Conservatism

The question I have is how traditional do you get with Conservatism? Do you reduce womans rights, segregate races, bring back slavery, stone gay people to death?

What values does conservatism have in the modern age? Society marches on, and the conservatives lose every tug of war with social progress.

Why bother?

conservatives do what has worked in the past.

conservatives believe christianity is good for society.

conservatives are for government as small as possible.

conservatives believe in letting the market work.

conservatives value “do your duty” above “follow your heart.”

conservatives believe freedom is more important than equality.

that answre your question?

i aggree with Salle. “freedom is more important than equality” “government as small as possible”.

But my only problem about conservatism is christianity. I am not religious. Even though i still think that the main principles and values of christianity are important and right.

And even if i disbelieve in God, i am convinced about the correctness of conservatism.

so you might be considered pro-christian, i.e. not a believer in the theology but rather in the values.

it’s intelligent to realize that christianity has been a net gain for humanity, without even considering the theology behind it.

yes, that was my idea; it can be told that i am an atheistic conservative

Sometimes a christian person just talk about his belief in christianity, but acts something other.

You don´t have to believe in God to be convinced about stealing is not rihgt, to be convinced about being fair and to respect universal valid principles.

For a believer it is easier – he refers to the existence of God that established this moral rules.

“i am an atheistic conservative” I think it is perhaps more logical, especially at a fairly young age, to be agnostic, as opposed to atheist, because to be atheist is to believe in a negative, i.e. that there is no god.

it’s easier to believe in something, or at least to keep one’s options open, than to believe in nothing.

but at least we agree that conservatism is a good ideology.

“Sometimes a christian person just talk about his belief in christianity, but acts something other”

as dennis prager says, this just means the person is human. (familiar with prager? if not, google his name; he’s a los angeles radio talk show host.)

christians (and conservatives) tend to have higher standards than non-christians (and liberals).

it’s better to have high standards to reach for and, being human, occasionally fall short, than to have low standards or no standards.

anti-christians (those who are actively against christianity) are quick to blame christianity for everything bad that happens in a mostly christian society (like the USA ).

if they do that, then to be fair, they should be just as quick to blame every other ideology (or lack of one) for everything bad that happens in every society.

for example, if something bad happens to an anti-christian, he might say, “I don’t believe in god; or if he exists, then I hate him. because if he exists, why would he let this terrible thing happen to me?”

then if something good happens, the same person may say, “how lucky I am! what a big and fortunate coincidence!”

in other words, the person is blaming god (and/or christianity) for what goes wrong, but doesn’t give god any credit when things go right.

“You don´t have to believe in God to be convinced about stealing is not rihgt”

true.

but I would say that at least part of society must believe in god for there to be good in the world.

if no one believed in god, then society would be amoral, immoral, dark, and chaotic.

this is sort of a “trickle down” theory: all wisdom and most goodness comes from religion, especially christianity (and its antecedent judaism).

there are many good people who aren’t christians (or religious jews), but to a certain extent their goodness and their ability to be good, comes from christianity.

“universal valid principles”

judeo-christian values should be universal (i.e. followed be everyone) because they are the best values.

no other ideology has produced values as good or complete as the judeo-christian ideology.

“For a believer it is easier – he refers to the existence of God that established this moral rules”

yes, it’s true that in a way, it is easier for christians.

the great filmmaker ingmar bergman is an example of someone who recognizes the advantages of christian belief but who has a difficult time believing.

american filmmaker woody allen has expressed the same angst, but usually in a more comedic way.

also, woody allen has shown in his lifestyle choices that he has rejected judeo-christian values.

(I am referring to his getting romantically involved with his step-daughter.)

People don’t get there morals from the bible. owl233/biblequotes.htm”>http://home.earthlink.net/owl233/biblequotes.htm

Obviously you don’t believe in slavery. You don’t believe in putting homosexuals, adulterers, people who have pre-marital sex and people who work on Sunday to death. These are all in the bible. How do you know what is right and wrong in the bible? It’s all dependant on your environment and the time you were born in. Society fosters a moral compass.

I think one of the main reasons is that Christians talk so much crap, and can not listen to any reason or evidence is that they are told everything in the bible is true. We have come so far in 2000 years that the bible is so massively obsolete. So many things have been disproven in the bible, that you don’t have much left. And so you have the most skewed unhealthy perspectives from Christians. They are so out of touch of reality that you could class it as mass insanity. Its a cult.

There is nothing I could say that would change your mind. Understandably you can’t because it is your psychological foundation, there’s nothing there to catch you if it was taken away.

But we’ll just mark you as crazy and incompetent anyway. No point in wading through your manure.

conservatives do what has worked in the past.

Things keep changing. Sometimes that idea works, sometimes it doesn’t.

conservatives believe christianity is good for society.

As I have commented elsewhere, christianity is destructive.

conservatives are for government as small as possible.

Wow agreement. I wish George W believed it.

conservatives believe in letting the market work.

Too loaded. It does and it doesn’t. I’m a realistic capitalist.

conservatives value “do your duty” above “follow your heart.”

Dangerous. Mindless. Follow your head.

conservatives believe freedom is more important than equality.

Freedom and Equality have different meanings for different people to make both words meaningless.

I believe freedom can be summed up as “live and let live”, and equality maybe as “the best person for the job?”. Equality is a hard one, as I said I think it could be meaningless.

“Obviously you don’t believe in slavery. You don’t believe in putting homosexuals, adulterers, people who have pre-marital sex and people who work on Sunday to death. These are all in the bible. How do you know what is right and wrong in the bible?”

That is a good question, and it deserves a good answer.

First let me preface my answer by saying that I had a lunch last week with an acquaintance, David, an American soldier. we had lunch on his marine base. David mentioned to me a few obsolete and silly laws that are still on the books in every American state. (you know, laws that were written before cars were invented, laws that might require landowners to own horses, or whatever.)

After he gets out of the military, david plans to go into politics and eliminate some of these obsolete laws in his home state (new york).

I remarked to David that while this may be fun pet project, it should definitely not be on his main platform because it’s simply not that important: no one is in any real danger of any of these obsolete laws being enforced, because of something called precedent.

If, for instance, some jerk tried to make trouble for his neighbor by bringing up some obsolete law that required his neighbor to buy a horse, the defense would point out that this law has not been enforced since 1914 (or whenever).

So this is my answer to your question about the Bible:

1. Not all parts of the Bible have the same emphasis or priority. Some of the Bible is history, including all the barbaric and obsolete aspects of history. A few special parts of the Bible, however, are more important, are meant as commandments. for instance (speaking of “commandments”): the Ten Commandments. Also jesus’s sermon on the mount.

2. to assist us in discerning which parts of the Bible are the most important, we all should talk to those followers of the bible (christians and religious jews) who are 1) the most virtuous (generous, kind, intelligent, etc); and 2) the happiest. These people have studied the Bible as deeply and thoroughly as anyone, and have every appearance of having gotten “the best” out of it.

Of course we should also talk to other types of bible scholars (those who are not religious, those who regard the bible as nothing more than literature, etc).

But we should certainly not neglect those who follow the bible religiously, who are good people and good citizens, and who are happiest, because, as I said, they have gotten the best out of the bible.

Well, I meant to spend more time on this, but I have to run out and teach a class.

sincerely, Salle

salle: “conservatives are for government as small as possible.”

Jojo: “Wow agreement”

I’m sincerely happy we’ve found common ground.

Jojo: “I wish George W believed it.”

He does. Please compare the proposed budgets of bush’s last two presidential opponents, gore and kerry; gore and kerry’s proposed budgets dwarf bush’s actual budget. One rule of thumb is: If you’re for smaller govt, vote for the republican. Because even a republican who spends more than he should (as bush did) is better in this regard than a democrat.

If you’re not for bush that means there are things more important to you than small govt.

Salle: “conservatives believe in letting the market work.”

Jojo: “Too loaded. It does and it doesn’t”

Where does the market work and where doesn’t it? (don’t know what you mean by ‘loaded’)

How do you reconcile your desire for small govt with your rejection of the statement, “let the market work”?

Salle: ‘conservatives value “do your duty” above “follow your heart.”’

Jojo: “Dangerous. Mindless.”

I was merely describing one of the fundamental differences between conservatives and liberals. How is describing something dangerous? How is it mindless?

Or were you criticizing the conservative value of “do your duty”? if so, how is “do your duty” dangerous and mindless?

Jojo: “Follow your head”

If you’re saying “follow your head” is a better value than the liberal value of “follow your heart,” then we have another point of agreement. :)

And that means we’ve together identified two ways in which you stray from the liberal mainstream: you’re for small govt and you don’t value “follow your heart.”

How do you reconcile the fact that those who fervently follow the dictum “follow your heart” over “do your duty” are in agreement with you on most major issues (i.e. are liberal like you)?

If you’re for small govt and you don’t value “follow your heart,” then president bush is your man.

If president bush is NOT your man, that means there are things more important to you than small govt and rejecting “follow your heart.”

Salle: “conservatives believe freedom is more important than equality”

Jojo: “Freedom and Equality have different meanings for different people to make both words meaningless.”

You have mentioned several times that my statements are superficial. I submit that my statements are more substantive, profound, and deep than are yours.

I’m not here talking about whose ideas are more accurate or correct; I’m referring to the depth, profundity, and substantiveness of my statements versus yours.

You may say, in other words, that my statements are incorrect, but if you do, you have to admit that my statements are incorrect ON A DEEP LEVEL .

I submit my statements are certainly not less substantive than your statements.

An example: my above-quoted statement “conservatives believe freedom is more important than equality.” That implies that freedom and equality are related. It further implies that having more of one means having less of the other; and that emphasizing one means de-emphasizing the other.

If implication wasn’t explicit enough, I hereby now state it explicitly: freedom and equality are related, and having more of one means having less of the other.

Your response indicates this has never occurred to you.

I submit that this indicates that perhaps it is you who are the more superficial thinker on this forum page. (Note that I’m not saying you don’t have native intelligence and good intentions.)

It’s not advisable to reflexively reject that statement (or any of my statements) out of hand.

Your point about the bible is fair, but you are defending a minority who read it this way. The majority of Americans believe literally in Genesis, which is destructive and subversive for science. A minority read the bible literally, protest gay soldier deaths, and do other horrid things. The The Koran has similar issues, except they fly planes into buildings and do even worse acts than that of Christians. This is like communism, fascism, nationalism, patriotism – its all dogma, except the problem is that ‘good christians’ are the PR for all the bad christians.

There is an eloquent way that Richard Dawkins in ‘God Delusion’ describes agnosticism. And it ain’t too nice. Atheists agree that a-theism is a silly word, because it allows theism to become the standard. God makes sense for the human psyche – with our intelligence we need to believe we are eternal (everyone fears death). It’s easy to explain away something that is not understood – too god. But god got a big smackdown in the last century due to science and psychology. And the little places he exists (in understanding) are slowly getting whittled down to nothing. But us Atheists don’t have to disprove god – the believers have to prove him, and so far he’s no where.

In regards to standards – It is important to have high standards – but you have to know where to apply these standards. Having a high standard in your work is a virtue and achievable. Having a high standards in education, relationship and financial is important. Same with aesthetics and a bunch of other things. Some standards are impossible for human psychology. e.g pre-marital sex, sexuality, doing work on the sabbath, etc. Some you have no choice e.g murder. I was reading a study made by a Christian institute (maybe Templeton), that Christians are less moral (in terms of actions, not what they thought) than secular. It was the unreasonably high standard set by the bible, that made them ‘sin’ more. Secular people don’t have that pressure, and they realize we are just human. Very surprising results, which got buried. I wish I could find it again.

kerry’s proposed budgets dwarf bush’s actual budget

You know that is not true. Bushes War Budget has been a massive blowout.

Where does the market work and where doesn’t it? (don’t know what you mean by ‘loaded’)

Loaded as there isn’t just one market, there are many, and the expectations we have in the market. I’m involved in a few markets – the stock market, internet/telecommunication markets, export markets. I do well in these markets. A majority of people can find the labor market (employment) very unfair. There is a race to the bottom in the labor market due to international cheap labor. And I understand not everyone can do what I do. Markets can also collapse. Capitalism can no survive if there is no continuous growth. It is logical to assume that if we don’t get off this planet we will hit that wall.

How do you reconcile your desire for small govt with your rejection of the statement, “let the market work”?

Sometimes government works better than the market, and a lot of times the market works better than the government. Lets not be dogmatic here.

One problem with Government is that if departments don’t ask for bigger budgets every year they will get cut down the following year. So you get problems like people being employed to do nothing. It’s ridiculous. If you can manage that, you could have much smaller government.

Government works in things like health. In Australia, health has become more privatized. In the process, the total percentage of GDP spending went up by twice on health. I don’t know why but the public system seems to be quite efficient by itself when it is government controlled.

Define freedom and equality. What kind of freedom? Freedom from harm? Live and let live? Market freedom? Freedom of consumer choice? Freedom to bomb countries? Freedom for some can mean restrictions for others.

Equality? Equality of outcome? Equality of opportunity?

Or were you criticizing the conservative value of “do your duty”? if so, how is “do your duty” dangerous and mindless?

When you have ‘leaders’ that are out for themselves – and the country follows them, without thought. Or are on a destructive path – e.g the German people not standing up to Hitler – they where doing there duty and being patriotic. Same with George W and Iraq.

Critical thinking, collecting evidence is the cure for stupidity. Follow your head, if you have one. Heart is for other nice things.

How do you reconcile the fact that those who fervently follow the dictum “follow your heart” over “do your duty” are in agreement with you on most major issues (i.e. are liberal like you)?

I stated that I don’t like breaking things down into liberal/conservative dichotomy. Just so you understand the political sphere is much bigger than that. The conservative is a authoritarian capitalist. The american liberal is a moderate. The European liberal is socialistic. Ghandi/Chomsky are Libertarian Socialists (Anarchists). Anne Rand is a Libertarian Capitalist. The Liberal Party in Australia is actually like the American Republicans. They are ‘liberal’ towards the economy, and ‘conservative’ towards social values. Politics is not a dichotomy it is splintered and very different all over the world.

I appreciate social values, and I appreciate the spirit of socialism. But the reality is I am a capitalist. At the moment I run on the same values as American libertarian with strong environmental beliefs. One day capitalism may collapse, and a sustainable libertarian socialistic system might replace it, which I would be happy to participate in.

But one thing is I will never be socially conservative, or support any kind of dogma.

Great article that sums up the philosophy of conservatism

A reflection of the philosophy that Salle puts forward, and why he has so little support.

I just found this brilliant site: Conservapedia

It’s edited by Christian Conservatives and provides a “fair and balanced view” to Wikipedia liberal lies.

It is universally loved – Conservatives now have a serious encyclopedic resource to call their own, and the rest of us can have a great laugh.

it’s the nature of liberals not to understand evil, which is why they are anti-military.

Odd statement. But perfect none the less.

We want to understand ‘evil’ psychologically or in its political context. Any thinking person would.

When they hanged Saddam, I thought, what a pity, they could have got a whole bunch of psychologists to understand him and learn what went on in his sick little head. They could have mapped a whole psychological profile. And from that profile, you could prevent the same kind of people entering politics in any other country. I bet people like Bush or Cheney would have a hard time getting into power if we could profile them in much the same way. They’re all fascists. Why put bums in jails when you could prevent the real crimes against humanity?

Its odd. You have a real hard-on for power, force, military, war. What ever happened to “thou shall not kill”. You know ten commandments? I guess you pick and choose your morality. Moral relativism?

I totally forgot about this:

You have mentioned several times that my statements are superficial. I submit that my statements are more substantive, profound, and deep than are yours.

Brilliant. You statements are so profound and incredible – they mean everything and yet at the same time nothing. It’s like the voice of god. :)

I think I found a reason for your war lust Salle: Research links some scriptures to hostile acts

Religious teachings promote violence!

“You have a real hard-on for power, force, military, war. What ever happened to “thou shall not kill”. You know ten commandments?”

history lesson for you: check out the entry on this website for the ten commandments; note the picture of the two purple tablets which list the ten commandments; note that none of the commandments is “thou shall not kill”

From Wikipedia:

Older protestant translations of the bible, those based on the Vulgate and Roman Catholic translations usually have “Thou shalt not kill”, whereas Jewish and newer protestant versions tend to “You shall not murder”. There is controversy as to which translation is more faithful, and both forms are quoted in support of ethical standpoints, often without realising they are controversial.

It’s difficult to engage in dialog with Jojo and Vano due to their immaturity: incivility, rudeness, over-emotionalism, hostility, ad hominem attacks, childishness, profanity, and obscenity. :(

Salle, it is undeniable that much of conservatism is flawed due to conservatives’ tendencies to provide archaic solutions to resolve problems of constantly evolving, even evanescent modern societies. Furthermore, much of the moralities of conservatism are purely ghosts of subjective opinions of a society that is, and quite frankly, should be long dead. For instance, the opposition to stem cell research is often attributed to conservative beliefs of the sanctity of life. Obviously, this opinion is flawed. Conservatism and the inevitable deontological views it provokes holds that it is immoral to kill something, whereas it is not immoral to allow something living to “meet its destiny”. With a rising number of paradoxical afflictions, and so many desperately dependent on stem cell research for a cure, this humanity that conservatism advocates cannot must be relinquished for a functional society. Though conserative intentions are inherently benevolent, many repercussions from observing conservatism are indirectly malicious. We can no longer fabricate this superficial sympathy for an almost inanimate embryo because in doing so, many will not only die, but suffer. Death…that brings me to the next point. Much of conservatism, contrary to your opinion, inhibits the freedoms wich are, or should be endowed by birth. Conservative parents often promote high censorship in the media. While this protects children, we must consider the cost of this so-called protection. Because conservative views mandate the condemnation of sex and violence, ignorance, fear, curiousity, among other adversities are elicited. Children are born into the world and live their lives ignorant of, and fearing integral parts of life itself. Sex, love, violence, and death are all profound and believe it or not beneficial components of human nature. I grant that conservatism has benefitted societies in the past, but you must realize that this strict stranglehold on morality has created many malicious deviants desecrating society today. No one has the right to tell humans to act contrary to their instinctive aspirations. No exceptions. Historically, oppresion has promoted revolution and much of the tribulations of contemporary society is a consequence of the suppression of humanity itself. Conservatism has benefitted archaic cultures, and it should die with them, like beliefs of today will with this culture, so our posterity can continue without the encumerance of upholding absurd antiquities of their ancestors’ ideals.

Salle, I’ve only been direct and backed up my assertions with evidence. The truth is often abrupt and offensive.

“I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it’s hell.” – Harry Truman

I agree. I’m sorry, Salle, but I think you may be the over-emotional one. Arguments made on these “forums” are comprised of legitimate logical statements. Debates do not consist of flattery and euphemism like conversations; debate is a kind of war. Your indictment acknowledges the veracity of your opponents’ contentions and implies that you expect all parties’ “style” deviate slightly to facilitate civility and superficial courtesy. To reiterate, a debate is a brutally logical war of facts. Please don’t treat it like a leisurely class discussion.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/03/29/brooks/index.html

Conservatism == Totalitarianism

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/index.php?term=pto-20061222-000001&page=1

“All people are born alike-except Republicans and Democrats,” quipped Groucho Marx, and in fact it turns out that personality differences between liberals and conservatives are evident in early childhood. In 1969, Berkeley professors Jack and Jeanne Block embarked on a study of childhood personality, asking nursery school teachers to rate children’s temperaments. They weren’t even thinking about political orientation.

Twenty years later, they decided to compare the subjects’ childhood personalities with their political preferences as adults. They found arresting patterns. As kids, liberals had developed close relationships with peers and were rated by their teachers as self-reliant, energetic, impulsive, and resilient. People who were conservative at age 23 had been described by their teachers as easily victimized, easily offended, indecisive, fearful, rigid, inhibited, and vulnerable at age 3. The reason for the difference, the Blocks hypothesized, was that insecure kids most needed the reassurance of tradition and authority, and they found it in conservative politics.”

“They weren’t even thinking about political orientation”

in berkeley?

Hasty Generalisation

Before you post, check out List of fallacies

So much for neo-con fiscal responsibility

To be fair, conservatives in other countries are fiscally responsible. In Australia both parties at every level of government have been fiscally responsible. The US has no excuse.

Anyone up to see if they are really conservative:

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

I got libertarian.

Positives of letting the market work: http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=050907B

Hello USA ?