What is a conservative, anyway?

[Cecilie1200]

That's possible. So, what are "Judeo Christian values", besides the all men created equal one that's already been mentioned?

Why isn't "Love the Lord, thy God" a part of it?

How about, "I am a jealous god, thou shalt have no other gods before me".

Are those Judeo Christian values?

No, again, that would be religious instruction, much the same as regular attendance at confession is a Catholic religious instruction. Would a Catholic describe me as unethical or lacking in values because I don't go to confession? Of course not. He would simply describe me as not an observant Catholic, which I'm not.

Perhaps instead of asking stupid questions, you should just get a dictionary and look up the words "ethic" and "value" and figure out what they mean on your own.

 

[Caligirl]

Oh, yeah. It's the conservatives who want freedom to do only what they want. And I don't even want to know which orifice you pulled that whole "no Congressional approval for military spending if it's 'morally correct'" from. It sure as hell has absolutely no basis in anything even approaching reality.

As for "disturbingly like an argument for a religious state", it would be a great boon to everyone if some people would make an effort to learn what a "religious state" really is before blithely babbling about how imminent and scary it is.

The truth is that conservatives and leftists both recognize that any human society is going to have rules, barriers, and restrictions imposed upon it. Conservatives prefer that they be chosen by the people themselves. Leftists prefer that they be chosen by a handful of "enlightened" folks who know what's best for everyone, ie. themselves.

I am not pro-gay - nor anti-gay. Several gay relatives, coworkers, and old high school friends (friends before they came out, still friends.)

I am unaware of any of them wanting to force anything across the board, force silence on people who disagree. I don't even know that they particularly care about having marriage as a right, though at least one couple has said they aren't at all bothered by prop eight. Another couple was very bothered, because that couple sees the vote as limiting their rights. They have been married several times and have been forced into unmarriage at least once, they annually recognize their 'unniversary'.

So I don't know that your comments about forcing opinions on others is accurate at all, the gays I know are only concerned about their personal rights when they express concern at all.

No doubt there are militants on any issue, but I don't know them.

I don't care about the marriage issue one way or the other, but then I see it as a social institution and husband and I discussed at length whether we should bother, when we decided to have children - we knew that we were committed and believed that we were blessed with our relationship. We did decide to have a civil ceremony for the legal issues/kids etc. We've been together 20 years and are as in love as ever, and I firmly believe that the marriage had nothing to do with that.

So I don't care about marriage for gays, and some of the committed gay couples I know don't either.

~~~~

I chose the funding for military spending as a hot button topic, just something I thought would be an extreme hypothetical example of the argument put forth that government is not needed if people are living morally - few people would consider war to be moral as a general state, rather most people consider some causes worth fighting for. So to make an argument that war is moral, was meant to grab your attention. The example of military funding was an extrapolation to make the case that 'moral' is a tough basis for deciding whether government is needed or not, particularly in light of the fact that our country is divided as to whether the current wars are moral. I believe "moral" is the crux of the matter here.

There was no "orifice" as you imply, but thank you for the lovely imagery. You certainly have a way with words.

~~~

I think a religious state is a state in which there is a mandated religion and anyone that doesn't toe the line is persecuted. Is that about right? Agreed we do not have a religious state by that definition, nor are we in any threat of such, still you can tell that the calls for Judeo Christian values to be imbued throughout our system are quite strong. As a 99% catholic (raised in a strict tradition, have wandered away and back again through my life), I am uncomfortable with that. I believe quite strongly that the state has no place in my religious life. It should neither prohibit me nor force me to perform any act that pertains to my sense of living in accordance with my religious beliefs. This approach falls, in my mind, under the notion of rendering unto Caesar what is his and unto God what is His. In other words, it is against the religious beliefs that I hold (render unto caesar...) to have religion be part of the government. I believe it cheapens my religion to have any of it mandated. Acts of faith are acts of love, and there is no opportunity for faith or love when an action is mandated by the state. Thus, in my view, imbuing the state with religion cheapens faith.

If it is true that the founders wanted religion to be part of the founding of the country, then I would probably have to accept it though I would disagree that it was wise, or that it continues to be wise. In particular since we are a more diverse nation, by far, now, and more connected tot he rest of the world now, through air travel and electronic communications and so on, then when the nation was settled by a relatively small group of Europeans.

but whatever.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Oh, yeah. It's the conservatives who want freedom to do only what they want. And I don't even want to know which orifice you pulled that whole "no Congressional approval for military spending if it's 'morally correct'" from. It sure as hell has absolutely no basis in anything even approaching reality.

As for "disturbingly like an argument for a religious state", it would be a great boon to everyone if some people would make an effort to learn what a "religious state" really is before blithely babbling about how imminent and scary it is.

The truth is that conservatives and leftists both recognize that any human society is going to have rules, barriers, and restrictions imposed upon it. Conservatives prefer that they be chosen by the people themselves. Leftists prefer that they be chosen by a handful of "enlightened" folks who know what's best for everyone, ie. themselves.

Yeah... Conservatives are all about rules which are founded in valid, bed-rock principle.

Promoting sexual deviancy to normacly is a function of idiocy... thus decidely NOT rooted in sound, valid, bed-rock principle. Personally, I don't give a damn what a man and another man, a goat, a buch of bannas, a bicycle and a gerbel do in the privacy of their bed chamber...

I just don't want to see it on a resume as a reason why they should be a Troop leader and I sure as hell don't want to celebrate their perverted ass as something other than what it is... an example of a stone freak.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I am not pro-gay - nor anti-gay. Several gay relatives, coworkers, and old high school friends (friends before they came out, still friends.)

I am unaware of any of them wanting to force anything across the board, force silence on people who disagree. I don't even know that they particularly care about having marriage as a right, though at least one couple has said they aren't at all bothered by prop eight. Another couple was very bothered, because that couple sees the vote as limiting their rights. They have been married several times and have been forced into unmarriage at least once, they annually recognize their 'unniversary'.

Okay, well, since no one you PERSONALLY know is vigorously advancing an agenda, that MUST mean that no one anywhere is. Of course, I could say the same thing about conservatives that I know - including myself - so I guess that means that hoo-ha you were spouting earlier about what conservatives want was just you blowing smoke out of your ass, right?

Or perhaps you could consider that every conversation is not personal - ie. it's not about you and your family and buddies - and maybe there ARE people out there doing things you're not participating in, and political agendas being discussed that take place without your personal involvement. Self-absorbed much?

So I don't know that your comments about forcing opinions on others is accurate at all, the gays I know are only concerned about their personal rights when they express concern at all.

No doubt there are militants on any issue, but I don't know them.

Well, that certainly contradicts the point where I said they all came to your house every Sunday for dinner. Oh, wait . . . I never said that.

I don't care about the marriage issue one way or the other, but then I see it as a social institution and husband and I discussed at length whether we should bother, when we decided to have children - we knew that we were committed and believed that we were blessed with our relationship. We did decide to have a civil ceremony for the legal issues/kids etc. We've been together 20 years and are as in love as ever, and I firmly believe that the marriage had nothing to do with that.

So I don't care about marriage for gays, and some of the committed gay couples I know don't either.

No idea what this has to do with the discussion of what conservatives and liberals are in a general philosophical or political sense. In fact, I honestly don't know what this has to do with any discussion at all.

I chose the funding for military spending as a hot button topic, just something I thought would be an extreme hypothetical example of the argument put forth that government is not needed if people are living morally - few people would consider war to be moral as a general state, rather most people consider some causes worth fighting for.

You'd have done better to choose an extreme hypothetical example that anyone with two brain cells to rub together might realistically ever think, rather than making up something not even a drooling moron would. Or maybe you could just stick to positions people actually ARE espousing, rather than trying to invent them. Just a thought.

So to make an argument that war is moral, was meant to grab your attention. The example of military funding was an extrapolation to make the case that 'moral' is a tough basis for deciding whether government is needed or not, particularly in light of the fact that our country is divided as to whether the current wars are moral. I believe "moral" is the crux of the matter here.

You know what grabs my attention? REAL arguments, rather than "I pulled this out of my ass, because I really believe the other side's opinions are this ridiculous, so I never bother to find out what they actually think". There are, in fact, a number of actual, existing arguments made on the conservative side concerning the morality of war and defense spending. Try investigating some of them.

There was no "orifice" as you imply, but thank you for the lovely imagery. You certainly have a way with words.

I treasure my ignorance as to how you got such a laughably ludicrous idea out of your brain and onto the screen.

I think a religious state is a state in which there is a mandated religion and anyone that doesn't toe the line is persecuted. Is that about right?

No, not really. Theocracies often do operate that way, but they don't have to, and aren't necessarily defined that way.

Agreed we do not have a religious state by that definition, nor are we in any threat of such, still you can tell that the calls for Judeo Christian values to be imbued throughout our system are quite strong.

Not even remotely in the same solar system as a theocracy, so try to rein in the paranoia, okay?

As a 99% catholic (raised in a strict tradition, have wandered away and back again through my life), I am uncomfortable with that. I believe quite strongly that the state has no place in my religious life.

Who said anything about the state getting involved in your religious life?

It should neither prohibit me nor force me to perform any act that pertains to my sense of living in accordance with my religious beliefs. This approach falls, in my mind, under the notion of rendering unto Caesar what is his and unto God what is His.

Again, who ever suggested this? You're on a completely 'nother argument here.

In other words, it is against the religious beliefs that I hold (render unto caesar...) to have religion be part of the government. I believe it cheapens my religion to have any of it mandated.

You're just flipping back and forth wildly and conflating two completely different things with each other.

Acts of faith are acts of love, and there is no opportunity for faith or love when an action is mandated by the state. Thus, in my view, imbuing the state with religion cheapens faith.

Well, that certainly was a font of nothing relevant.

If it is true that the founders wanted religion to be part of the founding of the country, then I would probably have to accept it though I would disagree that it was wise, or that it continues to be wise.

Well, perhaps YOU can separate your religious beliefs from your behavior, but in my book, that just means you don't really believe them at all.

In particular since we are a more diverse nation, by far, now, and more connected tot he rest of the world now, through air travel and electronic communications and so on, then when the nation was settled by a relatively small group of Europeans.

but whatever.

What's any of that got to do with anything?

 

[garyd]

Your religious views whatever they are will effect how you live your life down to and including who you vote for. To believe otherwise is to engage in self deception.

If your religious views -again whatever they are don't affect the choices you make then they aren't your views. Being mildly conversant with a given view doesn't make it your view.

 

[Jennifer.Bush]

aren't there many types of conservatives?

 

[Caligirl]

Okay, well, since no one you PERSONALLY know is vigorously advancing an agenda, that MUST mean that no one anywhere is. Of course, I could say the same thing about conservatives that I know - including myself - so I guess that means that hoo-ha you were spouting earlier about what conservatives want was just you blowing smoke out of your ass, right?

Or perhaps you could consider that every conversation is not personal - ie. it's not about you and your family and buddies - and maybe there ARE people out there doing things you're not participating in, and political agendas being discussed that take place without your personal involvement. Self-absorbed much?



Well, that certainly contradicts the point where I said they all came to your house every Sunday for dinner. Oh, wait . . . I never said that.



No idea what this has to do with the discussion of what conservatives and liberals are in a general philosophical or political sense. In fact, I honestly don't know what this has to do with any discussion at all.



You'd have done better to choose an extreme hypothetical example that anyone with two brain cells to rub together might realistically ever think, rather than making up something not even a drooling moron would. Or maybe you could just stick to positions people actually ARE espousing, rather than trying to invent them. Just a thought.



You know what grabs my attention? REAL arguments, rather than "I pulled this out of my ass, because I really believe the other side's opinions are this ridiculous, so I never bother to find out what they actually think". There are, in fact, a number of actual, existing arguments made on the conservative side concerning the morality of war and defense spending. Try investigating some of them.



I treasure my ignorance as to how you got such a laughably ludicrous idea out of your brain and onto the screen.



No, not really. Theocracies often do operate that way, but they don't have to, and aren't necessarily defined that way.



Not even remotely in the same solar system as a theocracy, so try to rein in the paranoia, okay?



Who said anything about the state getting involved in your religious life?



Again, who ever suggested this? You're on a completely 'nother argument here.



You're just flipping back and forth wildly and conflating two completely different things with each other.



Well, that certainly was a font of nothing relevant.



Well, perhaps YOU can separate your religious beliefs from your behavior, but in my book, that just means you don't really believe them at all.



What's any of that got to do with anything?

Actually I was mostly trying to have a conversation on a topic that is of interest presumably to anyone participating on the thread. But it seems you aren't interested in much beyond denigrating others (well, me anyway) that have different experiences and opinions, and that's fine if you want to go that route but I'll bow out, thanks.

have a happy new year,
-Cali

 

[mitch2007]

A true conservative's attitude is more along the lines of , "Hey, believe whatever you want - just don't try to force it on ME". Federal courts forcing communities to take down their nativity scenes, anyone?

well, that's an excellent view on conservatives... i just wish it were true... i would really like to see one of them say that exact same phrase when talking about gay marriages or abortion

 

[Cecilie1200]

Your religious views whatever they are will effect how you live your life down to and including who you vote for. To believe otherwise is to engage in self deception.

If your religious views -again whatever they are don't affect the choices you make then they aren't your views. Being mildly conversant with a given view doesn't make it your view.

That's what I keep telling people, but they still have this odd notion that only OTHER beliefs should inform your daily life and political decisions. Religious beliefs should be relegated to Sunday morning, as though they're somehow different in substance than other beliefs.

 

[Cecilie1200]

well, that's an excellent view on conservatives... i just wish it were true... i would really like to see one of them say that exact same phrase when talking about gay marriages or abortion

We do. I don't give a damn WHAT you believe concerning homosexual "marriage" or abortion. Just stop trying to force it on others. Why do you folks always have trouble understanding that preventing you from legislating your beliefs to us by judicial fiat is NOT preventing you from believing them? For that matter, why do you have trouble understanding how hypocritical, not to mention frigging stupid, you sound railing against OTHER people's "oppression" while you do much worse?

 

[Ravi]

Judicial fiat. lol

 

[del]

Judicial fiat. lol

vroooooooooom

 

[amrchaos]

AMR you haven't a clue.

1st tribal societies are highly intolerant of those not belonging to the tribe. And conformity is the greatest goal. They are more ridden with taboos than any European Society post 1500 or so. The taboos are just different than our own. Hence, often we do not recognize them. It is interesting and instructive to note that the name the tribe calls itself in English usually translates to something like the English human beings with the obvious implication that if you aren't of the tribe you aren't a human being and tribal rules do not safe guard you and you therefore are fair game for any skulduggery that we would work on you.

So yes those societies are rather totalitarian and oppressive in their outlook especially if one happens to be female.

2nd you operate under the peculiar delusion that George W. Bush is a conservative. The only notably conservative thing Bush did during his administration was cut taxes.

3rd if one possesses not economic freedom one is not free. the higher and more progressive the tax rate the more freedom is circumscribed.

1. mot all tribes are highly intolerable. The fact that you wish to paint all tribes as such is a veiled atttempt to "clean fit your arguement into your world view"

2. Bush is a Republican. Conservatives tend to blindly follow Republicans. Thus, it does not matter if Bush is a conservative or not. The fact that conservatives refuse to "refute" him and push his agendas so willingly actually point the problems at conservatives and away from Bush!!

In other words, Bush did and push for the things he believed in. Conservatives fooled themselves into thinking that was what they wanted to.

3rd. Economic freedom--the ability to grow or harvest your own food or to hunt in a an open field is a form of "Economic freedom"--note the absence of government or the fact that the only ownership is that of knowledge.

The need for property? Not a requirement for freedom. Freedom is the ability to act unrestricted--not rights of ownership or begging an economic system for "Tax relief".

Maybe I need to take you one step further along this line--the fact that there is a government you support
The simple basis of your choosing to live in a civilization, tribe structure or communal--only symbolizes your true fear of freedom.

You only make your arguements of what "freedoms" is to hide the chains of civil oppression you so willingly embraced.

Go ahead--own all the property you want. Abolish all property taxes you see in existence!!!

None of that will make you free.

 

[garyd]

1. MOst does not equal all.

2.Stuff and nonsense. Given the direction the Modern Democratic party wishes to move in what am I left with? Bush was right about 2 things that is two more things than either Kerry or Gore were right about.

3.More stuff and nonsense. Trade exists in even the most primitive of societies. In order to trade one must posses something to trade. That something is property. Human beings are and always have been social animals. It is largely how we managed to survive in a very dangerous and hostile world in which we weren't the biggest and strongest or even in the general vacinity of the largest and strongest.

By the way the more one tends to read and believe Rousseau the more retarded one begins to sound.

 

[amrchaos]

1. MOst does not equal all.

2.Stuff and nonsense. Given the direction the Modern Democratic party wishes to move in what am I left with? Bush was right about 2 things that is two more things than either Kerry or Gore were right about.

3.More stuff and nonsense. Trade exists in even the most primitive of societies. In order to trade one must posses something to trade. That something is property. Human beings are and always have been social animals. It is largely how we managed to survive in a very dangerous and hostile world in which we weren't the biggest and strongest or even in the general vacinity of the largest and strongest.

By the way the more one tends to read and believe Rousseau the more retarded one begins to sound.

1) Not all is the point. Using only some to try and logically justify a point is called over-generalization. That is a logical fallacy.

2)Where did Kerry and Gore come from? The problem with Bush is not Bush, but with those people that supported him.

3)Trade is not necessary for Freedom. So why are you going back to Socio-economics inside and between civilizations when the real question is how does owning property bestows freedom?

I say it does not. In fact, the concept of ownership, either by the individual or the State, involves the need for order and restrictions.

By the way, Rousseau was more interested in the purpose of government and argued how certain structures of governments are supposed to be more "Just" not more " free". He did not honestly answer many of the questions posed to him because he was trying to convince people the need of Representative government. But every form of government must utilize some form of oppression, else the Anarchists will drag it into the bathroom and drown it!!