.  What it boils down to is the simple fact that they don’t wish to give gay people any rights. This isn’t an argument against gay marriage to libertarians.
It’s an argument against straight marriage. 

Homosexual marriage is not an issue of individual rights. Every American has a right to marry, but also faces restrictions upon whom they may marry. No one is permitted to marry a child, a close blood relative, a person who is already married, or, in most states, a person of the same sex. These are not restrictions upon the right to marry; they are part of the definition of marriage.

Except it totally is an issue of individuals and their rights. Every adult has the right to marry and the restrictions make sense. Children are incapable of making legal decisions and so cannot sign a marriage register because they are fucking morons. Close blood relatives (AKA incest) is illegal solely because of the fact it’s bad for your children’s health and is a sign of serious mental issues. Monogamy is enforced on paper but a person’s private life is their own. If a woman chooses to marry one man and sleep around with various others then that is ENTIRELY her choice. And again the state recognition of a single marriage is to make life easy in regards to dividing up property in case of death and to provide for single person.

Freedom of conscience and religious liberty would be threatened. In the wake of same-sex marriage, we have already seen religious nonprofits being told to compromise their principles or go out of business.

It’s not being threatened. No one is telling Christians to accept gay marriage or die. What we are saying is “Stop spreading hate speech”. A big difference.
Ah yes, the catholic charities in question would rather children rot in foster homes than belong to any family be it a normal heterosexual one or a single parent or a couple of gay men/lesbians. Even if gay people somehow couldn’t raise a child, they are still far and away better than a foster home for these kids. For starters they provide a home, a genuine home with stuff genuinely belonging to a child. They provide love for the child and care for them in a way above and beyond a foster home would. These are people willing to treat these children like their own.
And those catholic adoption services were basically stating that if these kids (who have no choice) came under the jurisdiction of a secular (and sane) service they would be gotten families while their service would just fuck the kids over.
Yes, to make a point, a bunch of idiots were willing to stop children from finding families. And I am damn sure two gay men could do better than me as parents. This is pure spite, punishing children solely for the sake of making a point.
Also it’s kind of sexist. I mean if I can do something (as a genuine penis owner) then surely the vagina enabled portion of society could do the same? This is the logic behind gender equality. That both genders are equal in most sensible capabilities (we aren’t discussing the ability to carry large weights and run the 100m because we don’t live in a world where you are eaten if you cannot break the 10 second barrier).  The corollary is that men are equal to women too. And thus two gay men/women can care for a child and raise it to be a productive and sane member of society. Unless we are suggesting that women =/= men. The very idea that single and indeed gay parents cannot work out to the child’s best interest is mired in the idea that somehow women are more capable of caring for a child and the father is some sort of super role model who brings home the bearcon (It’s bear bacon… Very Macho) and teaches you how to skin a deer and fire a gun. Interesting but unrealistic and above all forgets that a lot of people don’t have the same skill set as a stereotype.

Economic freedom would be undermined. Same-sex marriage would compel every employer, including the government, to give same-sex couples benefits identical to those of heterosexual couples.

A hilarious argument since this would produce economic stability in same-sex families resulting in increased spending as they don’t need to save money for a rainy day. This is the very basis of free markets since money has to keep moving in order for free market economies to function healthily.
The actual problem with our current market is that there is no faith in it so people don’t spend money. This is seriously telling 5% of the population to horde money like they were magpies because they had no benefits.

The rights of children would be undermined. Children have a natural right to be raised by the mother and father whose union produced them. Research shows that children who are raised by their own mother and father are happier, healthier and more prosperous than children raised in other family structures. The state should not affirm the deliberate creation of permanently motherless or fatherless homes.

Whose research? Yours? Mine doesn’t. Mine shows that children are genuinely happy in whatever family structure they can find that is stable. And this isn’t just an argument against gay marriage. I mean 5% of the USA is GLBT… 95% is straight.
This is an argument against single parents. It’s an argument against divorce. It’s an argument that says that people who are single parents cannot care for their child better than a dormitory of people who are hired to care for them. That a child is better of without a family than with one parent.
This is not just anti gay, it’s anti widow/widower. It is anti divorcee. It is anti anyone who wished to adopt a child and care for it on their own. Kids are always happier in a stable household. I am sure children in foster care may be happier than a house undergoing a messy divorce. I am sure however that kids with a stable house run by two lesbians are happier than one run by two arguing straight people too. If you ask children in households of divorcees then children will be unhappy. If you ask children in households of widows/widowers then of course they are going to be less happy than children in households with both parents since one of their parents is dead. Just saying that would make me incredibly unhappy.

The breakdown of the traditional family leads inevitably to expansion of government. The best bulwark against a large centralized government is the existence of mediating social institutions which allow society to govern itself. Chief among these is the natural family, consisting of husband, wife and their own children. People living in this family structure are the least likely to become burdens upon society through dependency on government social programs or through crime and incarceration.

How much drugs do the Moral Majority take? Do they simply assume that poor people don’t get married? And surely this would actually add to the number of families around increasing the stability of a fair chunk of people?
Entire families have become burdens on the state and social programs. And entire families exist where bad parenting has resulted in kids turning to crimes. It has nothing to do with homosexuality in so much as the fact that people who shouldn’t have kids often do have kids and cannot control them or raise them despite thinking that they can. It ignores social and economic issues and solely places the actual problems of society in the hands of gays.
Society isn’t fucked at the moment because of gay people. People in the UK aren’t rioting because of gay people. People in the UK are rioting because rich buggers stole shit and fucked over the economy leaving there little opportunity. Likewise most criminals come from poor backgrounds because there isn’t much opportunity for anything bar crime.
Not because Adam and Steve fuck each other. 


  1. says

    "Again the moral majority does cater to a lot of American libertarians or people who call themselves libertarians. See the issue with these people is that they want big government out of “their lives” but not the lives of those they don’t like."

    A lot of American Libertarians are christian dominionists who wish to live in a christian america but because the damn government won't let them be as crazy as possible they opt for the libertarian idea of there being a minimal government and they are left to be as crazy as they want without the government stopping them.

    I do apologise, I have failed to adequately explain that.

  2. badgersdaughter says

    I am a Libertarian, and your objections do not reflect the Libertarian point of view.

    I was an anarchocapitalist Libertarian who was a member of the von Mises Institute, campaigned for Ron Paul’s first Presidential run, yadda, yadda. The reason I no longer identify as Libertarian is because nobody in the movement actually practiced what they preached. I’m very tired of the movement saying one thing and doing another. I don’t think, in many cases, that they even know they’re doing it. I still have Libertarian friends who preach small, hands-off government, and then go about trying to make the system punish people who disagree with them, enforce property lines and price controls, preserve wildlife, and pay their assistance checks.

    Sure, fine high Libertarian ideals. No, no fine, high, ideal deeds. When I went to Libertarian meetings they were all full of conservative Christians griping about being made to give up their guns and send their kids to government schools. The “Libertarian point of view” is not what the Libertarian philosophers made it, it’s what actual Libertarians do, and I’m afraid that our host is right about what Libertarians currently say and do and stand for.

  3. Pierce R. Butler says

    … the Moral Majority Alliance in the USA …

    Huh? The MM (they never used the word “alliance” in their name) shut down a quarter of a century ago.

    The other organizations named, and a slew more, persist as a serious political threat, but apparently the backlash against MM convinced hyperchristian leaders that not presenting a single big target would work better for them.

    To monitor the continuing antics of the religious right, I recommend Talk to Action, Right Wing Watch (, Americans United for Separation of Church and State (, the Freedom From Religion Foundation (, and other organizations dedicated to monitoring/opposing these parafascist puritans.

  4. Pierce R. Butler says

    Oh, and FRC = “Family Research Council”, not “Centre”.

    But their ideology and psychology are just as vile as described above.

  5. says

    Regarding the issue of people becoming/saying they are libertarians with ulterior motives of getting the government out of their lives while wanting the government in other people’s lives: Two examples I can think of are education and social services. There are people who want to get rid of government social services, public education, etc. due to their (incorrect, in my view) economic positions, often with the goal of privatizing and getting more money to corporations. There are fundamentalist/moral majority people who are willing to sign on to that because they want such services, schools, etc. to be religious in nature. So, they’ll favor stuff like the government giving tax money to religious charities via Faith-Based Initiatives and to religious schools via voucher … but they’ll be against tax money going to the secular versions of these things, in public schools, welfare, food stamps, etc.

  6. smrnda says

    “The breakdown of the traditional family leads inevitably to expansion of government. The best bulwark against a large centralized government is the existence of mediating social institutions which allow society to govern itself. ”

    The problem is this is just a defense of tribalism coming from people who would see themselves as Tribal Leaders, who don’t like the fact that government might mediate in a way to benefit those under their power against their wishes. We can go back to Thomas Hobbes to see how a government, specifically by mediating between parties which have unequal power, actually increases rather than reduces freedom.

    People who go on about the need of government to stay out of family affairs are often people who desire to beat their kids, deny their kids access to ideas that go against the Family Patriarch’s opinions, and control who their kids get to associate with and even control who their kids can marry.

    I won’t get into a discussion of libertarianism nor of the “No True Libertarian” discussions I’ve had (every time I object someone tells me that it’s not real libertarianism), but I just find that the problem with the philosophy is that it’s based not on a desire for pragmatic results but for ideological purity. The notion that government intervention decreases freedom can only be sustained by picking and choosing whose freedom and whose definitions of freedom are more important – freedom from government intervention just removes the possibility that people who have no resources to bargain with can gain some measure of protection from legislation, and it’s the idea that led to the horrors of the Triangle Garment Factory fire back in the 19th century when it was considered ‘freedom’ to be able to lock workers in a room with no fire exits. Austrian economists went into raptures about how great SOMALIA was now that it had no government, but none of them were willing to go live there, just demonstrating how full of shit the idea is. Libertarianism just seems to be a philosophy that appeals to wealthy and privileged people who want to reduce labor costs.

  7. kitty says

    Oh wait, that’s fucking retarded.

    Hey…can we, like, not do this? Ableism is rather very not-okay.

  8. Al Dente says

    Lorna Hester Hawkins @1

    Why are you picking on Libertarians? I am a Libertarian, and your objections do not reflect the Libertarian point of view.

    Mike Huben describes one of libertarianism’s many problems:

    It’s hard to clearly define libertarianism. “It’s a dessert topping!” “No, it’s a floor wax!” “Wait–it’s both!” It’s a mixture of social philosophy, economic philosophy, a political party, and more. It would be unjust for me to try to characterize libertarianism too exactly: libertarians should be allowed to represent their own positions…But the two major flavors are anarcho-capitalists (who want to eliminate political governments) and minarchists (who want to minimize government.) There are many more subtle flavorings, such as Austrian and Chicago economic schools, gold-bug, space cadets, Old-Right, paleo-libertarians, classical liberals, hard money, the Libertarian Party, influences from Ayn Rand, and others…

    This diversity of libertarian viewpoints can make it quite difficult to have a coherent discussion with them, because an argument that is valid for or against one type of libertarianism may not apply to other types…[N]on-libertarians may feel that they have rebutted some libertarian point, but some other flavor libertarian may feel that his “one true libertarianism” doesn’t have that flaw. These sorts of arguments can go on forever because both sides think they are winning. Thus, if you want to try to reduce the crosstalk, you’re going to have to specify what flavor of libertarianism or which particular point of libertarianism you are arguing against.

  9. Alex C. says

    > A lot of conservative christians in the USA call themselves “libertarians”
    > without understanding the meaning of the word and indeed without
    > understanding of what libertarianism entails. And indeed many bandy around
    > ideas that are NOT libertarian.

    A good point in the midst of your anti-freedom diatribe. The fact that the
    Liberal position is actually *pro* gay-marriage makes no difference to the
    self-proclaimed ‘Libertarians’, and neither to you.

    This conundrum would only exists because US Socialists (like you) insist on
    calling themselves ‘Liberals’ (which they are not), while Conservatives choose
    the ‘Libertarian’ moniker. US politics is verrrry interesting to watch from

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>