Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Log In

A valid email is required.
Password is required.
Site Notices
6/21/2017 8:25:40 PM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Posted: 1/4/2002 1:03:12 PM EDT
Just a nagging thought. It seems conservatism is a self-defeating ideology. At it's heart conservatism has the "mind your own business/get off my back/self-reliance" philosophy of individualism while liberalism is all about "socialuniformity/collectivism/groupthink". Liberals, by nature, are more prone to WANT to get into politics, to "get involved" and "make a difference" in society. Liberals admit their goal is to change society (to [i]their[/i] vision of course), while conservatives by nature just want to be left alone. Liberals work best in groups and are experts in organizing/mobilizing/herding/swaying large masses of sheeple - that is their forte. And there's more and more sheeple to be herded every day. Liberalism loves that sheeple live in big crowded cities, use mass transit, need gov't assistance, etc. Since it's not the nature of conservatives to march in lockstep (e.g. libertarians), as a political force conservatism is much easier to self-disrupt. I see conservatism being constantly hamstrung by the individualism that is at it's heart. Given this, will conservatism ever be as dominant as it once was or are we on our way to the "Borg Collective" where resistance is futile?
Link Posted: 1/4/2002 1:07:21 PM EDT
Like the 'Shaker' community huh?
Link Posted: 1/4/2002 1:08:04 PM EDT
Conservative ideals are inherently open to attack and to being abused by Liberals. But then, Conservatives get to have guns. it all works out in the end. (BTW I'm NOT being coy or flippant here. Its what B Franklin called the "animating contest of freedom." Bring it on Libs!!!!!!! Keep talking - I'm reloading!!!! )
Link Posted: 1/4/2002 1:08:13 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/4/2002 1:09:44 PM EDT by Spearweasel]
Conservatism will be back in vogue every time Liberalism collapses under it's own moral and functional feotor. Conservatism is a hardy weed... because it's based on rock-solid principles that are followed because they in turn are based on how things REALLY ARE, not on a utopian conception of how things SHOULD BE. Deal with the real, as Saint Iggy of Pop says.
Link Posted: 1/4/2002 1:11:46 PM EDT
As a side note, check out "That Every Man Be Armed" by SAtephen Halbrook. The "Gun Control" debate, in one form or another, has been going on since the time of Plato and Aristotle, Aristotle being "pro armed poulace" and Plato being "big gov't." Don't get too caught up of the fury of the debate going on right now. Seeing today in its historical context helps to bring today's gun control debate into perspective. That said, fight the gun controllers like there ain't no tomorow.
Link Posted: 1/4/2002 1:32:01 PM EDT
these things go in cycles, the pushme-pullyou of rugged individualism vs collective consciousness. either one taken to extreme is inappropriate, chaos or red fascism. i do however think i see a disturing long-term trend, in which as we populate the earth more and more densely, humanity as a whole has more use for followers and less for trailblazers. until we get ourselves a new frontier, we've got a problem with those who dont herd well, whether they be serial killers or pioneers. wish us luck!
Link Posted: 1/4/2002 2:01:36 PM EDT
Yes as long as the libs have a hold on the public ed system.They can just keep brainwashing and dumbing down the next generation untill they win.Not sure who said it but someone once said "the majority of the human race has the soul of a slave" and I believe it.
Link Posted: 1/4/2002 2:11:49 PM EDT
Sadly, yes, look at Europe, a few states hold out, but they are all more liberal and poor than us. A liberal state means a poor state. You can't continue to take the money from the thinkers and producers and give it to the wasteoids have a working society.
Link Posted: 1/4/2002 2:25:44 PM EDT
That was the prevailing view after the 1964 pres. election.
Link Posted: 1/4/2002 2:36:30 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Bearlaker: That was the prevailing view after the 1964 pres. election.
View Quote
Conservatism will all ways be alive as long as there are regular folks alive. I know a lot of you guys don't think it's true, but most of our politicians on both sides of the aisle are 3rd way/nwo.
Link Posted: 1/4/2002 2:46:24 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/4/2002 2:52:03 PM EDT by Arock]
Originally Posted By The_Macallan: Just a nagging thought. It seems conservatism is a self-defeating ideology. At it's heart conservatism has the "mind your own business/get off my back/self-reliance" philosophy of individualism while liberalism is all about "socialuniformity/collectivism/groupthink". Liberals, by nature, are more prone to WANT to get into politics, to "get involved" and "make a difference" in society. Liberals admit their goal is to change society (to [i]their[/i] vision of course), while conservatives by nature just want to be left alone. Liberals work best in groups and are experts in organizing/mobilizing/herding/swaying large masses of sheeple - that is their forte. And there's more and more sheeple to be herded every day. Liberalism loves that sheeple live in big crowded cities, use mass transit, need gov't assistance, etc. Since it's not the nature of conservatives to march in lockstep (e.g. libertarians), as a political force conservatism is much easier to self-disrupt. I see conservatism being constantly hamstrung by the individualism that is at it's heart. Given this, will conservatism ever be as dominant as it once was or are we on our way to the "Borg Collective" where resistance is futile?
View Quote
You are so right I don't know where to begin a reply. I'm active in politics on a local, county and state level and the biggest challenge we as conservatives face is getting qualified, electable conservatives TO RUN FOR OFFICE. As has been stated liberals by nature want to get involved and change things to fit their agendas. The concept of an activist conservative is difficult to explain to potential candidates. I could write a book on the challenges facing conservatives right now and complacency is at the top of the list. **Edited to add to my great pleasure the chairman of our local Libertarian party has just announced he is retiring that post and running for precinct chairman for the Republican party. He is willing and capable of fighting the good fight. His help will be sooo welcome.
Link Posted: 1/4/2002 2:51:50 PM EDT
Originally Posted By The_Macallan: Liberalism loves that sheeple live in big crowded cities, use mass transit, need gov't assistance, etc.
View Quote
Conservatism is doomed. Certainly in the way we now understand convertatism. The_Macallan, you make some many fundamental points it is difficult which to choose to address less this response turn into a 'rant.' I've choosen the "living in cities" point because the 'Australian' example is still current. In Australia the vote to confiscate-the-guns was primarily approved by those living in cities. More people live in cities than live in the out-back. Therefore no more guns in Australia. Consider for a moment the "T-Shirt" showing the areas taken by Bush in red and those taken by Gore in blue. Many conservatives proudly display these results as proof of conservative power. I see that shirt and realize conservatism is doomed - at least as we now know conservatism. Yes these things, conservatism/liberalism, do come in waves/cycles. And at the end of each wave/cycle we are more liberal than when the wave began. [:X*]
Link Posted: 1/4/2002 4:55:40 PM EDT
Originally Posted By 5subslr5: Yes these things, conservatism/liberalism, do come in waves/cycles. And at the end of each wave/cycle we are more liberal than when the wave began. [:X*]
View Quote
Exactly!
Link Posted: 1/4/2002 6:10:57 PM EDT
Originally Posted By colklink: Yes as long as the libs have a hold on the public ed system.They can just keep brainwashing and dumbing down the next generation untill they win.Not sure who said it but someone once said "the majority of the human race has the soul of a slave" and I believe it.
View Quote
When you just add control of the media that's a very powerful duo.
Link Posted: 1/4/2002 6:16:52 PM EDT
Post from Arock -
**Edited to add to my great pleasure the chairman of our local Libertarian party has just announced he is retiring that post and running for precinct chairman for the Republican party. He is willing and capable of fighting the good fight. His help will be sooo welcome.
View Quote
Now THAT is my idea of a great Libertarian! One who leaves his party to reform the Republican Party! Eric The(See!ItCanBeDone!)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 1/4/2002 11:27:56 PM EDT
Originally Posted By EricTheHun: Now THAT is my idea of a great Libertarian! One who leaves his party to reform the Republican Party! Eric The(See!ItCanBeDone!)Hun[>]:)]
View Quote
Q: Why isn't the republican party reforming itself? A: Because it's members are complacent with compromise and the gradual shift towards liberalism.
Link Posted: 1/5/2002 2:18:36 AM EDT
Link Posted: 1/5/2002 4:35:03 AM EDT
Link Posted: 1/5/2002 4:58:40 AM EDT
Originally Posted By EricTheHun: Now THAT is my idea of a great Libertarian! One who leaves his party to reform the Republican Party! Eric The(See!ItCanBeDone!)Hun
View Quote
If this would happen on a wide scale, the Republican party could be reformed into a Grand Old Party! [:D]
Link Posted: 1/5/2002 5:18:39 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/5/2002 5:19:24 AM EDT by TheHappyBlaster]
to my great pleasure the chairman of our local Libertarian party has just announced he is retiring that post and running for precinct chairman for the Republican party. He is willing and capable of fighting the good fight. His help will be sooo welcome.
View Quote
I see, a Libertarian who is tired of losing. Told ya.[;)]
Link Posted: 1/5/2002 5:36:30 AM EDT
Link Posted: 1/5/2002 7:13:41 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/5/2002 8:24:37 AM EDT by DScott]
But what about the common saying, "A liberal is a convervative who hasn't been mugged yet." There's some hope for more common sense in the world- Take for example the liberal media: As those in Hollywood become more affluent, they move toward protecting what they've acquired, and shift their politics. One bit of support for this idea is that the people of Los Angeles had elected a conservative businessman as Mayor in Dick Riordan. (edited cuz I can't even spell "liberal")
Link Posted: 1/5/2002 7:15:26 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Rancid:
Originally Posted By EricTheHun: Now THAT is my idea of a great Libertarian! One who leaves his party to reform the Republican Party! Eric The(See!ItCanBeDone!)Hun
View Quote
If this would happen on a wide scale, the Republican party could be reformed into a Grand Old Party! [:D]
View Quote
Replied to with "" because I've just never seen even a HUN quoted by anyone quite so "Rancid."
Link Posted: 1/5/2002 7:18:14 AM EDT
Originally Posted By DScott: ..... "A liveral is a convervative who hasn't been mugged yet."
View Quote
I simply will not attempt to improve on perfection. [smoke]
Link Posted: 1/5/2002 7:25:57 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/5/2002 8:11:08 AM EDT by 5subslr5]
Originally Posted By DScott: Take for example the liberal media: As those in Hollywood become more affluent, they move toward protecting what they've acquired, and shift their politics.
View Quote
DScott, I've read your posts before and often find them insightful. However, in the above, I fail to find the tie between the "liberal media" - "Hollywood becoming more affluent" - and a "shift in politics due to affluence." [smoke]
Link Posted: 1/5/2002 7:26:49 AM EDT
Men, the bottom line is, we're being outbred by those who benefit monitarily from having more kids than they can afford. Conservatives, bent on personal responsibility, are becoming more and more the minority in this country every day. Conservatism won't die, but it sure as hell will get out-voted in the not too distant future.
Link Posted: 1/5/2002 8:31:51 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/5/2002 9:23:17 AM EDT by DScott]
Originally Posted By 5subslr5:
Originally Posted By DScott: Take for example the liberal media: As those in Hollywood become more affluent, they move toward protecting what they've acquired, and shift their politics.
View Quote
DScott, I've read your posts before and often find them insightful. However, in the above, I fail to find the tie between the "liberal media" - "Hollywood becoming more affluent" - and a "shift in politics due to affluence." [smoke]
View Quote
My point is that we have had a very conservative Mayor (in Riordan), who, though he's been recently replaced by Hahn, wouldn't have been in such a position unless the leading industry in L.A. (Hollywood) supported him. He was all about business. When you have as much money as these folks now have, they do things like hire (armed) bodyguards, support pro-business politicians, and want to protect their investments (both literally and figuratively). What remains is for these people in power to acknowledge and support these actions publicly. Their liberal looking public face is a far cry from what they do in private. Gaining wealth from the system invests you in maintaining that system so it continues to provide you with that wealth (and power). A liberal *image* is, unfortunately, more socially desireable to the masses from who these people profit. I mean, how many shoot-em-ups does Hollywood produce each year, while condemning the private ownership of guns? (edited, again, cuz I can't think and type...)
Link Posted: 1/5/2002 11:06:53 AM EDT
DScott, I think I pretty much agree. Especially about the public vs. private faces. [smoke]
Link Posted: 1/5/2002 11:24:50 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/5/2002 11:27:28 AM EDT by thebeekeeper1]
Link Posted: 1/5/2002 11:39:15 AM EDT
While I do agree with most of that post, I find (IMHO) that MODERN conservatism has an interesting contradiction. Whereas how you defined conservatism in your post I'd put to libertarianism, I see modern conservatism having those properties, but at the same time getting in other people's face on some issues, such as morality, abortion, etc. While I don't necessarily see anything wrong about this (gotta stand up for what you believe in), I don't think you should be defining modern conservatism as the be-all-end-all of politics these days. Of course you'll get a very biased response from this board in your favor! :) Note that this is all my opinion and I don't intend to start a flame war, I'm just playing Devils Advocate. I'm far from liberal but at the same time I'm not a bible-belt conservative also. Robby
Link Posted: 1/5/2002 11:53:18 AM EDT
… One aspect of this argument that has always disturbed me is that everyone looking for handouts is perpetuating Liberalism by nature. Eight people living in one house drawing welfare and unemployment in the Barrios kill one solid vote for the Conservative Party out of this house. I’d like to see votes scaled or weighed by how much potential you have to [b]contribute[/b] to society. I envision a matrix populated with conservative fundamentals that are scored. For example, if you go to the polls and your profile consists of a solid work history, a bachelor’s degree, fair credit rating, 50K retirement fund and three years of military service your “Vote Value” would be relatively high on a scale of 1 to 10. Near an “8” maybe. ... However, if you’re a person perpetually in and out of the Dept. of Economic Security, dishonorably discharged, no savings account or home ownership and dragging three illegitimate children your rating may be “2” or so. ... Sounds cold hearted but it would work.
Link Posted: 1/5/2002 12:12:31 PM EDT
I agree with A3Kid that Conservatism will mathematically die. It is much more likely that the sheeple will continue the [i]already existing trend[/i] of believeing the liberal media's spewing that all our problems will be solved by "more big government". Face it, the sheeple really believe it. Case in point: When GW was proposing his tax cut the Dems were pounding on him publically saying, "If the President cuts taxas there will not be enough money for "popular programs" and whaddya know, a huge portion of the public believed it. More importantly, for the purpose of this discussion, [b]is the fact that the Dems felt more than comfortable to publicly bash GW [i]for wanting to give the sheeple more of their own money back to them![/b][/i] I saw an endless number of interviews with people says they actually thought it might not be a good idea for THEM to get a tax cut. Unbelieveable. Why do they feel that way? - Because they are ignorant enough to allow themselves to be convinced that they really do need Big Brother to survive. This is a trend boys and girls and it's not going to stop. Socialism is hard and fast one the way, and the sheeple will [b]ask[/b] for it. CMOS
Link Posted: 1/5/2002 12:14:11 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Winston_Wolf: … One aspect of this argument that has always disturbed me is that everyone looking for handouts is perpetuating Liberalism by nature. Eight people living in one house drawing welfare and unemployment in the Barrios kill one solid vote for the Conservative Party out of this house. I’d like to see votes scaled or weighed by how much potential you have to [b]contribute[/b] to society. I envision a matrix populated with conservative fundamentals that are scored. For example, if you go to the polls and your profile consists of a solid work history, a bachelor’s degree, fair credit rating, 50K retirement fund and three years of military service your “Vote Value” would be relatively high on a scale of 1 to 10. Near an “8” maybe. ... However, if you’re a person perpetually in and out of the Dept. of Economic Security, dishonorably discharged, no savings account or home ownership and dragging three illegitimate children your rating may be “2” or so. ... Sounds cold hearted but it would work.
View Quote
Not a bad idea. Start writing letters to the editor and your congressman.
Link Posted: 1/5/2002 1:12:20 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DoubleFeed:
Conservatism will be back in vogue every time Liberalism collapses under it's own moral and functional feotor.
View Quote
What does "feotor" mean? I looked it up, but it wasn't in the dictionary I have.
View Quote
It might be foetor, I misspelled it. It's a $5 word meaning steenkiness.
Link Posted: 1/5/2002 5:26:35 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin:
Originally Posted By Winston_Wolf: … One aspect of this argument that has always disturbed me is ... Not a bad idea. Start writing letters to the editor and your congressman.
View Quote
... No it's not, but it's so radical it would never get off the ground. Liberals would bitch about it.
Link Posted: 1/5/2002 6:38:03 PM EDT
I agree with the pendulum theorists. There is always a great swing from liberalism to conservatism, and back again. A huge change/swing usually occurs after a large event (Sept. 11th). Conservatism will never die. It will only become dormant.
Link Posted: 1/7/2002 4:35:04 AM EDT
re: teh breeding theory..... The only good thing about the massive MATERNAL mobilization of Marxist mental midgets is that, generally speaking, they don't vote. Its true. They don't.
Link Posted: 1/7/2002 5:03:26 AM EDT
Conservativism as what? An ideology? A political viewpoint? I think it's too broad a question. My ruminations.......despite everything going on, the Republican party is doomed. Not that it will die out, but it's days of being a force in politics are over. They are being outfought and outmanouvered by the Democratic party, and have shown an unwillingness to use the tactics necessary to fight. They are filled more and more with 'big tent' RINO's who see the Republican party as needing to be more 'moderate' and 'inclusive'. Hell, half of them are actually Democrats who ran republican in order to have a chance on the ticket....a practice that has yet to be countered. 20 years from now there won't be a difference between the two parties. Consevativism as a mindset will not die. It may disappear from the public view...but there are too many who believe it, despite the ironclad grip liberalism has on the public education system, to silence them all.
Link Posted: 1/7/2002 5:07:25 AM EDT
Originally Posted By garandman: re: teh breeding theory..... they don't vote. Its true. They don't.
View Quote
Bravo Siera garandman. Give 'em a ride & a pack of smokes they will......
Link Posted: 1/7/2002 5:19:12 AM EDT
Originally Posted By a3kid: Bravo Siera garandman. Give 'em a ride & a pack of smokes they will......
View Quote
Isolated example. Do you REALLY think that the Democratic party can get out to EVERY ONE of these welfare babies and both register them to vote, and get them to the polls on election day??? No chance. Better, next year, a pack of smokes won't be enuf incentive. They'll want a color TV. So, in THIS instance (i.e. votes for smokes) Liberalism is as self-defeating as Conservatism, because the dependents Liberalism creates get more and more greedy for a larger portion from the public trough (or Democratic coffers, as the case may be)
Link Posted: 1/7/2002 6:02:22 AM EDT
If conservatism is to survive, then it needs to define itself more precisely. Most who consider themselves coservative actually have a mish-mash of beliefs...fiscal, political, religious, etc...that they consider conservatism. The mouthpiece of conservatives himself, Limbaugh, has several times pointed out that there is a difference between a fiscal conservative and a cultural conservative. I refuse to identify myself with "conservatism" because it is too closely identified with being Christian in this country. I support fiscal conservatism and Constitutional conservatism, but I refuse to buy into the religious aspects of the "conservative movement." As the ethnic and religious make-up of the US changes, the conservative faction needs to redefine itself to get its core messages across. If white, protestant Christianity, is in your opinion, inseparable from conservatism; then maybe it is doomed.
Link Posted: 1/7/2002 6:21:05 AM EDT
I think that since less than half the eligible voters actually take the trouble to vote, and since libs tend to be more organized, we as conservatives are dwindling away. Both sides "leaders" are pushing for more immigrants who want whatever is free, not freedom. Close the borders, George.
Link Posted: 1/7/2002 6:34:05 AM EDT
Doomed. (As anything recognizible when compared to today.) We're screwed. Partially self-inflicted but also while the enemy may be relatively small they are a force that we haven't reckoned with. When you have most media and most schools, most of Hollywood and I don't just mean the actors and actresses and most of the Universities (Harvard, Yale, Univ. of Cal, Berkley, etc.,) That's a powerful coalition. And maybe underlying the lot is the continued movement to metro-areas from rural areas. [smoke]
Link Posted: 1/7/2002 6:39:08 AM EDT
On the bright side.... ANY ideology, as long as its proponents are armed, is guaranteed into perpetuity. Which UNDERSCORES the importance of the Second Amendment. And also shows that Liberals aren't so "liberal" anymore.
Link Posted: 1/7/2002 6:47:59 AM EDT
Has anybody heard when the Supreme's are going to get into the Emerson ruling?
Link Posted: 1/7/2002 7:02:06 AM EDT
Originally Posted By garandman: On the bright side.... ANY ideology, as long as its proponents are armed, is guaranteed into perpetuity.
View Quote
Complete agreement. The question is for how long will a significant group remain armed ? The Federal Government will not come as a masssive force, a scenario often considered in this forum. First there will simply a request to "turn your weapons in." Pure, pure guess bit I'd think about 75% of weapons will go during this modest program. Full media blitz to be a "good American and turn in your weapons - after all, it's the LAW. Will the neighborhood kids assist in the next phase ? They did in Germany. Military vehicles puttering slowly down the street with neighborhood kids riding in and on the vehicle. The kids knew which families had guns. The kids went to the door and asked for the weapons. Everyone smiled. This was a very successful operation. And unfortunately it would be successful here too. How many guns will be left for the Fed's to "come and get ?" Not many. [smoke]
Link Posted: 1/7/2002 7:07:21 AM EDT
Originally Posted By 5subslr5:
Originally Posted By garandman: On the bright side.... ANY ideology, as long as its proponents are armed, is guaranteed into perpetuity.
View Quote
Complete agreement. The question is for how long will a significant group remain armed ? (snip) [smoke]
View Quote
You raise many good points. The short answer to your question is "I will remain armed until I am dead." The long answer is "Stay tuned...its GONNA get interesting."
Link Posted: 1/7/2002 7:16:08 AM EDT
Originally Posted By garandman:
Originally Posted By 5subslr5:
Originally Posted By garandman: On the bright side.... ANY ideology, as long as its proponents are armed, is guaranteed into perpetuity.
View Quote
Complete agreement. The question is for how long will a significant group remain armed ? (snip) [smoke]
View Quote
You raise many good points. The short answer to your question is "I will remain armed until I am dead." The long answer is "Stay tuned...its GONNA get interesting."
View Quote
What was it, 3% of the population which actually fought the British way back when?
Link Posted: 1/7/2002 7:25:29 AM EDT
Post from Golgo-13 -
I refuse to identify myself with "conservatism" because it is too closely identified with being Christian in this country.
View Quote
Yes, God forbid you should be closely identified with Christianity! It was a good thing, though, that 225 years ago the Founding Fathers weren't scared to death of being too closely identified with Christianity - they were Christians and damn proud of it! You're kinda like on the sidelines of history for the time being, huh?
I support fiscal conservatism and Constitutional conservatism, but I refuse to buy into the religious aspects of the "conservative movement."
View Quote
Who's asking you to buy anything? Not I, not the GOP, not the Christian Right!
As the ethnic and religious make-up of the US changes, the conservative faction needs to redefine itself to get its core messages across. If white, protestant Christianity, is in your opinion, inseparable from conservatism; then maybe it is doomed.
View Quote
Isn't it strange that Blacks and Hispanics, who are most likely some of the most ardent Christians of us all, seem to be right at home within the Godless liberal Democrat Party? You know why? 'Cause they're [b]smarter[/b] that you are Mr. Golgo-13! They have [b]not[/b] chosen their sides based upon the perceived 'anti-Christian' nature of the Democrat Party, while you eschew the label of conservative simply because of the 'religious' aspects of the mainline conservative movement in this country. A movement, BTW, that was the norm for both parties less than sixty years ago. So keep it up smartypants, and we'll [b]all[/b] be kneeling before someone else's god! Eric The(SorryAboutThe'Smartypants'Jibe-IJustCouldn'tHelpMyself!)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 1/7/2002 7:48:08 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/7/2002 7:49:38 AM EDT by Golgo-13]
Mr. Hun, You may define yourself by whatever you wish. Your spiritual beliefs are, clearly, important to you and inform every aspect of your life. Your beliefs are, however, not important to me and I have no wish to steer my life by them. Last time I checked, we did not have "liberal" and "conservative" parties in the US. My rejection of the label "conservative" in no way places me on the sidelines of history. As a conservative talkshow host here in Pittsburgh is fond of pointing out, if you agree 100% of the time with anybody, then you just aren't thinking. While I'm on the topic of "conservatives" and religion, another annoying habit of theirs is the reverential treatment they accord the Founding Fathers. The FF's were, as a group, brilliant men. They were, however, still men. yes, they did a spectacular job of crafting a form of government that maximized individual liberty, but they were still just men. Conservatives sometimes remind me of ancient Romans and their habit of elevating deceased rulers (ex. Augustus) to divine status. The FF's didn't even all agree with (or like) each other, so referencing them as having some group belief or opinion is not necessarily accurate. Christian conservatives, especially, should beware of paying them undue reverence. As another poster pointed out, the main difference between conservatives and liberals seems to be what they are in your face over. If there were a "Leave me alone for real" party, I'd join that.
Link Posted: 1/7/2002 7:57:18 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Golgo-13: The FF's were, as a group, brilliant men. They were, however, still men. yes, they did a spectacular job of crafting a form of government that maximized individual liberty, but they were still just men.
View Quote
And they were men who acknowledged that great leaders and great countries MUST, yes, I repeat MUST, acknowledge their GREAT responsibility to Almighty God. It ain't about religion - its about personal accountability to God, which controls your public (and private) actions. If you need proof of this, read Bill Bennett's book "Our Sacred Honor." I'm NOT infavor of incorporting religion into public policy. I'm in favor of public officials being PERSONALLY accountable to the God who controls the rise and fall of nations. Those who denigrate the FF's on this point remind me of restaurant goers - they only wanna pick off the "Freedom Menu" the dishes that they like. Sorry, but "Freedom" ain't a short order restaurant.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Top Top