1

It is amazing to me that we even need to discuss adopting a law to ban sexually explicit dancing in high school cheerleading. What is it about the cirriculum of the typical College School of Education that squeezes all the common sense out of our future educators? Twenty years ago this would have been handled by the father of one of the young women administering a punch in the nose to the offending gym coach. I am not unsure that this would not be a better solution. As the father of a 2-year old girl, this stuff really bothers me.

2

I don't think the dividing line on this issue is going to be on typically liberal/conservative lines. I think the main divider will be parent (especially with girls)/non-parent.

3

#1. the constitution does not say that the church should not have anything to say about the state, rather, it prohibits the state from dictating to the church what its precepts are to be.
#2. when the church has re-established its control of government, there will be no more problems of educations power to control and educate our youth.
#3. IT IS THE LIBERAL, MARKXIST, COMMUNIST RAPERS OF OUR SOCIETY THAT HAS INTRODUCUCED THE NO MORALITY CODE TO OUR LAND. THE SOONER THESE PEOPLE EXERCISE THEIR RIGHTS, FOUGHT FOR AND WON BY OUR CONSERVITIVE GOVERNMENT, AND MOVE TO SOME MUSILIM NATION, THE SOONER REAL AMERICANS WILL ENJOY PEACE AND A MORAL NATION ONCE AGAIN.

4

Thank you Joe, for finally admitting that most conservatives are completely incapable of being leaders. Knowing what something should be will almost never take you in the same direction as knowing what it should be.

Conservatives are just as utopian as libertarians. Do you really think that legislating against this is going to even address the underlying moral problems in the school? Get rid of it, make yourself feel better but admit that no one is a more moral person because of it.

5

Joe,

I think you draw a false distinction between conservatives and libertarians or liberals (though you are probably right about Marxists) when you say that conservatives are the only ones who are not utopian.

First, I would say that libertarians are not utopians and the whole premise of the political philosophy is that they don't know how to build a healthy society--no one collective does. So they decentralize the tasks realizing that individuals, families, and communities spot sicknesses earlier and with greater accuracy than governmental officials. But I wrote too much about this in the article you linked to last week.

Second, I would say that modern Conservatives and modern Liberals would both claim to be pragmatic--spotting sickness rather than building perfect societies. Both would claim to refine out of existence the inequalities and injustices in society. When a Liberal sees uninsured children, they want to expand healthcare coverage. When a conservative sees an adult bookseller near a school, they want to move it further away.

It really is a bit unjust to refer to all other political philosophies--particularly modern Americans ones, heavy on the political, light on the philosophy, and pragmatic to the core. To be honest, it is our conservative President who seems to be the most ideological (for good or bad).

Besides, the belief that government can spot these sicknesses (which stem from the human soul, more often than not) and take action to eliminate them is utopian in a way, is it not?

In regards to the justioce of this act, the whole thing is screwy because the school is state funded. The state has to say something (one way or the other).

6

Jim, you're a retard, and you spelled "Marxist" wrong.

1. Yes, the constitution does say that. Separation of church and state is vital to both. When you combine the two, it is almost always to the detriment of both, and always to the detriment of freedom. What if the church that got joined to the government wasn't yours? What if it was the Muslims who's religious principles got coded into law here? You wouldn't like that, would you? Of course not, and neither would I.

2. If the church controls government, we'd be living in a theocracy. Theocracy is evil. You hate theocracies even now...Iran ring a bell? Theocracies are antithetical to freedom, and you like freedom, don't you?

3. The "No morality code"? Yeah, umm...right... Morality is a personal thing, something that the govenment has absolutly no business sticking it's nose into. Morality cannot and should not be legislated. You control your own morality, and to try to control others' is immoral in itself. Also, die. Please? I'm one of those "Liberal..." (actually, libertarian, but philosophically, not politically) evil-doers you're so keen on, but I'm also in the Air Force. It wasn't our "conservative government" that won our rights, asshole, it was our military (over foreign powers) and the liberal (meaning "for change" in this instance) activists throughout our past that helped secure it domestically. Don't think that being "liberal" (at least philosophically) and being "religious" are opposites. I mean, look at Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Perfect example right there. Great man, even if i didn't agree with everything he said.

So, to recap...Jim, please die. Thank you for your cooperation.

7

Oh, and legislating cheerleader's dances is pointless, seeing as the school administrators already have that power. They exercise it with dress codes and the like. I know at my High School, midriffs weren't allowed on the uniforms (it was a cryin shame...)

8

Yes, this proposed legislation does look like obvious pandering, but OTOH we have some serious contradictions. Nobody thinks twice about high school cheerleader shaking their booties during a game, but if one of them paused and offered a prayer it would result in litigation. The idea that the latter is the imposition of some people's morality upon all but the former isn't is ridiculous.

On a related note, I wonder why the ostensible advocates of pluralism are so opposed to school choice.

9

Interesting post, Joe. I wonder, though, if you might want to draw a sharper distinction between social conservatives and process conservatives ("neoconservatives"). I'm generally a social conservative, but I also consider myself a process conservative. I think process conservatives do have theories of how to govern and aren't "clueless" at all. This is one reason I think social conservatives who aren't also process conservatives so often get it wrong (recent case study # 1 is the misguided uproar over the Schiavo case and the unprincipled federal legislation it spawned).

With respect to the randy cheerleading example, I'd suggest that process conservatives should be uncomfortable with state legislation which would attempt to regulate cheerleading moves. This is a matter for the cheerleading coach, the local school administration, and the local school board to handle. If parents in a given school district feel the cheers have become to provocative -- and as a father of a 10-year-old girl, I'd agree that there may be good reasons in some cases for that sentiment -- then those parents can and should excercise their rights as citizens in that school district to pressure the local teachers and administrators to do something about it.

If an issue like this is handled locally, the political remedy is tailored to a specific problem, and the rule is more likely to be obeyed because it has the legitimacy of popular support behind it. If an issue like this is handled at the state legislative level, you're more likely to get a watered-down mishmash of regulations that will be subject to first amendment challenge, derided as illegitimate by observers who see it as "religious right" posturing, and eventually ignored at the local level.

10

Oh, and legislating cheerleader's dances is pointless, seeing as the school administrators already have that power.

Enigma--It is only pointless if the school administrators actually use the power. If they abandon their authority and responsibility then some higher authority will have to step in. In this case school administrators are not doing their job, either they do not have the authority or they refuse to exercise it. In the latter case, a better option may be to fire the responsible administrators and higher better ones. In the former case some sort of law would have to be passed giving them the authority.

11

Does anyone actually think that cheerleaders are there to be doing anything other than "shaking their booties during a game"? I mean seriously...

Does no one remember their high school daze?

12

I'm a "where are we going in this handbasket and, say, don't you think we're picking up steam?" social conservative.

My concern with this bill is the question of who defines 'provacative?' Where can we strike a balance between "death penalty for showing skin" and "so long as it's only simulated sex, it's ok"?

I wonder if similar attempts were made in the 1950's - after all, the cheerleader outfits back then were a lot skimpier relative to the times than today's outfits.

13

Politicians worry about things in education that matter least. There is an obvious lack of justice in schools that has led to several shootings, and they worry about booty shaking.

Enigma, I remember my school days. Theft and drugs everywhere, assault, those who don’t care to learn holding back those who do, teachers intimidated by regulations that steal their authority, and students who know that teachers have no authority. Parents are wrong if they think school culture (it is a culture) is static and that their child experiences the same system they did. On the list of important problems in schools I’d put booty “behind” a lot of other things.

It even crosses my mind that this issue is a setup to make conservatives look like the holy roller-mindless-morality enforcers the left thinks they are.

G.M.

14

I'm torn. On the one hand, I think somebody needs to teach young girls not to be whores. On the other hand, I wish it was their parents and not some guy in the state legislature.

On the one hand, I hate the way our nanny state tries to tell us how to live every little bit of our lives and tries to remove every unseemly or distasteful thing to keep us bland and understimulated. On the other hand, most girls under the age of 18 these days are skanks-in-training and this is not good.

Given my indecision, I'm going to invoke the Motto of Conservatism: "The government shouldn't be doing that... privatize it".

15

«When it comes to government, conservatives are admittedly somewhat clueless. Unlike libertarians, liberals, socialists, Marxists, and other advocates of utopian political philosophies, conservatism has no idea how to build a healthy social and political structure. We do know, however, how to recognize a sick one. Just as physicians define bodily health as the absence of sickness, conservatives view the absence of sickness as the primary gauge of the health of the body politic. Our political objective, therefore, is similar to that of medical doctors -- eliminating sickness.»

I could never say it in a clearer way. It is reasonable that a religious person feels "I can tell rigth from wrong". If he didn't, what good would his religion be to his everyday life? But you made clear what separates me from you moral, philosofical, ethical view of society. I focus on the good things. I try everyday to see what's good in people that don't share my morality, my opinions. And there is a lot. So, I find that my fellow humans beings have solid bases on wich we can brotherly work together. You, as you say it, can only see clearly waht is ill, what you find moraly corrupt. You don't know for sure what brings salvation to society. So you, inspired by God you say, try to eliminate things you see as evil. We catholics had the cruzades. They brought terror to mankind. You don't. But you frighten me, sometimes. Sometimes I see a future were basically everything is forbidden, because in the mind of moralists, almost anything can be seen as a bringer of sin. I fear for the future of societies were civil law is in the place of morality. Morality is something God inspires you, in your heart, something your family taught you and you will teach it to your children. Moral is not something you can force people to obbey to, with moral-law-enforcement. That is a strong cause of moral hating. And we now that moral brings salvation. We can't afford to make people run away from it or iddentifying it as the ruthless arm of authority. No! Best wishes, nuno.

16

«#3. IT IS THE LIBERAL, MARKXIST, COMMUNIST RAPERS OF OUR SOCIETY THAT HAS INTRODUCUCED THE NO MORALITY CODE TO OUR LAND. THE SOONER THESE PEOPLE EXERCISE THEIR RIGHTS, FOUGHT FOR AND WON BY OUR CONSERVITIVE GOVERNMENT, AND MOVE TO SOME MUSILIM NATION, THE SOONER REAL AMERICANS WILL ENJOY PEACE AND A MORAL NATION ONCE AGAIN.»

????? Oh my God. No christian is as hateful as this! What is going on in the mind, in the heart of someone that speakes like this? Christ allways looked at the world with kindness and love. And with hope. This vengefull and wrathfull speech comes from someone that lost his trust in God. Someone that believes the only way society becames moraly sane is by the force of men. No, no, no! Is it by the power and the mercy of our Lord that society becames better. Not by our deranged view of the world, our erratic fear of what is wrong. No! In God, in God only, we trust! Best regards, nuno.

17

Other spheres, however, such as the role of a school board administrator or state legislator may legitimately overlap the role as teacher. A cheerleading coach, for example, should have the moral sense not to prepare his students for a future vocation in adult entertainment. But if the coach (or the school district) sees no harm in teaching a fifteen year old child sexually suggestive ways of degrading themselves in front of large audiences, then state legislatures (institutions who do have the proper authority to act) should step in and break it down for them. This type of act -- the prevention of moral stupidity by a legitimate agent – is, in fact, what should make conservatives cheer.

There are no levels of authority between cheerleading coach & the State government? Should our cheerleading coaches fail to protect us from stupidity there is no one to turn to except state legislatures?

18

I guess Ronald Reagan wouldn't be welcome at Joe's Church. He always believed that using Government as a solution to a problem was usually worse that the original predicament.

So apparently the gym coach, school administrators, and parents are not doing their jobs. So why would you think passing a law would help anything? Are you now going to arrest "enthusiastic" cheerleaders? Whats next, team mascots? And who is going to define what "sexually suggestive" is? Does it mean wiggling your butt? Blowing a kiss? Batting an eyelash?

Would not a simpler and more direct solution be for those whom are morally offended at cheer-leading antics to go up to said cheerleaders and tell them they are behaving like sluts? Or to perhaps speak to their parents? Or the PTA? Or replace those administrators, gym coach's etc. who are not doing their job with people that will?

Or is it that doing any of those things requires to you make a personal and public stand and possibly face some criticism? Is it easier then to just claim that society as a whole is offended and there ought to be a law? Why MUST everything be solved by the Government?

For crying out loud Joe, you are in mighty poor shape if a liberal homosexual activist type such as myself has a better grasp about what conservatism is and isn't than you do.

19

Legislating non-booty-shaking at the state or even federal level is actually fairer to the girls, since non-booty shakers would presumably be at a competitive disadvantage in cheerleader competitions.

We do need to worry, however, about our foreign "allies" taking the chance to outcompete us in the per capita number of oversexed teenage girls. When our balance of trade is slammed because we become a net importer of underage smut, we won't feel quite so smug.

20

Boonton & Patrick--If the State legislature feels compelled to act, isn't it obvious that this is not being handled at a lower level. As a conservative, I am not happy about the State legislature feeling the need to step, I would prefer this be handled at lower levels, but as the parent of a small girl, I am happy that someone is dealing with it. OTOH, the State legislature is usually more responsive to local concerns than national. I occasionally see my state representative and senator in the grocery store, I've never seen my national representative in person and I live in Maryland (about an hour's drive from D.C.).

21

Patrick: Would not a simpler and more direct solution be for those whom are morally offended at cheer-leading antics to go up to said cheerleaders and tell them they are behaving like sluts? Or to perhaps speak to their parents? Or the PTA? Or replace those administrators, gym coach's etc. who are not doing their job with people that will? Or is it that doing any of those things requires to you make a personal and public stand and possibly face some criticism? Is it easier then to just claim that society as a whole is offended and there ought to be a law?

Bing bing bing! Let it never be said that I can't find common ground with liberal homosexual activists.

Of course the flipside of this is that when Christians deluge TV networks or the FCC with letters of complaint, we get made fun of.

The trick is to be like me and rarely, if ever, get offended.

22

First, I'm not so much annoyed by this proposed legislation because of its intended purpose but because it is yet another law. I really wish that legislators would get over the notion that they need to make laws in order to be useful; or that somehow the quantity of laws supercedes the quality of laws. And, in this case, I really think there are better ways of handling the issue than to create a law. I've thought for some time now that our national educational system is teetering between utterly useless and actually harmful. At the risk of sounding reactionary, I'm tending towards the idea that we need to restructure the system by slashing the funding specifically for the bloated bureaucracy; return the control of local schools to the local government who are then held accountable to the local citizenry with whom they have to live amongst; and distribute the savings to the teachers so that they won't care that spending money on school supplies is no longer tax deductable because they won't have to spend money on school supplies. And maybe, just maybe, our best and brightest will see teaching as a profitable career rather than a charitable one.

As far as school moneys being spent on booty-wiggling extra-curriculars, I'm of the opinion that at some point the government needs to stop babysitting and doing what we as parents seem to be refusing to do. Yes, the teachers and coaches should be held accountable to the community. But if the community doesn't care then there's something much larger at issue. This is where cultural leaders should rise up and rise up and speak out. Politicians should sit down and just listen--as parents, not legislators.

Or maybe I'm just grumpy today.

23

"On a related note, I wonder why the ostensible advocates of pluralism are so opposed to school choice."

I assume you are speaking of vouchers. I'm in favor of choice, but not at the expense of the public school system. The money that disgruntled parents claim as "theirs" is NOT theirs; they have given it to the government. The government uses it for public education so that even the poor have educational opportunities. If disgruntled parents are allowed to "opt out", then why shouldn't non-parents and parents of grown children or homeschooled children be allowed to do so as well. Those who advocate "choice" in education really want to undermine public education so religious institutions can step in and draw funding. If you don't want your children in public school, take them out and pay for the alternative you choose. Here in Tennessee, parents can enroll their students wherever they wish within the system.

A pagan student who was harassed by Christian students, teachers, and administrators in a small, neighboring county school system recently sued her tormentors. The good conservatives hereabouts suggested that she be homeschooled or enrolled (at her parents' expense) in a private school. Fortunately, she won her suit, hopefully leading the little county to address its public school problem instead of forcing students to flee it.

As for the main issue here, what a teapot tempest! I regularly attend football games and watch cheering competitions. The "booty-shaking" is no worse than it was thirty years ago when I was in high school. This is the domain of parents and administrators. If it's as bad as all that, complain to the school board, write a letter to the editor, or employ one of the myriad strategies that citizens reasonably employ in such cases.

I am, by the way, the father of two daughters from whom I shield negative societal influences to the best of my ability. I don't need or desire the government's help in this regard beyond what it is are currently doing.

24

A pagan student who was harassed by Christian students, teachers, and administrators in a small, neighboring county school system recently sued her tormentors. The good conservatives hereabouts suggested that she be homeschooled or enrolled (at her parents' expense) in a private school. Fortunately, she won her suit, hopefully leading the little county to address its public school problem instead of forcing students to flee it.

There are so many things wrong with this scenario that I almost don't know where to begin. First, nobody should be subjected to "harassment". Having saing that, I also think this whole scenario is a byproduct of our government having become babysitters. And this is where the real reactionary in me comes out. Yes, if her parents don't want her to be harassed maybe they should think about sending her to another school. And maybe those good Christian parents should think about sending their kids to a Christian school. Or maybe we should all think about homeschooling and trashing this awful system that is far more concerned--to the point of becoming paralyzed with fear--of "harming someone's sensibilities" than actually teaching. Instead of educational institutions we are creating re-education camps.

25

MikeF -- Conservatives are just as utopian as libertarians. Do you really think that legislating against this is going to even address the underlying moral problems in the school?

No,actually, I don't. Sadly, preventing moral stupidity does not automatically make a person morally intelligent. But it does prevent morally stupid behavior.

John -- First, I would say that libertarians are not utopians and the whole premise of the political philosophy is that they don't know how to build a healthy society--no one collective does. So they decentralize the tasks realizing that individuals, families, and communities spot sicknesses earlier and with greater accuracy than governmental officials. But I wrote too much about this in the article you linked to last week.

C’mon, John, it's time for you to shake off that libertarian label and join us (true) conservatives. What is this talk about families and communities? You are likely to get stoned by your own cohorts for implying that the community should be able to limit individual liberty.

Your version of libertarianism is appealing but so completely out of whack with what modern libertarianism has come to stand for that it is impossible to reconcile the two. You remind me of those evangelicals that stay in mainline churches believing that you can convert them to the right-thinking way. Abandon the lost cause, my brother, we could use your intellect on our side. ; )

Phil -- Given my indecision, I'm going to invoke the Motto of Conservatism: "The government shouldn't be doing that... privatize it".

You may be on to something. If we privatize such activity we could stop calling it “cheerleading” and refer to it as “stripper training.” ; )

Patrick -- I guess Ronald Reagan wouldn't be welcome at Joe's Church. He always believed that using Government as a solution to a problem was usually worse that the original predicament.

Uh, sure he did. Which is why he spent the majority of his adult life working in government, right? Why then did the size of the Federal government grow during Reagan’s administration?

So apparently the gym coach, school administrators, and parents are not doing their jobs. So why would you think passing a law would help anything?

Let’s say that School District A has no qualms about openly sexually dance routines and they visit School District B, a district that takes a less misogynistic view of its female students, for a football game. How should District B respond? Who is to be the arbiter of their dispute if it isn’t the state?

Are you now going to arrest "enthusiastic" cheerleaders?

Um, no. I believe the bill was clear about the outcome for violating the law – defunding.

Whats next, team mascots? And who is going to define what "sexually suggestive" is? Does it mean wiggling your butt? Blowing a kiss? Batting an eyelash?

I think it is possible to come to a reasonable community standard approach in deciding what is appropriate. But there are some actions that obviously cross the line. When I attended the Dallas Cowboys Thanksgiving game this year the halftime show was Destiny’s Child backed up by a college marching band. The members of the band actually simulated having sex – humping the ground – as part of the routine. Now I’m no prude but I found the behavior demeaning, offensive, and inappropriate for an event to kickoff the Salvation Army’s Christmas fundraising drive.

(I should also point out that the Cowboys cheerleaders did nothing that was even close to being as sexually suggestive as the band members.)

Would not a simpler and more direct solution be for those whom are morally offended at cheer-leading antics to go up to said cheerleaders and tell them they are behaving like sluts? Or to perhaps speak to their parents? Or the PTA? Or replace those administrators, gym coach's etc. who are not doing their job with people that will?

So do you think that the appropriate response would be for each school district to set its own ban on allowing schools with such routines to participate in their activities?

Why MUST everything be solved by the Government?

Who said it did? But we are talking about schools and if you will recall public schools are government institutions. Good grief, shouldn't government regulate itself? The schools are tied to the state by funding and regulation. If the schools want to opt out then they should privatize.

For crying out loud Joe, you are in mighty poor shape if a liberal homosexual activist type such as myself has a better grasp about what conservatism is and isn't than you do.

You seem to be falling for the common delusion that conservatism equals a variation of Goldwater-style libertarianism. True conservatism has nothing to do with the size of the government. Small government may be a good thing (I tend to believe it is) but it really has nothing to do with being a “conservative.” Sadly, most people who refer to themselves as conservative have no real understanding of conservatism as a political philosophy. Their views tend to amount to nothing more than the rote Big-Government-Is-Evil/Free Markets-Are-Good silliness that was ushered in during the Goldwater era.

26

"Or maybe we should all think about homeschooling and trashing this awful system that is far more concerned--to the point of becoming paralyzed with fear--of "harming someone's sensibilities" than actually teaching. Instead of educational institutions we are creating re-education camps."

We can't do it, Ed. Setting aside the fact that very few parents could do a reasonable job of it, consider the economics: most families require two incomes for a decent home, food, and gasoline. I teach in a public school, and the biggest changes I see from my own mid-70s experience is soft drink machines in the halls and a slightly smaller attention span. Every day, I see in my students the same characters I grew up with. Compare current SAT and ACT scores with those of past generations; little has changed, and the dire predictions of doom and despair are bunk.

All the PC stuff you feel is front-and-center in the public schools really rarely comes up; it is just a sideshow. Teachers are too busy focusing on helping their students acheive performance objectives to promote a worldview. We try to impart some character education in the context of school life, i.e., Cheating is Wrong and Don't be a Bully. School hasn't changed as much as most people think. More on the computer, a bit less on the chalkboard. That's about it.

27

Joe,

Touche:) I think my libertarian friends hit me with a lot of the same advice.

28

Joe

"So do you think that the appropriate response would be for each school district to set its own ban on allowing schools with such routines to participate in their activities?"

Um, yes, and the rules can be set by elected officials in PTAs who are responsive to the needs of the community (where meeting needs is Constitutionally permitted, of course!).

Did you know that some schools they let the cheerleaders wear skirts and DO THE SPLITS!!!! In front of all those boys!!!!! They even make pyramids and hold the girls up in the air and throw them around. And they kick their legs up and you can see their legs all the way up to their underwear!!!! All in front of the boys!!!!!! CAN YOU BELIEVE IT?

Did you know that at some schools they actually allow white people and black people to attend the same dances -- and they even let them dance WITH EACH OTHER??????? Can you believe it?

What's next? The next thing you know they'll be asking us not to tell gay kids that they are diseased. They might even let gay people dance -- with EACH OTHER!!!!!

Only true conservatism can save us from these horrors.

News flash for y'all: cheerleaders shaking their booties does not cause people to get pregnant, does not cause abortions, and does not cause people to go to hell, even if Preacher Dobson says it does.

I really hate to break that shocking news to you.

29

Boonton & Patrick--If the State legislature feels compelled to act, isn't it obvious that this is not being handled at a lower level.

No it is not obvious. It smells to me like the legislature is grandstanding. I hope it is because I think life is better off with such matters being handled at the lower level of school administrators & parents. Even if they 'fail' to address the problem I'd rather it be kept there.

I would prefer this be handled at lower levels, but as the parent of a small girl, I am happy that someone is dealing with it...

In other words it doesn't directly effect you (yet) & you failed to do anything about it at your level. Now some state politician is making you feel good by passing laws and regulations on people other than yourself to give you a feeling that 'something' is being done. However since you're not the parent of an older girl nor do you appear to actually attend the school games you don't really know if anything is being done or not...you just get to feel like it is.

Yes, if her parents don't want her to be harassed maybe they should think about sending her to another school. And maybe those good Christian parents should think about sending their kids to a Christian school. Or maybe we should all think about homeschooling and trashing this awful system that is far more concerned--to the point of becoming paralyzed with fear--of "harming someone's sensibilities" than actually teaching. Instead of educational institutions we are creating re-education camps.

How about we just don't harass either Christian or Pagan students at all?

30

Let’s say that School District A has no qualms about openly sexually dance routines and they visit School District B, a district that takes a less misogynistic view of its female students, for a football game. How should District B respond? Who is to be the arbiter of their dispute if it isn’t the state?

Why if District B is so offensive to A then they should refuse to visit. I'm sorry, what state constitution provides for a local sovereignity to be trampled in the name of keeping various football leagues viable?

31

"You seem to be falling for the common delusion that conservatism equals a variation of Goldwater-style libertarianism. True conservatism has nothing to do with the size of the government. Small government may be a good thing (I tend to believe it is) but it really has nothing to do with being a “conservative.”

I think it would be more accurate to say that you are redefining "conservatism" when convenient for implementing your particular agenda of the moment.

A belief in small government is consistent and necessary with the "conservative" principles you espoused.

...principle of prudence (public measures should be judged by their long-term consequences) are all means of preventing moral stupidity.

Is a cheerleading law really so important that it needs to become legally enshrined for all time? If you can legislate cheerleading routines then what next? Will you also want to legislate whether adults are free to be "enthusiastic"? Even in the privacy of their own homes? Will you end up with laws that cover every single possible aspect of human behavior? What happens when it becomes illegal to do something you approve of? Will you complain about "judicial activism"? Isn't the "prudent" course of action not to have a law when it isn't vitally necessary? Does this fit the bill?

Your not describing conservatism, your promoting Stalinism. And Americans should be the last ones to try and convince other Americans of the value of tyranny. Legislative or otherwise.

32

We can't do it, Ed. Setting aside the fact that very few parents could do a reasonable job of it, consider the economics: most families require two incomes for a decent home, food, and gasoline.

I agree that most of us can't do it now/yet. But if we can't, we can't because we abdicated that responsibility to the State.

Compare current SAT and ACT scores with those of past generations; little has changed, and the dire predictions of doom and despair are bunk.

Perhaps little has changed with those scores since you or I were in school. But compare those same SAT/ACT scores to homeschoolers. And compare the scores of children who have actively involved parents verses children who don't. Also, you can't deny that a lot has changed with respect to values. One of the problems with such a "pluralistic" system is that without parental involvement the cultural values tend to fall to the lowest common denominator.

Further, I'm not sure where you're teaching, but the PC stuf is way more than a sideshow. Teachers are caught between a rock (an administration pressured to perform but the only way they know how is to put more pressure on teachers) and a hard place (savvy kids who know the system and whom teachers can't or are afraid to discipline).

33

How about we just don't harass either Christian or Pagan students at all?

Sure, how do you propose we do that? I'll promise to teach my kids and you do the same with yours. What about Joe's or Larry's or Patrick's? Do we all have a pact? Do all of the kids parents come together in agreement? Nice. In such a perfect world who needs laws?

34

Patrick -- I think it would be more accurate to say that you are redefining "conservatism" when convenient for implementing your particular agenda of the moment.

I'm not sure where you get your ideas about conservatism but my view of is consistent with the historical view (though not necessarily with the the bastardized version that sprung up during the ‘60s).

A belief in small government is consistent and necessary with the "conservative" principles you espoused.

Consistent maybe, but not necessary. “Small” government is a relative concept. What determines what the best size of the government should be anyway?

Is a cheerleading law really so important that it needs to become legally enshrined for all time?

It’s not enshrined for all time. The state legislature can revoke the law anytime they choose to do so.

If you can legislate cheerleading routines then what next?

Where do you get this “if”? The legislature already has that authority and a lot of other controls over the state run public school system. If you don’t think the legislature should have a say in what goes on in public schools then you should probably support vouchers.

Will you also want to legislate whether adults are free to be "enthusiastic"? Even in the privacy of their own homes?

I take it that you didn’t read my post very closely, did you? Human forms of government ranges from the most basic level (the individual) to the highest (in America, the Federal level). Whether the legislature has legitimate authority to legislate being “enthusiastic” in one’s own home depends on what the term means.

Will you end up with laws that cover every single possible aspect of human behavior?

Since you must have overlooked it when I included it in my post, let me paste my answer again:

This legitimate role, however, has strict limits. Just as doctors don’t go around slapping Twinkies out of people’s hands, conservatives don’t attempt to prevent every act of stupidity in society.

What happens when it becomes illegal to do something you approve of?

It already is illegal to do some things that I approve of.

Will you complain about "judicial activism"?

Just so we’re clear, the problem with “judicial activism” is that it usurps the role that the Constitution delegates to the legislative branch. I’m not sure what that has to do with the situation, though. Can you clarify?

Isn't the "prudent" course of action not to have a law when it isn't vitally necessary? Does this fit the bill?

No, I don’t think that laws can only be passed when they are “vitally necessary”; I think they should be passed when they are “prudent.”

Your not describing conservatism, your promoting Stalinism. And Americans should be the last ones to try and convince other Americans of the value of tyranny. Legislative or otherwise.

C’mon, Patrick, lay off the hysterics. Do you approve of anti-gay legislation? I’m sure that you will view such laws as “vitally necessary” and not an infringement on liberty don’t you? But anti-discrimination laws are simply legislating a particular moral view. Are all those who support such laws Stalinists?

35

Joe

"Just as doctors don’t go around slapping Twinkies out of people’s hands, conservatives don’t attempt to prevent every act of stupidity in society."

That's because they're too busy obsessing about booty-shaking cheerleaders.

The meta-issue is simply respect for the law. A law banning booty-shaking by cheerleaders is laughably stupid and its nothing less than a sick joke on the schoolkids who don't have a vote in the matter.

Most kids who hear about this stupid law will immediately understand that the people who passed the law are uptight, paranoid sex-obsessed morons with nothing else to do except sit around and pontificate about the "evil" infesting our schools.

Come to think of it, I now fully support the booty-shaking law whole-heartedly.

But only if you ban girls from wearing skirts, kicking, and doing the splits in their routines, too. Personally, I always found such activities far more, uh, "exciting" than this so-called "booty shaking". On the other hand, the cheerleaders in my school didn't have much going on in the booty department -- maybe that explains everything.

36

Joe

"It already is illegal to do some things that I approve of."

Would any of those things interest me?

37

Seariously: Christ never tried to change the law!!!!!!!!! He just lived rigthously. And invited everyone to live like Him. There was prostitution, crime, imorality 2000 years ago. Christ was never a legislator. Because He believed in God. He trusted Him. And he did not look at people in a condemning way. In this debate I have read people calling female teenagers sluts!?! Is that the way a Christian looks at a young woman? As a slut? The simple fact of writting this word makes me sick. You remind me of the parable of the men who was proudly in the front row of the temple. His prayer was "I thank you God, because I am not a sinner like the man in the back". The man in the back, in the last row, only prayed "Lord, have mercy!". You are so proud of your morality, or so fearfull that it is so fragil that it crumbles to pieces at the sigth of a litle portion of skin... It's strange, pervese and really makes life a mess for everybody around you. nuno.

38

Joe

"Unlike libertarians, liberals, socialists, Marxists, and other advocates of utopian political philosophies, conservatism has no idea how to build a healthy social and political structure. We do know, however, how to recognize a sick one."

Here's Dobson -- I'd call him a conservative with respect to moral issues -- on an indisputably crucial part of our "sick" society, specifically, our justice system:

"I heard a minister the other day talking about the great injustice and evil of the men in white robes, the Ku Klux Klan, that roamed the country in the South, and they did great wrong to civil rights and to morality. And now we have black-robed men, and that's what you're talking about."

How about that?

If the "intelligent" people who support laws about booty-shaking were more vociferous in their denunciation of very high profile extremists like Dobson (who share many of their views), folks like me might be less concerned about where the anti-booty folks are going with their "morals."

39

Compare current SAT and ACT scores with those of past generations; little has changed, and the dire predictions of doom and despair are bunk.

RR, I don't know about that statement. Both the SAT and ACT have redefined their scoring in ways that have helped maintain the scores at historical levels. I don't know where you went to school, but based on where I went to school a lot has changed and not for the better. I was lucky in that when I went through school, the older teachers were still around. It helped to have that WWII combat veteran as an elementary principal.

As regards to the propose legislation, it's a no win situation. If you don't make some sort of rule about it and complain, school officials will treat you like you are some blue-hair out to ruin everyone's "fun." If you legislate it, then you are trying to run people's lives. Is it so to have a certain level of public decorum and decency?

40

I can't believe the tempest that has begun in this teapot. The responisbility here lies with the parents. If the community standards are being violated to a high enough degree, i.e., if enough parents' sensibilities are being violated, enough voices will arise to hold administrators' feet to the fire.

School districts are responsible to the community. School boards are composed of elected citizens living within the boundaries of the district. Threaten to unseat them, and they suddenly listen.

If a majority of parents disapproves of the cheerleaders' routines, but can't get riled enough to do anything, then they get the government they deserve.

If a parent keeps his daughter off the squad because he deems the routines too risqué, after finding that the majority around him finds no fault in it, that may be his only option. At least he has followed his conscience and protected his daughter (and it's not for any of us to question his judgment, either: it's his daughter).

I can't believe that this ever entered into chamber. Don't our legislators have more important things to occupy themselves than cheerleading routines?

41

"RR, I don't know about that statement. Both the SAT and ACT have redefined their scoring in ways that have helped maintain the scores at historical levels. I don't know where you went to school, but based on where I went to school a lot has changed and not for the better."

Chris: I am a graduate of Oak Ridge High School in East Tennessee. It was and is a fine school. I was very prepared and comfortable at the college level. In fact, my college GPA through six years far exceeded that of my lackadaisical high school years. I think the little rural school at which I currently teach is doing a good job as well. I know that a quality education is available to those students who choose to avail themselves of it. At the same time, I realize that this is not the case nationwide. Little has changed here in the last thirty years, but some areas need to address their problems with public education. If something isn't working, it needn't necessarily be scrapped; the governing authority must identify and rectify the shortcomings.

I'm all in favor of maintaining a level of public decorum, but I don't think legislation is the answer.

"Further, I'm not sure where you're teaching, but the PC stuf is way more than a sideshow. Teachers are caught between a rock (an administration pressured to perform but the only way they know how is to put more pressure on teachers) and a hard place (savvy kids who know the system and whom teachers can't or are afraid to discipline)."

I'm aware of the pressures facing teachers, Ed, and I'm glad you are as well. Here, the PC stuff only affects our approach to educating at-risk and developmentally disabled students, and that's a good thing. Perhaps in other systems it negatively impacts the instruction; I can only speak of the systems with which I am familiar.
-Rob

42

C’mon, Patrick, lay off the hysterics. Do you approve of anti-gay legislation? I’m sure that you will view such laws as “vitally necessary” and not an infringement on liberty don’t you? But anti-discrimination laws are simply legislating a particular moral view. Are all those who support such laws Stalinists?

All I know is that you describe a world where the word "responsibility" no longer has the word "individual" in front of it. Instead the majority enforces through legislation what it thinks is the correct behavior in every tiny possible instance.

I'm often told I must accept the validity of "slippery slope" arguments when it comes to gay marriage. Fine. Now you accept them as well. If you pass a law regulating cheerleading, where exactly does it stop? At what point does the power of majority opinion end and individual liberty begin? If you can legislate the smallest behavior, then why not ALL behaviors?

A nation where such laws are encouraged rather than looked down upon as rubbish has much more in common with Communist Russia, China, or N. Korea than it does with the traditionally American ideas of Liberty & Individual Responsibility. You don't need to worry in those countries about your nose getting bent out of shape because Suzie Cheerleader mooned you at Friday's high school football game.

43

Sure, how do you propose we do that? I'll promise to teach my kids and you do the same with yours. What about Joe's or Larry's or Patrick's? Do we all have a pact? Do all of the kids parents come together in agreement? Nice. In such a perfect world who needs laws?

Easy, we don't harass Christians or Pagans (or others for that matter).

44

Easy, we don't harass Christians or Pagans (or others for that matter).

I'm trying to figure out how this respone is not flippant. Can you help?

45

Proscriptive v. Prohibitive Views of Legislating Morality
One reason why liberals may seem (and be?) more generous in their legislation of morality is that they are seen as putting forth proscriptive rather than prohibitive laws, i.e. being "pro" rather than "anti" - to put it another way, they say "you must" while conservatives say "you must not."

Of course, many issues can be seen as either pro or anti - are you pro-choice (vs. pro-abortion), or are you pro-life (anti-choice). Funny, even the "negative" side of the pro-choice position is a "pro" (pro-abortion). Maybe we need to coin and promulgate an "anti" word for that position. Anti-life?

Another problem is that much of the liberal legislation is towards more centralized (a.k.a. socilized/socialism) funding for helping the poor and needy, while conservatives are more concerned about perserving the more intangible (but equally important) social mores such as sexuality and life - in both of these latter issues, we are against something, and we need to make sure that we present as *for* the preservation of the nuclear family and children and life, not just against gays and abortions.

Regarding helping the poor, conservatives are very active in giving to charitable organizations, but don't believe that the wasteful govt should be in the handout business - but we have to be careful not to just be "against" big government, because the liberals cast that as "against the poor."

We have to say that we are for helping people on their feet (hand-up, not a hand-out), that we are for personal autonomy and freedom through training and "workfare", that we support and encourage charitable giving (hence tax deductions for such) as the means to overcoming poverty.

46

I'm trying to figure out how this respone is not flippant. Can you help?

Someone posted a story about a student who was harassed because they were a self-proclaimed pagan. Christian teachers at this public school joined classmates & hinted they would be better off being homeschooled. (Let's assume these facts are true for the sake of the argument)

Solution: Fire the teachers that took part in this harassment, discipline the students.

It doesn't seem difficult to me at all.

47

Joe: "I'm not sure where you get your ideas about conservatism but my view of is consistent with the historical view (though not necessarily with the the bastardized version that sprung up during the ‘60s)."

I see where you're coming from, but concerning the 1960s conservatism being "bastardized," Mssrs. Buckley and Reagan might take issue with your adjectives.