What is a conservative, anyway?

[AllieBaba]

I said our laws were based upon the Christian tenet that all men are created equal.

That's one. If all men are created equal, then that means that all men must have freedom to make choices for themselves.

Not only do you not understand the meaning of "separation of church and state" apparently you have a limited understanding of Christianity, as well....

 

[Father Time]

THank you for proving the point.

No, it doesn't. Separation of church and state ONLY MEANS THE STATE CANNOT FAVOR ONE CHURCH OVER ANOTHER. It does NOT mean that you can't let your religion guide you when making laws. It just means those laws cannot be made to punish people who have a different religion than the state sanctioned one.

Here's how I see church and state separation since I don't think you got it quite right.

Let's take a hypothetical law being discussed, there are four main reasons to pass it, one of those four being 'it jives with Catholicism'. I think under church and state separation you'd have to throw out that reason and focus on the other three when deciding whether to pass that law.

You can let your religion guide you to making laws, but if you're only reason for advocating a certain law is because 'I think God would like it' then you should reconsider.

 

[Skeptik]

I said our laws were based upon the Christian tenet that all men are created equal.

That's one. If all men are created equal, then that means that all men must have freedom to make choices for themselves.

Not only do you not understand the meaning of "separation of church and state" apparently you have a limited understanding of Christianity, as well....

You didn't say that, but glockmail posted:

Again, the basis of our laws is Judaeo-Christian values.

If that statement is true, then the law has to go beyond the equality issue.

 

[AllieBaba]

However that would be limiting freedom of others to act as they see fit.

It doesn't matter how you see it. Separation of church and state is NOT subjective. It is what it is, and all it is, despite the attempt by the left to hijack it and make it into repression of religion, is a committment to keep the government from having a say in the religion of the people.

That's it.

It's not to keep people from HAVING religion, or from making decisions, even if they are in office, BASED on religion. So long as those decisions do not restrict the freedom of religion of OTHERS or impose an actual religion upon others, it's A-OK.

It's not an excuse to exclude all Christians and all morality from the justice system.

 

[AllieBaba]

I think it's about living with the guiding philosophy that all men are created equal..which is the basic tenet of the Bible and the foundation of Christianity.

This is what I was referring to.

 

[sealybobo]

And honestly, let's talk about brainwashing..where exactly do you get your "facts"?

FRONTLINE: boogie man: the lee atwater story | PBS

It was a very interesting documentary Allie.

And if you want to argue with all the Republicans/Conservatives that were interviewed and confirmed what I'm telling you, go for it.

Why do you conservatives always doubt what you are told?

You remind me of the cheating/jealous husband. He's jealous because he's a cheater so he thinks everyone's a cheater.

You think everyone else is being dishonest because you are dishonest.

Just a hunch/theory of mine.

 

[AllieBaba]

PBS...
Good grief.

 

[AllieBaba]

Washington Times - PBS: Back to bias basics

 

[sealybobo]

PBS...
Good grief.

So you do want to argue with all the REPUBLICANS that were interviewed.

I guess if it doesn't go the way you want it, it must be false.

What a joke.

Just think of how many Republicans came out to say Bush is wrong/sucks and you loyal bushies threw every one of them under the bus.

Scott McClellan & Powell to name a couple.

I got news for you Allie. They are the good Republicans. The ones who stuck by Bush are the corrupt/crooks/liars.

 

[glockmail]

NO, but you did say that our laws are based on Christian ethics. Are they only based on part of Christian ethics, or all of them?

What I quoted is, after all, the second great commandment. How can that be left out, if we are to base our laws on Christian commandments?

You seem to be confusing ethics with commandments.

 

[AllieBaba]

And I don't think he knows what a tenet is, or what "based upon" means.

Essentially, he's just posing and spinning. His liberal thread is crap as well. It refers to beliefs that aren't confirmed anywhere this thread as being established here.

 

[sealybobo]

PBS...
Good grief.

PS. Where do you get your information on Lee Atwater?

Also, dummy, in Lee Atwater's own words, he confirmed everything that was said.

So your bullshit fallback that PBS is not credible makes me fucking sick.

So Lee Atwater's own words don't even work for you if PBS plays it? What a fucking right wing tool you are.

At least watch the fucking documentary and tell me what's false about it.

Fact is, Lee even admits sorrow for what he did.

And you'll blow off all the fucking facts I provide you because it came from PBS.

Hold your god damn breath for Fox to tell you the fucking truth Allie.

God damn you make me fucking mad. I don't know why. Because I'm not sure if you are stupid or a full of shit. Or both.

 

[Skeptik]

You seem to be confusing ethics with commandments.

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?

 

[AllieBaba]

Hold your god damn breath for Fox to tell you the fucking truth Allie.

God damn you make me fucking mad. I don't know why. Because I'm not sure if you are stupid or a full of shit. Or both.

Lol.
I've told you over and over again, I don't get Fox at all. I get my information from a variety of sources.

But I know PBS for what it is. A liberal station that is funded by tax dollars and pretends to be middle of the road.

You don't make me mad, I think you're funny. xoxoxoxoxo *big smooch*

 

[sealybobo]

Lol.
I've told you over and over again, I don't get Fox at all. I get my information from a variety of sources.

But I know PBS for what it is. A liberal station that is funded by tax dollars and pretends to be middle of the road.

You don't make me mad, I think you're funny. xoxoxoxoxo *big smooch*

If you deem every station to be too liberal to be true, then you are under informed. You didn't even see the fucking documentary and already you are casting your judgement? You are ignorant.

And your arrogance topped with your ignorance does make me mad at times.

I guess PBS made up the story about all those apology letters Lee sent to people he hurt with his lies when he was dying of a brain tumor. If you ask me, I think he got a tumor because of karma.

But the truth of it is, outside of politics, he was a great guy. Much like you probably are a sweet person to people who don't know just how fucked up your political beliefs are.

Everyone loved him. He injected race into politics to win, but he himself was not a racist. He/the GOP admit this in this documentary, the only thing that matters is winning.

Anyways you won't admit that Lee does this because then you'll have to admit that Rove is equally a scumbag too. I wonder if he'll get a tumor and repent after it is too late.

PBS did not smear Lee. They interviewed his friends/family/collegues and of course they interviewed the people he fucked over. Bob Dole and Dukakis to name 2.

Anyways, you stick with your "variety of sources" down there is Hazard County. How many stations do you get, 5?

 

[AllieBaba]

Well I get CNN, TNT and Disney almost all the time. Other than that, it's iffy.

 

[glockmail]

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?

These are the values espoused by the original settles of New England:

The settlers who established themselves on the shores of New England all belonged to the more independent classes of their native country. Their union on the soil of America at once presented the singular phenomenon of a society containing neither lords nor common people, neither rich nor poor. These men possessed, in proportion to their number, a greater mass of intelligence than is to be found in any European nation of our own time. All, without a single exception, had received a good education, and many of them were known in Europe for their talents and their acquirements. The other colonies had been founded by adventurers without family; the emigrants of New England brought with them the best elements of order and morality -they landed in the desert accompanied by their wives and children. But what most especially distinguished them was the aim of their undertaking. They had not been obliged by necessity to leave their country; the social position they abandoned was one to be regretted, and their means of subsistence were certain. Nor did they cross the Atlantic to improve their situation or to increase their wealth; the call which summoned them from the comforts of their homes was purely intellectual; and in facing the inevitable sufferings of exile their object was the triumph of an idea.

The emigrants, or, as they deservedly styled themselves, the Pilgrims, belonged to that English sect the austerity of whose principles had acquired for them the name of Puritans. Puritanism was not merely a religious doctrine, but it corresponded in many points with the most absolute democratic and republican theories. It was this tendency which had aroused its most dangerous adversaries. Persecuted by the Government of the mother-country, and disgusted by the habits of a society opposed to the rigor of their own principles, the Puritans went forth to seek some rude and unfrequented part of the world, where they could live according to their own opinions, and worship God in freedom.

From Democracy In America Alexis de Tocqueville 1831

 

[Cecilie1200]

Is enacting a constitutional amendment to define marriage between one man and one woman governing more, or governing less?

I see both conservatives as well as liberals as wanting more freedoms for individuals. The differences between the two groups seem to fall on specific issues. Conservatives want freedoms with regards to gun rights. Liberals want freedoms with regards to social issues. As one example. And both seem to want more regulation of the other.

So I don't see either side as being more or less interested in liberties across the board.

Definition of 'government' seems to be kind of ambiguous as well. It is sort-of defined as 'spending' in some cases, and 'legislation' in others, and etc.

Unfortunately, you're mistaken. Leftists do NOT want more freedoms with regards to social issues. They want more control via government of what and how social freedoms are allotted. Make no mistake, they are NOT looking for any sort of across the board freedom or tolerance on any subject. They are looking for the ability to force their opponents into agreement or, at the very least, silence.

A Constitutional amendment concerning marriage is only marketed as a restriction in freedom. It isn't really, because it doesn't actually constitute a change in how things have always been done. It is also something that is enacted by the people themselves and their duly-elected representatives, according to written, established law, as opposed to being forced upon them by a handful of unelected judges, and as such is itself an exercise of the people's freedom to make and enact law and shape society as they see fit, rather than having it dictated to them.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It seems to me that the argument here is, conservatives are for less government as long as people are doing what conservatives want....

Thus increased military spending, for example, shouldn't be subject to congressional approval if there is an argument to be made that increased military spending is morally correct.

And in the context specifically of Judeo Christian ethics, this sounds disturbingly like an argument for a religious state.

I don't think this is reality, in my experience reality is that people are diverse and their equality is self-evident.

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.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Are our laws based on Christian ethics?

If so, then the commandment to "love the lord, thy God" would have to be somewhere in our law, wouldn't it?

Are there any laws requiring us to love the Christian god?

"Love the Lord thy God" is not an "ethic". It's a religious instruction, which is not the same thing.