"Conservative" Freedom?

[W Scott Shores]

Originally posted by onewhippedpuppy
Last time I checked, the "one nation under God" came from the same bunch, or thereabouts. The Pledge of Allegiance isn't exactly a recent development. In fact, good luck finding a document from the founding fathers that doesn't somehow mention God, all while they were establishing for the separation of church and state and freedom of religion. I guess people didn't get their panties in a bunch the same way they do today.

"Under God" was added to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Superman
In chatting with a group of other friends (yes, I have friends besides you looneys), my mind (yes, I have one of those too) is twisting. Perhaps you guys can help me out, again.

"Conservative" suggests more narrowness than "Liberal." Just the terms themselves. And in practice, the same is true. One of the big problems, and the reason that the Dems are more afraid of Independent candidates, is that the "liberal" belief structure is wider. There is more diversity. More people of color. More various religious beliefs or lack thereof.

"Conservatives" on the other hand not only have a narrower belief structure, they seem to have a deliberate intention of imposing that belief structure on the rest of America.

These thoughts came about after my friend, a very intelligent and successful and reasonable and compassionate conservative (oxymoron?) stated a common conservative remark. He said the "values" in our country have gone haywire and it is the role of public policy makers to bring those values back into vogue. Please don't be coy with me. We all know what I'm talking about. Marriage between a man and a woman. Prayer in school. yadda yadda.

My first reaction was to ask him if he thinks we can legislate morality and if so.....and here is the important question I am asking here......should we? Is the imposition of our values on our fellow Americans....an "American" goal?

Neither the Republicans (claiming to be conservatives) nor the Democrats (claiming to be liberals) are supporting American style freedom which, for the most part, was based on freedom from government.

We desparately need a new party that runs on gutting government for America and Americans; not one who runs on how much of the spoils of government can be obtained and passed around. Both large parties run on that activity today.

[onewhippedpuppy]

Originally posted by W Scott Shores
"Under God" was added to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954.

Learn something new every day. Further reason why you shouldn't believe everything you read online. Google informs me that the Pledge also wasn't introduced until 1892.

[widebody911]

Originally posted by fastpat
We desparately need a new party that runs on gutting government for America and Americans; not one who runs on how much of the spoils of government can be obtained and passed around. Both large parties run on that activity today.

It takes massive quantities of cash to get elected. Any system that does not promise to ontain and distribute out said spoils is a non-starter.

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world�s greatest civilizations has been 200 years.

[Superman]

Originally posted by onewhippedpuppy

A question, since when does the majority have to change to suit a minority? The "one nation under God" stuff is typically one parent of out of hundreds, why should everyone change to suit the agenda of one? PC has gone way too far in our country.

I've got a labor relations disaster brewing so I apologize for posting without even reading all the other posts, but this quote is another perfect illustration of my point here. One parent out of hundreds? Okay. Perhaps you think that the majority shoudl rule. Perhaps you think that if 99 parents oppose one, then the one parent needs to toe the mark. This is a problem. This is a situation where somebody looses freedom because they are outnumbered 99 to 1. If 60% of the country is Christian and decides that this should be the national religion, then are we still a country with "freedom" as a core value? The answer is obviously "no."

And yes, I realize that the issue described above is whether a child is permitted to pray in school and that cowtowing to the 1 parent potentially reduces the freedom of the 99. That is a detail not lost on me, but it is a detail nonetheless. Here, I hope to discuss underlying principle. In actual fact, for example, there are no children in this country who are denied the opportunity to pray in school. The bigger question is whether a prayer is lead by the teacher and if so, what prayer.

Let's not get sidetracked by the details. There are people in this country who are comfortable in limiting the freedoms of others and there are those who are not. Conservatives (at least a very vocal portion of conservatives) would like to restrict Americans' freedom so they are not free to engage in immorality. Liberals oppose these bits of legislation. Liberals support a broader degree of freedom than conservatives.

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally posted by Superman
"Conservatives" on the other hand not only have a narrower belief structure, they seem to have a deliberate intention of imposing that belief structure on the rest of America.

Here we have another myth espoused by the Left in the hopes of denigrating the Right. The belief structure of the Right in no more or less "narrow" than that of the Left; it is simply different. It does not encompass the entire belief structure of the Left, so the dissingenius Left assumes it must be "narrower". What the Left is wholey incapable of seeing or comprehending is the vast overlap in the middle. They focus on the differences and assume that is all the Right believes.

The Left prides themselves on their "open-mindedness". Nothing could be further from the truth. The Left is every bit as close-minded as they accuse the Right of being. There is no room on the Left for many of the Right's beliefs and values; the Left rejects them out-of-hand, all the while decrying the "intolerance" of the Right.

Pat is right in his continued assertions that there is no truly "conservative" party left in the U.S. There are, however, a great many truly conservative people left. They are the most likely to have a "live and let live" approach to life, staying out of others' business and wishing others (including government) would stay out of theirs. I have found true liberals to be far more likey to try and foist their beliefs upon others. Usually failing in that, they are the side that has most often resorted to the rule of law to force society to comply with their wishes.

[Moneyguy1]

Jeff:

Different, Yes. We agree.

The definition of the two labels does imply that there are those who "conserve" (status quo) and those who "liberate" (anything goes).

Sanity must reside somewhere between the two extremes.

[widebody911]

Originally posted by Jeff Higgins
There is no room on the Left for many of the Right's beliefs and values; the Left rejects them out-of-hand, all the while decrying the "intolerance" of the Right.

Correct - we want nothing to do with the Christian Taliban

[legion]

Originally posted by SoCal911SC
There is so much wrong with the basic premises/assumptions of the argument, as framed, that no rational discussion can be had.

And anyone who tries arguing it, while accepting the false basic premises/assumptions, has been duped.

One of my favorite tactics in conversational terrorism.

It's much like walking up to a friend at a party with his new girlfriend and saying: "Have you told your parents that you're gay yet?"

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally posted by widebody911
Correct - we want nothing to do with the Christian Taliban

I don't know anyone who wants anything to do with them; they are as whacked as any of the most loony the Left has to offer.

[deathpunk dan]

Porsche Godsquad done got their panties in a bunch again.

Ha ha.

If you guys are interested in what a REAL Christian has to say about all of this, I suggest checking out Reverend Gregory Boyd, an Evangelical minister in St Paul.

He's got balls, that guy - and my support.

[Nathans_Dad]

Originally posted by Superman
The bigger question is whether a prayer is lead by the teacher and if so, what prayer.

...Cut...

Conservatives (at least a very vocal portion of conservatives) would like to restrict Americans' freedom so they are not free to engage in immorality. Liberals oppose these bits of legislation. Liberals support a broader degree of freedom than conservatives.

Wrong, wrong and...wrong.

You either don't talk to many conservatives or your brain auto-translates what they say to fit your preconceived notion of what conservatives want.

No one is pushing a mandatory, teacher-led prayer in school. In fact, I really don't think too many conservatives are pushing school prayer in general any more.

Also, most conservatives really aren't interested in stopping you from whatever immorality you want to practice. Conservatives nowadays are more interested in protecting the rest of us from being taught that your immorality is really ok and moral. Recent examples include asking internet porn sites to have a "metacode" put in their site so that internet blocking software can block those sites from our children instead of allowing them to slip through. The ACLU is vehemently opposing this on "free speech" grounds.

[nota]

I want less goverment
less stupid laws
more personal responceability

and see too much of the same programs supported by the religion based ringwing christians and the tali-ban

both are against womans rights
gays rights and marriage
want to censor books movies tv ect
want the goverment to make laws based on religions views
where is the big difference in their program
the name they use for god?

lets end big goverment
stop the wars
bring home the troops
secure our borders
stop the rape of the eviroment by big CORPs
get energy prices under some control
stop exporting our jobs

[Nathans_Dad]

Was that a poem??

[RPKESQ]

The issue to me is public or private.
As a little research will discover, the Pledge of Allegiance was altered in the middle of the Cold War. When we felt so threatened by the godless commies. A typical knee-jerk reaction. Few of the Founding Fathers placed god in the public documents we are so fond of holding up. One of them rewrote the bible to eliminate all references to god. They were tax cheats, womanizers, slavers, thieves and revolutionaries that preached violence. Not bible thumping Christians. This is a myth. This is a Christian myth that has become an urban legend.
The one great idea they had was that individuals could co-exist in peace without persecution for their beliefs or lack of them. That is Public institutions should not show or tolerate any bias towards any group (witches, blacks, gays, homophobes, etc.). The only way to do that in a school is to teach about and teach acceptance for all. This IS the American Dream. I will resist any attempt at changing that.
In Private schools (using no Public monies), private clubs, your home, your cult, etc., you can teach any intolerance and bigotry you wish. Have at it. But don’t expect the public to accept or endorse it.

[Moneyguy1]

Perhaps poorly worded, but it does reflect the sentiments of many citizens.

Both ends of the political and belief spectrum have to tone down their demands. There ain't no such thing as Utopia. We will all be inconvenienced by one thing or another. That's life.

[IROC]

Originally posted by Nathans_Dad
Recent examples include asking internet porn sites to have a "metacode" put in their site so that internet blocking software can block those sites from our children instead of allowing them to slip through. The ACLU is vehemently opposing this on "free speech" grounds.

But, this same proposed legislation would put Victoria's Secret's website into the category of pornography (I heard the story on NPR this morning). Does that seem right? Who decides which websites are "pornographic" and which aren't? The government? Yikes!

This metacode thing sounds like a good idea on the surface until you start looking at the details.

Mike

[Nathans_Dad]

I heard that too IROC, and originally I had the same reaction you did. Then I thought about it a little.

All the legislation would do would be block that Victoria's Secret website from a child who's parents have internet filtering programs. It would not prevent any adults from visiting the site.

What is the problem there? Are we infringing on a 10 year old's right to look at Victoria's Secret models?

[Nathans_Dad]

Originally posted by RPKESQ
Public institutions should not show or tolerate any bias towards any group (witches, blacks, gays, homophobes, etc.). The only way to do that in a school is to teach about and teach acceptance for all. This IS the American Dream. I will resist any attempt at changing that.

How about child pornographers? Child Molesters? People who engage in bestiality? What about people who like to have sex with corpses?

Just wondering where your tolerance stops...

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally posted by RPKESQ
The issue to me is public or private.
As a little research will discover, the Pledge of Allegiance was altered in the middle of the Cold War. When we felt so threatened by the godless commies. A typical knee-jerk reaction. Few of the Founding Fathers placed god in the public documents we are so fond of holding up. One of them rewrote the bible to eliminate all references to god. They were tax cheats, womanizers, slavers, thieves and revolutionaries that preached violence. Not bible thumping Christians. This is a myth. This is a Christian myth that has become an urban legend.
The one great idea they had was that individuals could co-exist in peace without persecution for their beliefs or lack of them. That is Public institutions should not show or tolerate any bias towards any group (witches, blacks, gays, homophobes, etc.). The only way to do that in a school is to teach about and teach acceptance for all. This IS the American Dream. I will resist any attempt at changing that.
In Private schools (using no Public monies), private clubs, your home, your cult, etc., you can teach any intolerance and bigotry you wish. Have at it. But don’t expect the public to accept or endorse it.

What are you, a gay black homophobic witch or something?