What Conservatives Believe


Off-Topic Discussions

301 to 350 of 1,568 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

bugleyman wrote:


I wonder, however, if the government funded the hypothetical display, and if so, why you don't find that to be a violation of the separation of church and state doctrine.

Usually those issues happen at the local level. For instance, a small town has a long standing tradition of setting up a Nativity Scene in front of Town Hall. When the tradition started, everyone in town was Christian, so no one objected to the use of publice lands or funds. Now, with the influx of more people to the region with more varied beliefs, a tradition becomes a controversial issue. The traditionalists see it as an attack, the newcomers simply seeing it as enforcing a rule that was previously being ignored.


Crimson Jester wrote:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

people seem to forget the second half of the sentence.

I personally don't see how objecting to government funding of religious speech amounts to prohibiting someone's exercise of their religion. Further, I'm often shocked anew at the number of supposed fiscal conservatives who seem to be A-OK with it! Put whatever you want on your property, with your money, but using my taxes to put up a monument to your religion? No thanks.


bugleyman wrote:
Thurgon wrote:
Interesting. I think being allowed to vote based on whatever personal beliefs you have is the very fundation of democracy, being resricted as to where you can get those beliefs is actually to my mind damaging to democracy as a whole.
Tyranny of the Majority

I know the term. Not were you seek to aim it.


Thurgon wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
Thurgon wrote:
Interesting. I think being allowed to vote based on whatever personal beliefs you have is the very fundation of democracy, being resricted as to where you can get those beliefs is actually to my mind damaging to democracy as a whole.
Tyranny of the Majority
I know the term. Not were you seek to aim it.

Meaning you don't think it applies? It may not. I was simply trying to say that citizens, religious or otherwise, should be responsible for determining when their viewpoint is being imposed on others unjustly and vote accordingly.


*looks around sadly*

Did I kill the thread? :(

The Exchange

bugleyman wrote:
Crimson Jester wrote:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

people seem to forget the second half of the sentence.

I personally don't see how objecting to government funding of religious speech amounts to prohibiting someone's right to exercise their religion. Further, I don't see how many supposed fiscal conservatives seem to be OK with it. Put whatever you want on your property, with your money, but using my taxes to put up a monument to your religion? No thanks.

So we will take this in three separate instances since there seems to be three questions here.

and hopefully without the knee jerk reaction I WANT TO GIVE.

The courts have more then once rules that the government can do things because of tradition. However, it was not until the middle and later years of the twentieth century that the Supreme Court began to interpret the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses in such a manner as to restrict the promotion of religion by state governments. As such it can and does at times contradict itself in these matters.

Many fiscal conservatives are also moral conservatives, and many are also Christian fundamentalists. Now while the largest denomination in the country is Catholic at 25% it is rather the 53% of the country that is one of several protestant denominations that you get a very large percentage of fiscal and moral conservatives. It does not have to go hand in hand. I personally know several people who are conservative on one issue and not another. Which leads I think to the problem. Lumping people into groups with which they do not fit.

If I had to blame one region I would go with Colorado Springs and the surrounding area as prime targets.

I see no reason to not use local monies to put up a small and tasteful Christmas displays. Just as I see no reason not to give the day off to most employees for spending time with their families .

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

Paul Watson wrote:


Why the jab at atheists, by the way? Is there some sort of atheist campaign to outlaw all religions in the USA that I'm unaware of?

It wasn't meant as a jab (text stripping context) I've just met too many athiests who say they don't have any faith, because they don't beleive in a higher power. Um... you have faith that there's no higher power and that guides your actions.

Thurgon,

I don't think anyone can leave their beliefs 'at the door' so to speak. I know I 'vote my beliefs' at the booth. At the same time, we (meaning Americans) have to accept that the constitution is designed to protect the guy who disagrees with me just as much as it protects me. The freedom of me to Worship the Divine is enshrined in the federal government as much as the right of the Athiest to believe in the lack therof. I can fight to have Roe v. Wade overturned as bad law, and it benefits my religious beliefs, but I shouldn't fight to have Christianity enshrined as the law of the land, if for no other reason than the practical one that it will turn and bite me in the aft at some point.

sidetrack on the establishment clause

Spoiler:
I think the problem here is when we shifted from a right to practice to a right to not be offended. If a community wants to put a creeche in their Christmas display, that's not establishment of religion, it's call CHRISTMAS for a reason. It means as much to the Christian as the co-opted pagan tree lighting means to the athiest who accepts it's a holiday. It would be like celebrating Martin Luther King jr. day w/o being allowed to mention him. There's a reason the saying 'you can't please everyone' is common sense.

Of course, I've reached this point after 38 years of various insights and stupid moves, so take me with a grain of salt. ;-)


Crimson Jester wrote:


If I had to blame one region I would go with Colorado Springs and the surrounding area as prime targets.

Is this the area with the break-away polygamists (like Jeffs, for instance)?


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Agreed; we have no way of knowing. One of the things I admire about the guy, especially in contrast to most candidates today who can't talk enough about their religious beliefs.

Well sure, Washington didn't tell us. But the way he conducted his adult life is pretty strongly at odds with the idea that he had any particular sympathy for religion. He held a post in the state church of Virginia, but that was the normal first office of one's political career in the state. Even open anti-Christians like Jefferson served as vestrymen.

Brooke Allen investigated the matter:

Spoiler:

Quote:

In the thirty-seven fat volumes that make up the bicentennial edition of Washington's papers there are only four mentions of his vestry responsibilities, each one simply a complaint about his having paid more than he felt owed for some expense or other.

[...]

Washington's eventual resignation from the vestry, in 1784, was exceedingly abrupt: "It is not convenient for me to be at Colchester tomorrow, and as I shall no longer act as a vestryman, the sooner my place is filled with another the better. This letter, or something more formal if required, my evidence my resignation, and authorize a new choice."

[...]

Whasington was not an avid churchgoer by any standards: his journals indicate that he attended church no more than twelve times a year or so. During his presidency his attendance at divine service was much more regular, as might be expected, but during the last three years of his life he seems to have attended church only three times. Significantly-and in the absence of any personal statements from Washington himself concerning his religious beliefs or lack of such, we have to treat such evidence as significant-he made it a point not to take communion, though his wife always did so. He would leave the church well ahead of Martha, thus requiring the coachman to make two trips back to the Washington home.

[...]

In marked contrast with Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, and even the scandalous Thomas Paine, he did not make any reference to Jesus as a great philosopher or moralist. Stranger yet, when the Congress used the name of Jesus Christ in their occasional calls for days of thanksgiving, Washington would modify the wording of these proclamations so as to avoid using the name. Nor is there any evidence in his writings that he entertained any expectation of eternal life, an essential Christian tenet. All this can hardly have been an oversight. Washington was a methodical, meticulous man. He was also scrupulously honest, and on occasions when he did not feel honesty to be the best policy he kept his mouth diplomatically shut, as Jefferson, Adams, and Rush had all remarked.

[She concludes:]
Washington's habitual reserve has not made the serious historian's task any easier: unlike Adams, Rush, Franklin, Jefferson, Gouverneur Morris, or any other key Founding Fathers, who carried on lively and exceedingly frank correspondences with close friends, Washington maintained his air of formality with all but a very few. His general silence on the subject of Christianity, however, is highly suggestive. If he had been a Christian believer he would have nothing to lose by saying so, while if he had not been, he would have had a great deal to lose-he would, in Franklin's memorable phrase, merely be spitting against the wind.

We'll never know with absolute certainty, but Washington's behavior is very much suggestive. I'm cherry-picking illustrative examples, but there are far more and a more thorough treatment in general in Allen's Moral Minority, which studies Franklin, Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, and Hamilton's opinions about religion and religion in government.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

bugleyman wrote:
Thurgon wrote:
Interesting. I think being allowed to vote based on whatever personal beliefs you have is the very fundation of democracy, being resricted as to where you can get those beliefs is actually to my mind damaging to democracy as a whole.
Tyranny of the Majority

Tyrany of the Minority

The Exchange

Urizen wrote:
Crimson Jester wrote:


If I had to blame one region I would go with Colorado Springs and the surrounding area as prime targets.
Is this the area with the break-away polygamists (like Jeffs, for instance)?

The FLDS (Fundamentalist Church of Latter Day Saints) got its start/nexus on the Arizon-Utah border, AFIK. Then they moved some of their compounds to Idaho and Texas, and Canada.

Some parts of Colorado are where the Neo-Nazis and white separatists are, and the people who think the Apocalypse is coming, right?


Matthew Morris wrote:
Indeed, until the rights of another are impeeded, you're allowed to believe whatever, just believe something (and yes, all you athiests, you believe something, you believe there's no divine).

No actually, your quite totally wrong. Atheism isn't a beleive, sure fanatically athiest people who don't beleive religion is a good thing are fanatic, but so are people who don't beleive socialism/republican governance/taxation are good things, that doesn't make opposing those concepts a religion.

Its understandable, that religious people would see athiesm as a religion, but its not. It's like saying bald is a hair colour.

Athiests don't believe there is a god, many athiests don't even think its a question of any validity, like are there morlocks under the earth, or fairies in the garden. It's not that I beleive there isn't a god, and the difference there is important, If I don't believe the question of the divine is valid or relaistic, thats athiesm.

If I actively disbeleive God, I'm implying I beleive there is an absence of Divine entity, so that would theoetically be a religion. Athiesm is not a religion, nor a faith, nor a 'beleif'.

And if it is so then is ever thought and concept is, I know 2+2=4, that's not a religion. Beleiving String Theory before reliable proof is more of a religion than athiesm.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Matthew Morris wrote:
Paul Watson wrote:


Why the jab at atheists, by the way? Is there some sort of atheist campaign to outlaw all religions in the USA that I'm unaware of?

It wasn't meant as a jab (text stripping context) I've just met too many athiests who say they don't have any faith, because they don't beleive in a higher power. Um... you have faith that there's no higher power and that guides your actions.

I think that might be because the atheists you've met are sick and tired of people following the following logic chain:

Belief in no God=belief.
Belief=faith.
Faith=Organised religion.

In this context, atheists don't have a faith. They might have faith, but not a faith if that makes sense.


Matthew Morris wrote:

I've never understood the 'I admire Jesus but he's not the Son of God' I think CS Lewis summed it up best, (paraphrase)"Either Jesus was the Son of God, or a lunatic."

Or maybe he was just an itinerant preacher who's followers got the Elvis Sighting syndrome or started exaggerating the tale a bit each time they passed it on after he died.

Personally, I never understood why conservatives admire a guy who told everyone to turn the other cheek and give their money away to the poor :)


Obbligato wrote:
Matthew Morris wrote:

I've never understood the 'I admire Jesus but he's not the Son of God' I think CS Lewis summed it up best, (paraphrase)"Either Jesus was the Son of God, or a lunatic."

Or maybe he was just an itinerant preacher who's followers got the Elvis Sighting syndrome or started exaggerating the tale a bit each time they passed it on after he died.

It's significantly more complicated than that. I'll try to find Lewis's original statement, he explains it very well.


Obbligato wrote:
Personally, I never understood why conservatives admire a guy who told everyone to turn the other cheek and give their money away to the poor :)

Especially the Prosperity or Green-Cloth sects...

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Crimson Jester wrote:
[referring to Nativity displays]I see no reason to not use local monies to put up a small and tasteful Christmas displays. Just as I see no reason not to give the day off to most employees for spending time with their families .

Would you have a problem if they used it to establish similar displays for Eid? Or the Solstices? Or any other religious festival for any religion (including Satanism)? That's the problem. Very few people have a problem with the government doing 'small, tasteful displays ' for their religion (although small and tasteful can vary widely in their meaning), but do you feel the same way about the government spending your money to commemorate other religions?


*kicks* Ghost posts


Garydee wrote:


I don't think anybody here said that they want the separation and state to be abolished.

Not explicitly, but in the past I've heard plenty of people who start in arguing that America is a Christian country and the founding fathers were Christians, not Diests and go on in the next breath to claim that the separation of church and state is a myth propagated by liberals and secular humanists...so I have to wonder.


Crimson Jester wrote:
I see no reason to not use local monies to put up a small and tasteful Christmas displays. Just as I see no reason not to give the day off to most employees for spending time with their families.

Because it is still using government money to fund religious speech?

Seriously, I'm not seeing any ambiguity here. Help me out?


Obbligato wrote:


Personally, I never understood why conservatives admire a guy who told everyone to turn the other cheek and give their money away to the poor :)

False sterotype much? The facts. Besides Jesus told us to do it, not leave it to the government to do.

Emphasis mine.


I think many atheists take exception to the use of the word "faith" (belief without proof). I know I do.

And before we go down the "brain in a vat" rat-hole, when I say proof I mean clear preponderance of the evidence.


<cough>and because it can be a taxable deduction</cough>


vagrant-poet wrote:


Its understandable, that religious people would see athiesm as a religion, but its not. It's like saying bald is a hair colour.

According to the DMV and the FBI it is a hair color.


Thurgon wrote:
I think being allowed to vote based on whatever personal beliefs you have is the very fundation of democracy, being resricted as to where you can get those beliefs is actually to my mind damaging to democracy as a whole.

That's my point, and Matthew's as well. There's NO restriction on where you get your beliefs -- the restriction is on what you DO with them (e.g., enshrine them into law for everyone else to be required to practice, thus restricting where their beliefs come from).

Matthew's reply a couple of posts down from yours is almost exactly the reply I'd have given if I'd seen it first.


Urizen wrote:
<cough>and because it can be a taxable deduction</cough>

Funny thing, it still doesn't explain why the cold hearted bastards are more generous with their money than the soft hearted, caring people. Maybe some people just find it harder to share their own money then they do other peoples.


Dragonstorm is dead on. People need to practice what they preach.

One possibility is that liberals who personally give less are busy trying to change the laws so that the government gives more, but to my mind they're misguided in that, and would be better off putting their money where their mouths are.

Liberty's Edge

Urizen wrote:
<cough>and because it can be a taxable deduction</cough>

Well, you have to actually pay taxes before you can take a deduction. Geithner, Dodd, Daschle and Rangel would look silly trying to get a tax deduction when they didn't bother to pay taxes in the first place :)


Drachesturm wrote:
Funny thing, it still doesn't explain why the cold hearted bastards are more generous with their money than the soft hearted, caring people. Maybe some people just find it harder to share their own money then they do other peoples.

As a cold hearted bastard, I take offense to that. ;)

But seriously, it's not the amount that counts; it's the sincerity of the action that matter; whether it be down to your last penny or an amount of your time helping out those in need.

But the cynicist in me sometimes feel that some people do it out of earning their imagined proper seating in heaven when it's time to cash in the chips w/ St. Pete.


vagrant-poet wrote:


No actually, your quite totally wrong. Atheism isn't a beleive...

Actually it is. It's basic logic: a nonbelief is a belief.

I do not believe X = I believe ~X.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

Paul Watson wrote:
Matthew Morris wrote:
Paul Watson wrote:


Why the jab at atheists, by the way? Is there some sort of atheist campaign to outlaw all religions in the USA that I'm unaware of?

It wasn't meant as a jab (text stripping context) I've just met too many athiests who say they don't have any faith, because they don't beleive in a higher power. Um... you have faith that there's no higher power and that guides your actions.

I think that might be because the atheists you've met are sick and tired of people following the following logic chain:

Belief in no God=belief.
Belief=faith.
Faith=Organised religion.

In this context, atheists don't have a faith. They might have faith, but not a faith if that makes sense.

As a self described Henotheistic Lutheran Heritic, it makes perfect sense, and is how I understand it. :-)


Drachesturm wrote:
Urizen wrote:
<cough>and because it can be a taxable deduction</cough>
Funny thing, it still doesn't explain why the cold hearted bastards are more generous with their money than the soft hearted, caring people. Maybe some people just find it harder to share their own money then they do other peoples.

The whole point is (of course) that many would take exception to what constitues "their money" to begin with. Can we agree that everyone understands the basic position of each side without having to keep reiterating it?


Drachesturm wrote:
vagrant-poet wrote:


Its understandable, that religious people would see athiesm as a religion, but its not. It's like saying bald is a hair colour.
According to the DMV and the FBI it is a hair color.

I think your missing the point here, that was an example, heres another invisible isn't a color, empty space isn't a planet, no trees isn't a type of tree and absence does not a forest make, the semantic quibble I made a point of was not considering the question of, or naot having believe, and beleiving there is no God. Athiests are the first.

Drachesturm wrote:
Urizen wrote:

<cough>and because it can be a taxable deduction</cough>

Funny thing, it still doesn't explain why the cold hearted bastards are more generous with their money than the soft hearted, caring people. Maybe some people just find it harder to share their own money then they do other peoples.

Firstly I beleive its the same us vs. them nonsense to imply that it would be silly for conservatives to be more charitable than democrats. no matter which way that statistic swung, who cares what political party they were? Wouldn't it be better to simply say how many americans give to charity? That actually means something.

That said, the sharper you reply to such things, the more you look like the bad guy.

Liberty's Edge

bugleyman wrote:
Drachesturm wrote:
Urizen wrote:
<cough>and because it can be a taxable deduction</cough>
Funny thing, it still doesn't explain why the cold hearted bastards are more generous with their money than the soft hearted, caring people. Maybe some people just find it harder to share their own money then they do other peoples.
The whole point is (of course) that many would take exception to what constitues "their money" to begin with. Can we agree that everyone understands the basic position of each side without having to keep reiterating it?

My Money: What I have earned or inherited.

Not your money: see above.


Drachesturm wrote:
vagrant-poet wrote:


No actually, your quite totally wrong. Atheism isn't a beleive...

Actually it is. It's basic logic: a nonbelief is a belief.

I do not believe X = I believe ~X.

I do not believe in X = I believe not in X?

Syntax error. Does not compute.


Matthew Morris wrote:
As a self described Henotheistic Lutheran Heritic, it makes perfect sense, and is how I understand it. :-)

That cracked me up. :D


Urizen wrote:


But seriously, it's not the amount that counts; it's the sincerity of the action that matter; whether it be down to your last penny or an amount of your time helping out those in need.

But then the question becomes who appointed you the judge of a persons sincerity? You took it upon yourself to decide that conservatives who donate money to charities, most of whom I would guess you have never met, are not sincere in their actions. How can you know that? And personally, I believe it's the fact that the poor get helped that matters, not the motivation.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

Kirth Gersen wrote:
Thurgon wrote:
I think being allowed to vote based on whatever personal beliefs you have is the very fundation of democracy, being resricted as to where you can get those beliefs is actually to my mind damaging to democracy as a whole.

That's my point, and Matthew's as well. There's NO restriction on where you get your beliefs -- the restriction is on what you DO with them (e.g., enshrine them into law for everyone else to be required to practice, thus restricting where their beliefs come from).

Matthew's reply a couple of posts down from yours is almost exactly the reply I'd have given if I'd seen it first.

Should those folks in Colorado be scared? This must be a sign of the end times, you and I agreeing.

Liberty's Edge

vagrant-poet wrote:

Firstly I beleive its the same us vs. them nonsense to imply that it would be silly for conservatives to be more charitable than democrats. no matter which way that statistic swung, who cares what political party they were? Wouldn't it be better to simply say how many americans give to charity? That actually means something.

That said, the sharper you reply to such things, the more you look like the bad guy.

First of all, the "us v. them" "nonsense" the article is refuting is generated by the American political Left. And has been perpetuated on these boards ad nauseum. To wit, that conservatives are uncaring selfish bastards because they feel that giving government money that government has proven time and time again that they will fritter and waste inefficiently isn't a great idea. But giving money to charitable organizations, which tend to be much more efficient and better at getting a lion's share of contributions to the end recipients is a good idea.

Second of all, where was your defense of the conservatives when they were called selfish greedy bastards, ad nauseum, on these boards?


Drachesturm wrote:
But then the question becomes who appointed you the judge of a persons sincerity? You took it upon yourself to decide that conservatives who donate money to charities, most of whom I would guess you have never met, are not sincere in their actions. How can you know that? And personally, I believe it's the fact that the poor get helped that matters, not the motivation.

I don't necessarily single out conservatives. Who really knows who is sincere in their actions. But the more that I see it presented out openly, the more I become cynical about it as the need to draw to attention how generous they are.

The Exchange

Urizen wrote:
Crimson Jester wrote:


If I had to blame one region I would go with Colorado Springs and the surrounding area as prime targets.
Is this the area with the break-away polygamists (like Jeffs, for instance)?

No US Airforce Academy and it is the Home of most if not all of the Biggest Mega Churches in the country.


Drachesturm wrote:
vagrant-poet wrote:


No actually, your quite totally wrong. Atheism isn't a beleive...

Actually it is. It's basic logic: a nonbelief is a belief.

I do not believe X = I believe ~X.

Qualifier: I am not trying to be snarky.

But, did you actually read the rest of my post, or just pick up on that bit? If not, I made it pretty clear why it isn't actually a beleive, or a faith.

That's right, it's not even a beleive. Because an athiest doesn't consider religion, and the question of the existance thereof, any more valid than the question will I fly to work this morning with my super powers? Or should I purchase some spray for the magical elves in my teapot?

Now, I'm not actively trying to ridicule religion, who can beleive whatever the hell you want, put beleive requires an absence of proof. There is no absence of proof for the non-existance of the divine, because it is not a concept which is provable, thusly is not 'beleif', and by the shoddy logic which is casual inference, (the backbone of the athiesm is a faith argument), if not a beleif, not a faith, then not a religion.

Liberty's Edge

Urizen wrote:
Drachesturm wrote:
But then the question becomes who appointed you the judge of a persons sincerity? You took it upon yourself to decide that conservatives who donate money to charities, most of whom I would guess you have never met, are not sincere in their actions. How can you know that? And personally, I believe it's the fact that the poor get helped that matters, not the motivation.
I don't necessarily single out conservatives. Who really knows who is sincere in their actions. But the more that I see it presented out openly, the more I become cynical about it as the need to draw to attention how generous they are.

Well, if you're called a greedy heartless douche enough times by Lefties, I can see someone saying "um, wait a second, a!$*#*~, what the f!!$ have YOU done, other than try to use other people's money to make your conscience feel better?"

The Exchange

Obbligato wrote:
Matthew Morris wrote:

I've never understood the 'I admire Jesus but he's not the Son of God' I think CS Lewis summed it up best, (paraphrase)"Either Jesus was the Son of God, or a lunatic."

Or maybe he was just an itinerant preacher who's followers got the Elvis Sighting syndrome or started exaggerating the tale a bit each time they passed it on after he died.

Personally, I never understood why conservatives admire a guy who told everyone to turn the other cheek and give their money away to the poor :)

Perhaps you need to read it in context then.


houstonderek wrote:
Well, if you're called a greedy heartless douche enough times by Lefties, I can see someone saying "um, wait a second, a#@#!*%, what the f~&& have YOU done, other than try to use other people's money to make your conscience feel better?"

Now that's giving greedy heartless douches a bad rap. :P


vagrant-poet wrote:

Firstly I beleive its the same us vs. them nonsense to imply that it would be silly for conservatives to be more charitable than democrats. no matter which way that statistic swung, who cares what political party they were? Wouldn't it be better to simply say how many americans give to charity? That actually means something.

That said, the sharper you reply to such things, the more you look like the bad guy.

Fair enough, but at the same time I was simply rebutting claims that conservatives are hypocrites for following the teachings of Christ because they do not care about helping the poor. That is demonstrably false, and I pointed that out. The second claim was that all conservatives who donate to charity did so for selfish reasons, whic can not be demonstrated as true by the poster, so I pointed that out as well and that even if there was such selfishness involved, it still doesn't explain the dichotomy between those who supposedly don't care about the poor but donate a lot to charities to help them and those who supposedly do care about the poor but don't donate as much of their own money to help the poor. It may be more of us vs. them, but us didn't start it, we just stood up for our selves.

Finally the bad guy is always going to be determined from the point of view you are coming from. Tom Brady may be a great guy, but as a Ravens fan he is always going to be the bad guy, especially when he is at his best.

The Exchange

bugleyman wrote:

What I find so odd is the marriage between fiscal and social conservatism. If one takes a "Randian" view (sorry, made up word), often considered a cornerstone of conservative thought, then the link to social conservatism becomes particularly difficult to understand.

In short: Why does religion have any place in this conversation? It's unrelated to classic conservatism (at least as I understand it).

Of course, it's possible that I'm way off base. Anyone care to explain?

Edit: Speaking of Rand, has anyone here read Atlas Shrugged? Though I have a vague feeling that the book may amount to what I consider begging the question, the title is so evocative that I'm tempted nonetheless. Anyone have any thoughts on it's literary merit (aside from political ideology)?

The founders knew that a new goverment would need to be put in place once they declared independence from the Crown. Their choices was to choose from one of the many tried models of governtment from around the world that had been devised by man. Try to come up with a government of thier own devise, or turn to Gods word in the Bible. God tells Samuel how he wants his people to govern themselves and the founding fathers followed the model set forth in the scripture. So the basis of conservatism is the original intent of the founders wich was institutions and traditions inspired by Gods teachings directly taken from the Bible

Liberty's Edge

Urizen wrote:
houstonderek wrote:
Well, if you're called a greedy heartless douche enough times by Lefties, I can see someone saying "um, wait a second, a#@#!*%, what the f~&& have YOU done, other than try to use other people's money to make your conscience feel better?"
Now that's giving greedy heartless douches a bad rap. :P

To quote Efrim Jankowitz, Fourth grade philosopher and poet:

"I know you are, but what am I?"

Profound, that young scion of the Jankowitz line.

;P

;)

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

Urizen wrote:
Drachesturm wrote:
vagrant-poet wrote:


No actually, your quite totally wrong. Atheism isn't a beleive...

Actually it is. It's basic logic: a nonbelief is a belief.

I do not believe X = I believe ~X.

I do not believe in X = I believe not in X?

Syntax error. Does not compute.

ok, we're having fundamental language problems here.

Per Dictionary.com: a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

If you deny the existance of a supreme being or beings, you believe there's no such thing.

The same as not believing there's a Santa.


houstonderek wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
Drachesturm wrote:
Urizen wrote:
<cough>and because it can be a taxable deduction</cough>
Funny thing, it still doesn't explain why the cold hearted bastards are more generous with their money than the soft hearted, caring people. Maybe some people just find it harder to share their own money then they do other peoples.
The whole point is (of course) that many would take exception to what constitues "their money" to begin with. Can we agree that everyone understands the basic position of each side without having to keep reiterating it?

My Money: What I have earned or inherited.

Not your money: see above.

I guess not. :(

301 to 350 of 1,568 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / What Conservatives Believe All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.