Debate Now Liberalism and Conservatism

[Pogo]

(Fleshing out above)... Since conservatism is a very general (more general than "liberal") term meaning to adhere to the status quo (resist change), what it means in practice changes with contemporary circumstances. When this country was founded the conservatism opposing Liberalism was Royalist, seeing the authority of the King/Church (the then-status quo) as the legitimate source of power. Now that that's out of the way modern conservatism seems to hold an affinity for the descendants of that King/Church, which is that faceless entity I call Corporatia. The common thread seems to be dependence on a strong, centralized source of power, as opposed to Liberalism's decentralized democratic distribution of power where it vests in the individual, collectively.

Or in short the Corporatia versus the Commons.

Interesting. Yet conservatives, American conservatives - strongly promote individual rights and freedom, with little interference from the state. Individualism seems to be a trademark of political conservatism when it comes to rights.

I don't get that impression at all. I hear the rhetoric but I don't hear it as pro-individual; rather I hear it as anti-goverment. If it were genuinely pro-individual it wouldn't acquiesce to overbearing interference from any entity -- not solely government.

It strikes me over and over that I hear "conservative" voices rail relentlessly on behalf of the individual... as long as the threat thereto comes from the State. But as soon as the exact same threat comes from the corporate side.... crickets. In fact if it's brought up at all the same voices actually seem to run to the defense of the oppressor. That tells me the focus is not positive on supporting the individual but negative --resisting the government. As I see it the champion of the individual would be the same entity that stood up for the same individual when throwing off the First and Second Estates and vesting power in the People -- Liberalism.

I fear that conservatism sees the State and Corporatia as two different things. That's how it rationalizes being an antagonist to one and an apologist for the other. I see the two more as evil twins, both always capable of overbearing and needing to be held in check. They work by different methods but the potential end results are equally dismal either way. In other words as a Liberal I see both of them as a potential threat, whereas Conservatism seems only interested in the one. To a lesser extent the same could be observed regarding undue influence by the Church -- as long as it's not a restriction coming from the State, conservatism doesn't seem interested in the individual.

Whether that's because Conservatism seeks an authority figure is open to conjecture, but I tend to resist any authority figures, regardless which robes they dress in.

 

[Pogo]

(Fleshing out above)... Since conservatism is a very general (more general than "liberal") term meaning to adhere to the status quo (resist change), what it means in practice changes with contemporary circumstances. When this country was founded the conservatism opposing Liberalism was Royalist, seeing the authority of the King/Church (the then-status quo) as the legitimate source of power. Now that that's out of the way modern conservatism seems to hold an affinity for the descendants of that King/Church, which is that faceless entity I call Corporatia. The common thread seems to be dependence on a strong, centralized source of power, as opposed to Liberalism's decentralized democratic distribution of power where it vests in the individual, collectively.

Or in short the Corporatia versus the Commons.

Interesting. Yet conservatives, American conservatives - strongly promote individual rights and freedom, with little interference from the state. Individualism seems to be a trademark of political conservatism when it comes to rights.

For some who lean more toward anarchy than an ordered society, I would agree. But that is not what conservatism is IMO. Yes, modern day American conservatism is very big on individual rights and liberty, but they also allow for people to have the right and liberty to form whatever sort of society they may wish to have. More radical libertarianism--the kind I define with a capital "L" that may or may not designated the political partty--and a large chunk of the modern American left would deny many people the ability to do that. Libertarianism would deny that ability to everybody. The 'left' would more often deny it only to those groups they disagree with.

Example. A community that wanted to replicate Mayberry U.S.A., put that beloved creche on the courthouse lawn, do the Pledge of Allegiance and a moment of silence to start the school day, and teach intelligent design or creationism alongside Darwin or even to the exclusion of Darwin and prohibit certain kinds of businesses from locating inside the city limits and would support any business owner who was exercising his/her religious convictions would be able to be that community without interference or retaliation.

Such a community would be allowed to be that under conservatism even by conservatives who would want no part of that themselves. Conservatism promotes allowing people to be who and what they are and sees it as the people's right to order their society in a way that makes them happy no matter how offensive or wrong or stupid that might look to others. The role of the federal government would only be to prohibit one community from imposing its values or mandates on another.

But modern day American liberalism would strongly object to such a concept and would approve of the federal government intervening. It often appears that with modern day liberalism, liberty is only allowed those who do things correctly as liberalism defines correctness or as the government mandates.

You're conflating "left" and "liberal" here Foxy. Some of the heavyhandedness you suggest here might indeed come from leftism. It would not come from Liberalism.

 

[Foxfyre]

(Fleshing out above)... Since conservatism is a very general (more general than "liberal") term meaning to adhere to the status quo (resist change), what it means in practice changes with contemporary circumstances. When this country was founded the conservatism opposing Liberalism was Royalist, seeing the authority of the King/Church (the then-status quo) as the legitimate source of power. Now that that's out of the way modern conservatism seems to hold an affinity for the descendants of that King/Church, which is that faceless entity I call Corporatia. The common thread seems to be dependence on a strong, centralized source of power, as opposed to Liberalism's decentralized democratic distribution of power where it vests in the individual, collectively.

Or in short the Corporatia versus the Commons.

Interesting. Yet conservatives, American conservatives - strongly promote individual rights and freedom, with little interference from the state. Individualism seems to be a trademark of political conservatism when it comes to rights.

For some who lean more toward anarchy than an ordered society, I would agree. But that is not what conservatism is IMO. Yes, modern day American conservatism is very big on individual rights and liberty, but they also allow for people to have the right and liberty to form whatever sort of society they may wish to have. More radical libertarianism--the kind I define with a capital "L" that may or may not designated the political partty--and a large chunk of the modern American left would deny many people the ability to do that. Libertarianism would deny that ability to everybody. The 'left' would more often deny it only to those groups they disagree with.

Example. A community that wanted to replicate Mayberry U.S.A., put that beloved creche on the courthouse lawn, do the Pledge of Allegiance and a moment of silence to start the school day, and teach intelligent design or creationism alongside Darwin or even to the exclusion of Darwin and prohibit certain kinds of businesses from locating inside the city limits and would support any business owner who was exercising his/her religious convictions would be able to be that community without interference or retaliation.

Such a community would be allowed to be that under conservatism even by conservatives who would want no part of that themselves. Conservatism promotes allowing people to be who and what they are and sees it as the people's right to order their society in a way that makes them happy no matter how offensive or wrong or stupid that might look to others. The role of the federal government would only be to prohibit one community from imposing its values or mandates on another.

But modern day American liberalism would strongly object to such a concept and would approve of the federal government intervening. It often appears that with modern day liberalism, liberty is only allowed those who do things correctly as liberalism defines correctness or as the government mandates.

You're conflating "left" and "liberal" here Foxy. Some of the heavyhandedness you suggest here might indeed come from leftism. It would not come from Liberalism.

I have stated my definitions of liberalism and conservatism in Post #16. You are welcome to define the terms any way you wish but unless we are specific about what we mean with the terms instead of just criticizing somebody else's definition, we won't be able to have much of a conversation about the topic.

 

[alan1]

Good questions Coyote

Over the years, my observation and opinion about conservatives and liberals.........

Liberals seek to interpret the US Constitution to meet the needs of their current desires.
Conservatives seek to follow the US Constitution as the founding fathers stated it.
For me (a conservative), the perfect example is "the general welfare" clause.

Liberals seek to alter law under their intent of "leveling the playing field".
Conservatives seek to keep the law the same for all people regardless of other personal attributes.

Liberals think certain personal attributes need special treatment to succeed.
Conservatives think all people should be treated exactly the same.
Think things such as race, gender, gender identification, and familial background.

Liberals want the government to determine social charity.
Conservatives want the individual to determine social charity.

Obviously, those statements are generalities about liberals and conservatives and not necessarily indicative of individuals that hold those liberal or conservative perspectives.

 

[Pogo]

(Fleshing out above)... Since conservatism is a very general (more general than "liberal") term meaning to adhere to the status quo (resist change), what it means in practice changes with contemporary circumstances. When this country was founded the conservatism opposing Liberalism was Royalist, seeing the authority of the King/Church (the then-status quo) as the legitimate source of power. Now that that's out of the way modern conservatism seems to hold an affinity for the descendants of that King/Church, which is that faceless entity I call Corporatia. The common thread seems to be dependence on a strong, centralized source of power, as opposed to Liberalism's decentralized democratic distribution of power where it vests in the individual, collectively.

Or in short the Corporatia versus the Commons.

Interesting. Yet conservatives, American conservatives - strongly promote individual rights and freedom, with little interference from the state. Individualism seems to be a trademark of political conservatism when it comes to rights.

For some who lean more toward anarchy than an ordered society, I would agree. But that is not what conservatism is IMO. Yes, modern day American conservatism is very big on individual rights and liberty, but they also allow for people to have the right and liberty to form whatever sort of society they may wish to have. More radical libertarianism--the kind I define with a capital "L" that may or may not designated the political partty--and a large chunk of the modern American left would deny many people the ability to do that. Libertarianism would deny that ability to everybody. The 'left' would more often deny it only to those groups they disagree with.

Example. A community that wanted to replicate Mayberry U.S.A., put that beloved creche on the courthouse lawn, do the Pledge of Allegiance and a moment of silence to start the school day, and teach intelligent design or creationism alongside Darwin or even to the exclusion of Darwin and prohibit certain kinds of businesses from locating inside the city limits and would support any business owner who was exercising his/her religious convictions would be able to be that community without interference or retaliation.

Such a community would be allowed to be that under conservatism even by conservatives who would want no part of that themselves. Conservatism promotes allowing people to be who and what they are and sees it as the people's right to order their society in a way that makes them happy no matter how offensive or wrong or stupid that might look to others. The role of the federal government would only be to prohibit one community from imposing its values or mandates on another.

But modern day American liberalism would strongly object to such a concept and would approve of the federal government intervening. It often appears that with modern day liberalism, liberty is only allowed those who do things correctly as liberalism defines correctness or as the government mandates.

You're conflating "left" and "liberal" here Foxy. Some of the heavyhandedness you suggest here might indeed come from leftism. It would not come from Liberalism.

I have stated my definitions of liberalism and conservatism in Post #16. You are welcome to define the terms any way you wish but unless we are specific about what we mean with the terms instead of just criticizing somebody else's definition, we won't be able to have much of a conversation about the topic.

OK well if a modicum of clarification is in order, let me amend to say not that you're conflating "left" and "liberal" here, but that you're conflating "left" and "liberal" in post 16, and continuing it here. I stated mine in post 23, where I clearly made those distinctions. Which, to flesh out, "left" (and "right") can be thought of as 'active' governmental philosophies; they steer and direct to an objective. Liberalism is by contrast 'passive'. It doesn't push; it gets out of the way. That's why I point out that when you cite the activist aspects you have above, you're citing aspects of leftism, rather than Liberalism. Because of the two, leftism is where the action is.

 

[Foxfyre]

Let's be honest, it's not "liberalism vs conservatism", it's "socialism vs capitalism". "Liberal" was always a code word for "socialist".

I disagree - one can be liberal and support capitalism. Liberals may impose more regulation, but they don't necessarily want socialism.

IMO, modern day American liberals say they don't want socialism, but most have condoned or at least not objected to government takeover of the auto industry and financial institutions et al and who demand more and more regulation giving government ever more control of the industries it regulates which, of course, is a socialist concept. even bordering on a kind of soft facism. As is the idea that corporate America, i.e. the wealthy class, has an obligation to share what it has with everybody else and therefore it is appropriate for government to engate in wealth redistribution and to force the people to engage in that.

Certainly our modern day liberals are not whole cloth socialists and evenmore so not whole cloth facists. But they do all condone a central government having much power to order the society they think society should be. Conservatives mostly see a central government having such power is a dangerous thing to our liberties, choices, options, and opportunities.

 

[Derideo_Te]

There is no Constitutional right to freedom from religion.

Yes there is.

I have a constitutional right to a secular government that is free from all religious trappings of any sort.

That is freedom from religion as defined in the BoR.

First Amendment - Religion and Expression. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;​

As an individual that is my right and no about of semantic squirming on your part can deny me that right.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Conservatives mostly see a central government having such power is a dangerous thing to our liberties, choices, options, and opportunities.

No, that would be Libertarians who have those fallacious misperceptions about government.

Genuine conservatives understand and appreciate that a completely deregulated society (AKA a Libertarian Utopia) would be an utter disaster. Genuine conservatives understand the need for government regulations and support them. They achieve that goal by reaching compromises with liberals for clean air and water, healthcare, immigration, etc without being either too costly or too burdensome.

Unfortunately genuine conservatives are an endangered species and the current usurpers claiming to be "conservatives" are anything but when it comes to actually doing what the name implies, conserving what is best about America.

This nation sorely needs more genuine conservatives IMO and the fact that they so few and far between these days is a great loss to America.

 

[Foxfyre]

There is no Constitutional right to freedom from religion.

Yes there is.

I have a constitutional right to a secular government that is free from all religious trappings of any sort.

That is freedom from religion as defined in the BoR.

First Amendment - Religion and Expression. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;​

As an individual that is my right and no about of semantic squirming on your part can deny me that right.

I certainly said nothing to suggest anybody was denying you that right. My post was pretty specific that the federal government was to have no control over religion in ANY aspect, either to require it or to suppress it. That same Bill of Rights was not interpreted that the federal government could object to or interfere with any of the small religious theocracies that existed at that very time in several of the colonies. It did not stop them from recommending but not requiring a particular Bible translation to be used in the schools. It did not stop them from openly declaring their religious convictions on the floor of the House or Senate or holding church services in those same chambers when Congress was not in session.

But in all these years no theocracy developed or even threatened to develop. And by the turn of the 19th Century, the people had chosen to dissolve all the small theocracies that had existed in the colonies and they did it with absolutely no involvement from the federal government.

But too many in the modern day American liberal camp would deny many people expressions of their faith and/or free exercise of their religious conviction under the liberal definition of what separation of church and state means and/or some other liberal notion. The Founders would have rolled over in their graves.

 

[Mertex]

(Fleshing out above)... Since conservatism is a very general (more general than "liberal") term meaning to adhere to the status quo (resist change), what it means in practice changes with contemporary circumstances. When this country was founded the conservatism opposing Liberalism was Royalist, seeing the authority of the King/Church (the then-status quo) as the legitimate source of power. Now that that's out of the way modern conservatism seems to hold an affinity for the descendants of that King/Church, which is that faceless entity I call Corporatia. The common thread seems to be dependence on a strong, centralized source of power, as opposed to Liberalism's decentralized democratic distribution of power where it vests in the individual, collectively.

Or in short the Corporatia versus the Commons.

Interesting. Yet conservatives, American conservatives - strongly promote individual rights and freedom, with little interference from the state. Individualism seems to be a trademark of political conservatism when it comes to rights.

For some who lean more toward anarchy than an ordered society, I would agree. But that is not what conservatism is IMO. Yes, modern day American conservatism is very big on individual rights and liberty, but they also allow for people to have the right and liberty to form whatever sort of society they may wish to have. More radical libertarianism--the kind I define with a capital "L" that may or may not designated the political partty--and a large chunk of the modern American left would deny many people the ability to do that. Libertarianism would deny that ability to everybody. The 'left' would more often deny it only to those groups they disagree with.

Example. A community that wanted to replicate Mayberry U.S.A., put that beloved creche on the courthouse lawn, do the Pledge of Allegiance and a moment of silence to start the school day, and teach intelligent design or creationism alongside Darwin or even to the exclusion of Darwin and prohibit certain kinds of businesses from locating inside the city limits and would support any business owner who was exercising his/her religious convictions would be able to be that community without interference or retaliation.

Such a community would be allowed to be that under conservatism even by conservatives who would want no part of that themselves. Conservatism promotes allowing people to be who and what they are and sees it as the people's right to order their society in a way that makes them happy no matter how offensive or wrong or stupid that might look to others. The role of the federal government would only be to prohibit one community from imposing its values or mandates on another.

But modern day American liberalism would strongly object to such a concept and would approve of the federal government intervening. It often appears that with modern day liberalism, liberty is only allowed those who do things correctly as liberalism defines correctness or as the government mandates.

You know...it's interesting because I see Liberalism in some of the same way you see Conservatism...except with differences...and to me, the biggest difference is equality.

Liberalism allows people to be who they are no matter what they are. It means a gay person can be married along with a straight person. It means business' can't say they won't serve someone because he is black or fire someone because he is gay. It means that everyone should be treated with equal dignity. Conservatism seeks to protect the dignity and rights of the business owner, liberalism the dignity and rights of the worker.

That definitely is part of the rhetoric, but it doesn't play out in what I see happening in society. I see that it is the left who will support activists attempting to punish a radio talk show host or television personality for taking what the left considers a politically incorrect stance or using a politically incorrect word. Who support a baker or a florist or other business owners exercising their religious beliefs having their businesses destroyed. Who among the left doesn't support having a historical piece of artwork with 'incorrect language' on it forcibly removed from a courthouse? Or who among the left stood up and objected when the ACLU demanded that a tiny village remove a tiny cross--a cross representing the historical origins of the village--be removed from the village seal?

It is these kinds of things that I see as imminently dangerous and destructive to everything I believe liberty is. If we are all allowed to be who and what we are only if who and what we are is politically correct, then there is no liberty at all.

There is nothing even remotely "politically correct" about upholding the Constitutional right of freedom from religion.

What is so funny is that conservatives nearly crucified Brian Williams, who of his own volition admitted he had lied....and are now defending a blowhard who did the same thing, who denies that he lied and they praise him for it. There is a disconnect that they are not even able to see.

And getting all worked up about the ACLU demanding an LA county (didn't know Los Angeles was a tiny village)remove a cross from their seal, but it was okay for throngs of conservatives protesting in New York when Muslims were trying to build a building.....I guess Muslims and Buddhists and other religions even if they pay taxes do not have the same rights as Americans that are Christian.......that is so un-Christian to begin with!

 

[alan1]

What is so funny is that conservatives nearly crucified Brian Williams, who of his own volition admitted he had lied....and are now defending a blowhard who did the same thing, who denies that he lied and they praise him for it. There is a disconnect that they are not even able to see.

And getting all worked up about the ACLU demanding an LA county (didn't know Los Angeles was a tiny village)remove a cross from their seal, but it was okay for throngs of conservatives protesting in New York when Muslims were trying to build a building.....I guess Muslims and Buddhists and other religions even if they pay taxes do not have the same rights as Americans that are Christian.......that is so un-Christian to begin with!

Mertex, I'm not sure I understand what you mean by the part I put in blue. My understanding is that religious organizations do not pay tax (which, by the way, is a US government "law respecting an establishment of religion" IMO, but that is another debate), individuals do pay tax and it is regardless of their religion. Can you clarify your point? Thanks.

 

[Mertex]

What is so funny is that conservatives nearly crucified Brian Williams, who of his own volition admitted he had lied....and are now defending a blowhard who did the same thing, who denies that he lied and they praise him for it. There is a disconnect that they are not even able to see.

And getting all worked up about the ACLU demanding an LA county (didn't know Los Angeles was a tiny village)remove a cross from their seal, but it was okay for throngs of conservatives protesting in New York when Muslims were trying to build a building.....I guess Muslims and Buddhists and other religions even if they pay taxes do not have the same rights as Americans that are Christian.......that is so un-Christian to begin with!

Mertex, I'm not sure I understand what you mean by the part I put in blue. My understanding is that religious organizations do not pay tax (which, by the way, is a US government "law respecting an establishment of religion" IMO, but that is another debate), individuals do pay tax and it is regardless of their religion. Can you clarify your point? Thanks.

I'm not talking about religious organizations.....(and IMO, all of them should pay taxes, especially since so many of them are talking politics from the pulpit)....I'm talking about individuals. I'm saying that Foxfyre is lamenting the fact that some government office was made to remove a "cross" from their seal....the cross being a Christian symbol, but I bet if it had been some Islamic symbol, she wouldn't have minded at all. Muslims and Buddhists and people of other religions that are American citizens pay taxes too....but some Christians don't act like they do, and that is un-Christian in itself.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

What are the sources for these "polls" that you allege are "credible"?

Who conducted them and what was their motivation in asking those loaded questions?

Who was polled and what methodology was used to extrapolate the results?

What experience did those pollsters have in conducting those polls?

Right now there is an ongoing effort to demonize Islam and conducting phony polls about obscure texts is one way to do it. Those "polls" are then spread around websites to inflame the gullible. This is called propaganda and disinformation.

Anyone who has actually lived amongst Muslims knows that they are no different to anyone else. They have jobs and families and they want their kids to get an education.

There are not 1.5 billion people hiding under your bed waiting to leap out and murder you in the middle of the night because you don't believe in Allah.

Pew Research, dude. You should try learning a little bit about the world and what other people actually think for a change instead of just indulging your imagination.

You can call the results "propaganda" all you want, but I prefer a rational approach to one that operates from the perspective of rigid preconceptions while reacting with hysteria to anything that threatens to create cognitive dissonance when the truth of the matter contradicts them.

 

[Darkwind]

Fair enough. These are the concepts and terms of the ideology of Liberalism, Conservatism, and progressivism and what they mean to Me.



Liberalism.

Traditionally, liberalism was against the ruthless use of power to achieve a theocratic as well as secular dictatorship. An example of this is the founding fathers of the United States. They were adamantly opposed to ruthless abuse of power by the King and his henchmen in parliament to finance the kingdom of England on the backs of the American colonies. Liberals were critical thinkers who understood that a balanced measure of government and personal liberty was the ideal condition of mankind, but that the practice of this philosophy was rarely achievable.

To this end, they understood the nature of men (used as the phrase of their time, updated today to include all of mankind) was to seek power and aggrandizement of self. To this purpose, they limited the power of government and placed into the machinations of government, means for the people to check these abuses.

I realize that too many, liberalism was the ultimate freedom of the individual to seek and achieve their own personal dreams. That is not the case of liberalism of today. Liberalism then valued traditional American values and through those values, brought us concepts of a social safety net whereby people who through no fault of their own, needed a hand in tough times. They also believed in the concept of a hand up, not a hand out and wanted programs to get people back on their feet and to be self-sufficient once again. However; liberals of this era began to think that a strong government was required, and that the Constitution was a hindrance to their agenda.

The evolution of Liberalism has led to a fundamental shift in their understanding of liberty and freedom. Not so long ago, liberalism branched and began a rhetorical and legal agenda of lending aid to fellow citizens using the power of force to take from others to give to the less fortunate. It is at this time that they began to parse the language and use words out of context of their true meaning for the purpose of eliciting an emotional response from the public. This is where the true evolution and schism of liberalism occurred, and progressivism began.

Progressivism.

To me, progressivism is the taking of liberty for government control of wealth and power. The façade of liberalism is nothing more than a mask used to justify greed and lust and envy. The progressive will strip any law for their own agenda, regardless of the intent of that law. If it is in the way, they will remove it. A progressive is not for free speech unless that speech is accepted among their elite. Speech against their agenda or ideology is to be ruthless squashed, the speaker to be ruined, if not killed, and the rumor of dissent to be taught out of the young. They live to chase the perfect Che revolution, to imprison dissenters and to crush any original thought. It is the lock step and fascist belief in their ideology or the ultimate consequence of refuting them. They hate religion and religious freedom. They hate self-determination. They believe that an education is good only if it follows a prescribed thought pattern. They are, in fact, the very antithesis of a free and open society and people.

Mod Edit - per OP rules, no discussion of Political Parties

Conservative.

Today’s Conservative is very much like the liberals of our founding. They oppose the ruthless use of government power to control the people for the sake of fostering the government as a giver of rights and freedoms.

Contrary to myth, the conservative values traditions and change. A tradition must begin somewhere, and conservatives find that traditions grounded in value and principal to be worthy of protecting. Simply because the world move is no justification for the weakening of these traditions. A thing of value will always have value. An example. Helping an elderly lady through a door. This has a principle tied to a value. That value is respect that is coupled with the understanding that our elderly has provided to us a continuity of self as a person.

True conservatives do not apply government to impose their values system on others. That is the purview of the progressive. However, some who call themselves conservative will use government to promote their values. This is not conservatism. It is a weakened form of liberalism. A conservative will reduce or eliminate useless laws or laws that impose moral value on others. Except for commonly held values such as murder, child molestation, rape and other forms of tort and criminal behavior, a conservative believes the ultimate in freedom is free from government. Note I say government, and not other people. Interdependence in things such as business and the bartering of goods and services is not some silly notion of the rugged individual not needing anyone. It is the rugged individual not needing government. So, the whole notion of “you did not build that” is laughable.

Finally, a conservative in belief will not adhere to the notion that if I am outraged, you must be silenced. That is a progressive trait and anyone who says they are conservative but then screams I am offended you need to shut up, is not a conservative.

However, this is a much longer soapbox than I had intended, and it didn’t even scratch the surface….

 

[Foxfyre]

What is so funny is that conservatives nearly crucified Brian Williams, who of his own volition admitted he had lied....and are now defending a blowhard who did the same thing, who denies that he lied and they praise him for it. There is a disconnect that they are not even able to see.

And getting all worked up about the ACLU demanding an LA county (didn't know Los Angeles was a tiny village)remove a cross from their seal, but it was okay for throngs of conservatives protesting in New York when Muslims were trying to build a building.....I guess Muslims and Buddhists and other religions even if they pay taxes do not have the same rights as Americans that are Christian.......that is so un-Christian to begin with!

Mertex, I'm not sure I understand what you mean by the part I put in blue. My understanding is that religious organizations do not pay tax (which, by the way, is a US government "law respecting an establishment of religion" IMO, but that is another debate), individuals do pay tax and it is regardless of their religion. Can you clarify your point? Thanks.

I'm not talking about religious organizations.....(and IMO, all of them should pay taxes, especially since so many of them are talking politics from the pulpit)....I'm talking about individuals. I'm saying that Foxfyre is lamenting the fact that some government office was made to remove a "cross" from their seal....the cross being a Christian symbol, but I bet if it had been some Islamic symbol, she wouldn't have minded at all. Muslims and Buddhists and people of other religions that are American citizens pay taxes too....but some Christians don't act like they do, and that is un-Christian in itself.

What is so funny is that conservatives nearly crucified Brian Williams, who of his own volition admitted he had lied....and are now defending a blowhard who did the same thing, who denies that he lied and they praise him for it. There is a disconnect that they are not even able to see.

And getting all worked up about the ACLU demanding an LA county (didn't know Los Angeles was a tiny village)remove a cross from their seal, but it was okay for throngs of conservatives protesting in New York when Muslims were trying to build a building.....I guess Muslims and Buddhists and other religions even if they pay taxes do not have the same rights as Americans that are Christian.......that is so un-Christian to begin with!

Mertex, I'm not sure I understand what you mean by the part I put in blue. My understanding is that religious organizations do not pay tax (which, by the way, is a US government "law respecting an establishment of religion" IMO, but that is another debate), individuals do pay tax and it is regardless of their religion. Can you clarify your point? Thanks.

I'm not talking about religious organizations.....(and IMO, all of them should pay taxes, especially since so many of them are talking politics from the pulpit)....I'm talking about individuals. I'm saying that Foxfyre is lamenting the fact that some government office was made to remove a "cross" from their seal....the cross being a Christian symbol, but I bet if it had been some Islamic symbol, she wouldn't have minded at all. Muslims and Buddhists and people of other religions that are American citizens pay taxes too....but some Christians don't act like they do, and that is un-Christian in itself.

I think this post suggests that a review of the forum and thread guidelines would be in order .

Liberalism as it is defined in modern day American vernacular too often does target Christianity for particular animosity from government while tending to give any other religion a pass. But that is a different discussion.

Conservatism as it is defined in modern day America sees that cross on the village seal for what it was--a symbol of the descendants of Spanish Catholics who built up the community around the historic Santo Nino church that is on the national historic registry. There were absolutely no Buddhists or Muslims involved in the development of the villlage, but if it had been a Buddhist monastery or Mosque that attracted a settlment, it is absolutely 100% certain that no modern day conservatives would have objected to a historic symbol of that either.

The only reason the ACLU was not able to sue the tiny village into obliviion and force them to redesign their sheild is because the Alliance Defense Fund came to their defense and legitimately defended the historical symbolism and pointed out that the Zia, the focal point of the seal is also a religious symbol and is prevalent on the NM State flag. Why was the ACLU not sueing the State of New Mexico?

This is the seal--the Zia is symbolic of the Pueblo people who first populated the area as well as the symbol of New Mexico, the sword the symbol of the Spanish conquistatdors, the Yucca our state flower.

The issue here is not the ACLU suit or the seal itself. The issue is an ideological movemeet that would presume to use the government and the courts to demand that a tiny village (or a large city for that matter) conform to their idea of what a society must be in order to be acceptable. And the liberals/progressives/statists/political class do not seem to be able to see or understand what an assault on human liberty that is.

 

[Derideo_Te]

What are the sources for these "polls" that you allege are "credible"?

Who conducted them and what was their motivation in asking those loaded questions?

Who was polled and what methodology was used to extrapolate the results?

What experience did those pollsters have in conducting those polls?

Right now there is an ongoing effort to demonize Islam and conducting phony polls about obscure texts is one way to do it. Those "polls" are then spread around websites to inflame the gullible. This is called propaganda and disinformation.

Anyone who has actually lived amongst Muslims knows that they are no different to anyone else. They have jobs and families and they want their kids to get an education.

There are not 1.5 billion people hiding under your bed waiting to leap out and murder you in the middle of the night because you don't believe in Allah.

Pew Research, dude. You should try learning a little bit about the world and what other people actually think for a change instead of just indulging your imagination.

You can call the results "propaganda" all you want, but I prefer a rational approach to one that operates from the perspective of rigid preconceptions while reacting with hysteria to anything that threatens to create cognitive dissonance when the truth of the matter contradicts them.

 

[Mertex]

I think this post suggests that a review of the forum and thread guidelines would be in order .

Liberalism as it is defined in modern day American vernacular too often does target Christianity for particular animosity from government while tending to give any other religion a pass. But that is a different discussion.

Are you trying to say that I'm violating the rules? If you are, please point out the exact violation, not just make a broad comment about something you find distasteful.

I don't see Liberalism as targeting Christianity for particular animosity from government while tending to give any other religions a pass, Liberals are just pointing out the obvious. XXXXXX Christians want to make laws that originate from Christianity and expect people from other religions to be okay with it, but they take exception when another religion tries to do the same.

And, it isn't a different discussion, it's in response to your comment. If it was a different discussion, then you shouldn't have made the comment.

 

[Statistikhengst]

What is so funny is that conservatives nearly crucified Brian Williams, who of his own volition admitted he had lied....and are now defending a blowhard who did the same thing, who denies that he lied and they praise him for it. There is a disconnect that they are not even able to see.

And getting all worked up about the ACLU demanding an LA county (didn't know Los Angeles was a tiny village)remove a cross from their seal, but it was okay for throngs of conservatives protesting in New York when Muslims were trying to build a building.....I guess Muslims and Buddhists and other religions even if they pay taxes do not have the same rights as Americans that are Christian.......that is so un-Christian to begin with!

Mertex, I'm not sure I understand what you mean by the part I put in blue. My understanding is that religious organizations do not pay tax (which, by the way, is a US government "law respecting an establishment of religion" IMO, but that is another debate), individuals do pay tax and it is regardless of their religion. Can you clarify your point? Thanks.

I'm not talking about religious organizations.....(and IMO, all of them should pay taxes, especially since so many of them are talking politics from the pulpit)....I'm talking about individuals. I'm saying that Foxfyre is lamenting the fact that some government office was made to remove a "cross" from their seal....the cross being a Christian symbol, but I bet if it had been some Islamic symbol, she wouldn't have minded at all. Muslims and Buddhists and people of other religions that are American citizens pay taxes too....but some Christians don't act like they do, and that is un-Christian in itself.

What is so funny is that conservatives nearly crucified Brian Williams, who of his own volition admitted he had lied....and are now defending a blowhard who did the same thing, who denies that he lied and they praise him for it. There is a disconnect that they are not even able to see.

And getting all worked up about the ACLU demanding an LA county (didn't know Los Angeles was a tiny village)remove a cross from their seal, but it was okay for throngs of conservatives protesting in New York when Muslims were trying to build a building.....I guess Muslims and Buddhists and other religions even if they pay taxes do not have the same rights as Americans that are Christian.......that is so un-Christian to begin with!

Mertex, I'm not sure I understand what you mean by the part I put in blue. My understanding is that religious organizations do not pay tax (which, by the way, is a US government "law respecting an establishment of religion" IMO, but that is another debate), individuals do pay tax and it is regardless of their religion. Can you clarify your point? Thanks.

I'm not talking about religious organizations.....(and IMO, all of them should pay taxes, especially since so many of them are talking politics from the pulpit)....I'm talking about individuals. I'm saying that Foxfyre is lamenting the fact that some government office was made to remove a "cross" from their seal....the cross being a Christian symbol, but I bet if it had been some Islamic symbol, she wouldn't have minded at all. Muslims and Buddhists and people of other religions that are American citizens pay taxes too....but some Christians don't act like they do, and that is un-Christian in itself.

I think this post suggests that a review of the forum and thread guidelines would be in order .

Liberalism as it is defined in modern day American vernacular too often does target Christianity for particular animosity from government while tending to give any other religion a pass. But that is a different discussion.

Conservatism as it is defined in modern day America sees that cross on the village seal for what it was--a symbol of the descendants of Spanish Catholics who built up the community around the historic Santo Nino church that is on the national historic registry. There were absolutely no Buddhists or Muslims involved in the development of the villlage, but if it had been a Buddhist monastery or Mosque that attracted a settlment, it is absolutely 100% certain that no modern day conservatives would have objected to a historic symbol of that either.

The only reason the ACLU was not able to sue the tiny village into obliviion and force them to redesign their sheild is because the Alliance Defense Fund came to their defense and legitimately defended the historical symbolism and pointed out that the Zia, the focal point of the seal is also a religious symbol and is prevalent on the NM State flag. Why was the ACLU not sueing the State of New Mexico?

This is the seal--the Zia is symbolic of the Pueblo people who first populated the area as well as the symbol of New Mexico, the sword the symbol of the Spanish conquistatdors, the Yucca our state flower.

The issue here is not the ACLU suit or the seal itself. The issue is an ideological movemeet that would presume to use the government and the courts to demand that a tiny village (or a large city for that matter) conform to their idea of what a society must be in order to be acceptable. And the liberals/progressives/statists/political class do not seem to be able to see or understand what an assault on human liberty that is.

I could not disagree with you more.

First, Mertex 's posting was well within the rules, so cut the crap. Get off your horse and start debating.

Second, I challenge you quite directly to ask Conservatives what they think of that cross on the village seal instead of making up their minds for them. I would wager good money that if you ask any Conservative about a cross, he or she is going to immediately think of the Christian religion and NOT the historical significance of any one strategically placed cross.

Again, I strongly object to your insinuations about Mertex, among others, for that is not part and parcel of adult debate, not even in the slightest.

 

[Foxfyre]

What are the sources for these "polls" that you allege are "credible"?

Who conducted them and what was their motivation in asking those loaded questions?

Who was polled and what methodology was used to extrapolate the results?

What experience did those pollsters have in conducting those polls?

Right now there is an ongoing effort to demonize Islam and conducting phony polls about obscure texts is one way to do it. Those "polls" are then spread around websites to inflame the gullible. This is called propaganda and disinformation.

Anyone who has actually lived amongst Muslims knows that they are no different to anyone else. They have jobs and families and they want their kids to get an education.

There are not 1.5 billion people hiding under your bed waiting to leap out and murder you in the middle of the night because you don't believe in Allah.

Pew Research, dude. You should try learning a little bit about the world and what other people actually think for a change instead of just indulging your imagination.

You can call the results "propaganda" all you want, but I prefer a rational approach to one that operates from the perspective of rigid preconceptions while reacting with hysteria to anything that threatens to create cognitive dissonance when the truth of the matter contradicts them.

Here's a link from a left leaning site:
Pew Research Center Global Harassment Of Jews Has Reached A Seven-Year High

Recent Pew Research also reports a high incident of hostile acts toward Muslims in almost as many nations as report hositlity or violence against Jews. IMO, the difference is that hositlity toward Jews is rarely instigated by other Jews. A great deal of the hositlity toward Muslims is instigated by other Muslims who object to the 'unorthodoxy' of fellow Muslims. Muslim women are too often the targets of such hostility. And many governments

Conservatism as it is most usually defined in modern day America neither condones nor practices such hostility toward other religious groups. It is a liberal concept as liberalism is most usually defined in modern day America that would use government to control religion or demand that it behave in a certain way. We are not to the extreme of those other nations in which hostility to religious groups seems to be growing. Could we get there? If I believed some of the rhetoric on these message boards, I don't think we could rule it out if liberalism achieved total power over the rest of us.

 

[Statistikhengst]

What are the sources for these "polls" that you allege are "credible"?

Who conducted them and what was their motivation in asking those loaded questions?

Who was polled and what methodology was used to extrapolate the results?

What experience did those pollsters have in conducting those polls?

Right now there is an ongoing effort to demonize Islam and conducting phony polls about obscure texts is one way to do it. Those "polls" are then spread around websites to inflame the gullible. This is called propaganda and disinformation.

Anyone who has actually lived amongst Muslims knows that they are no different to anyone else. They have jobs and families and they want their kids to get an education.

There are not 1.5 billion people hiding under your bed waiting to leap out and murder you in the middle of the night because you don't believe in Allah.

Pew Research, dude. You should try learning a little bit about the world and what other people actually think for a change instead of just indulging your imagination.

You can call the results "propaganda" all you want, but I prefer a rational approach to one that operates from the perspective of rigid preconceptions while reacting with hysteria to anything that threatens to create cognitive dissonance when the truth of the matter contradicts them.

Here's a link from a left leaning site:
Pew Research Center Global Harassment Of Jews Has Reached A Seven-Year High

Recent Pew Research also reports a high incident of hostile acts toward Muslims in almost as many nations as report hositlity or violence against Jews. IMO, the difference is that hositlity toward Jews is rarely instigated by other Jews. A great deal of the hositlity toward Muslims is instigated by other Muslims who object to the 'unorthodoxy' of fellow Muslims. Muslim women are too often the targets of such hostility. And many governments

Conservatism as it is most usually defined in modern day America neither condones nor practices such hostility toward other religious groups. It is a liberal concept as liberalism is most usually defined in modern day America that would use government to control religion or demand that it behave in a certain way. We are not to the extreme of those other nations in which hostility to religious groups seems to be growing. Could we get there? If I believed some of the rhetoric on these message boards, I don't think we could rule it out if liberalism achieved total power over the rest of us.

Already, that posting is extremely biased.

PEW is part of the PEW charitable trust Foundation. Both Liberals AND Conservatives serve on the board of that trust. PEW is therefore independent and not beholden to any one particular ideology at all.

PEW's polling values have been very much in the middle of most everything.

So, with your first sentence, you already indicate that you are not even remotely interested in honest debate. The first statement is also a bald-faced lie.

I will take PEW's data over the data of many others any day of the week.

I do, however, accept your argument that Conservatism as a philosophy does not condone violence, but in practice, the thing looks very different.

An idea and it's application thereof can be two very, very different things.