A view of conservatives, from a conservative

[Conserative Morality]

3rd and my final thing. This one will get me in a lot of trouble with the more liberal side of politics. Civil rights didn't come from man, because if they did, nothing would be civil.

Most of this was rather rambling, but this is a ridiculous claim. If you want God to protect your rights, you go on and find yourself a nice war-torn country and try that theory out.

[Liriena]

subtracting religion or any cultural beliefs from government in an attempt to create a neutral state, is not wrong, but impossible.

Which is why every nation that separated church and state has since collapsed on itself... right?

[Crezilivion]

Christianity should play a role in politics. God is a basis for quite a few people's values, subtracting religion or any cultural beliefs from government in an attempt to create a neutral state, is not wrong, but impossible.

It would be very interesting to see what a world would be like if 5% of the population had a religion and 95% of the population did not. Morality so far has been heavily influenced by religions all across the world. I do not believe you must be religious or spiritual to be moral but today even someone who is neither spiritual/religious has been influenced by those who have been influenced by religion/spirituality in some way.

[Liriena]

Actions condoned by the bible, actually.

You are referring to the Old Testament.

Which many Christians take very seriously. Young Earth Creationists, people who want to display the Ten Commandments in courtrooms, people who use fragments from the Old Testament as arguments against LGBT rights, etc.

[Knockturn Alley]

Okay so I finally read it and wish I hadn't...

so they want to provide a result that the world demands but wont let them give

Won't let them? Of course we did let them, and they screwed up so much we don't want that happening again...and of course you're allowed to help the world, that's why the Republican party still exists.

Its just, in a 21st century world, where women's rights is a huge political topic, we also take up for a culture that endorses the beating of women that are raped.

juxtaposed with:

Yet, does the love and compassion demand that you over look things that are wrong, things that are dangerous, things that cause issues? Nope, but you should reprimand in love of another person, and not in hate, and that's the things so many have failed at.

Makes no sense whatsoever...according to your messed up views in that case we should not overlook the fact that you endorse the beating of women and should justly punish you...Bazinga! as Sheldon Cooper would say.

Civil rights didn't come from man, because if they did, nothing would be civil. If we legislate morality, you push people to do the opposite, but do you over look un moral actions, nope

Bahahaha! Because if I remember correctly it was actually made by a wizened old T-Rex, passed it on to other species, and we humans came and took the credit for it. And we do not punish "un moral" (immoral was too complicated evidently) actions, we punish unlawful actions. The massive difference lies in the latter's lack of subjective nature.

To sum up, if the OP had been replaced with a handwritten scrawl of a 2 year old baby saying, "Boohoo mommy those mean bullies won't let me play!!" it would have made little difference.

[New Werpland]

subtracting religion or any cultural beliefs from government in an attempt to create a neutral state, is not wrong, but impossible.

Which is why every nation that separated church and state has since collapsed on itself... right?

I didn't say that theocracies are the only working form of government.

[Liriena]

Which is why every nation that separated church and state has since collapsed on itself... right?

I didn't say that theocracies are the only working form of government.

Indeed. You said "subtracting religion [...] from government in an attempt to create a neutral state, is not wrong, but impossible."

So, I ask again: Have nations that separated church and state (that is, subtracted religion from government in an attempt to create a neutral state) collapsed due to the impossibility inherent to their method?

[Scomagia]

Actions condoned by the bible, actually.

You are referring to the Old Testament.

That's a cop out. Many Christians take the words of the Old Testament as being a part of their faith.

[Sun Wukong]

Well OP clearly has no intention of participating in their own thread. This is just a blog-and-run, it seems.

[Scomagia]

You are referring to the Old Testament.

Which many Christians take very seriously. Young Earth Creationists, people who want to display the Ten Commandments in courtrooms, people who use fragment from the Old Testament as arguments against LGBT rights, etc.

It's easier to just pick and choose, don't ya know? When you want an excuse to hate gays, Leviticus is relevant. When you don't want to cop to your religion being okay with slavery, Leviticus suddenly isn't relevant.

[Vilatania]

Which many Christians take very seriously. Young Earth Creationists, people who want to display the Ten Commandments in courtrooms, people who use fragment from the Old Testament as arguments against LGBT rights, etc.

It's easier to just pick and choose, don't ya know? When you want an excuse to hate gays, Leviticus is relevant. When you don't want to cop to your religion being okay with slavery, Leviticus suddenly isn't relevant.

Sounds like every Christian I've ever encountered.

[Dakini]

I wanted to talk on a few thing as a Christian and conservative, that currently are things I see going on daily.

This is already beginning to diverge from the title, but okay.

1st off, separation of church and state is used and abused by both sides. In political talks, I hear a lot of more left leaning people say instead of doing dumb things like protesting over abortion and what not, why wont Christians solve world issues, like hunger and what not.

I thought this was supposed to be a thread about conservatives, not about liberals and Christians?

Well, for the record, some do, but they are hated because they are religious, Christian, in nature, which then makes them old world and un effective, so they want to provide a result that the world demands but wont let them give, so in a sense how can they do anything?

What? Please demonstrate that Christian groups who focus on feeding the poor are hated by liberals because they're Christian.

Now, even as a conservative, I don't want faith being the whole base of politics.

Which is why you start your thread about conservatives with a discussion on faith.

Faith should be a choice, not forced. Its just, even atheists, have a faith. they have a faith there is no god, as we have a faith God leads us through out life.

No, atheists do not generally have faith that there is no god. They simply lack faith in a god. Some atheists may strongly believe that there is no god, but this is not actually required for someone to be an atheist. One can also just go "meh" at the whole thing or even go "seems unlikely" and define oneself as an atheist. Don't try to drag others down to your level of belief.

So, we all have a faith in one way or another, ours just became the realization that there is more out there then just us.

Oh yes, and of course, there are also agnostics and ignostics who very explicitly do not have faith in the lack of a god.

So, what does that have to do with church and state? Why would a Texas mayor order pastors give over sermons if this old world system had no power? If this church was fake and could do nothing, why would people demand separation of church and state, which leads to my second point.

If a mayor in Texas actually ordered pastors to give some sermons (source requested), this would constitute the state imposing its will on the church. I would think this would be objectionable. Not only that, but using churches to further one's political agenda is generally a good way for a church to lose its special non-taxpaying status.

In all, I'm not actually sure what your point is here. That religion is valuable and liberals hate it? What does that have to do with your view of conservatives as a conservative?

2nd. Most Christians and conservatives are not scared, and do not have a phobia of Islam. One thing I notice, because we don't accept something, people equate it with a fear, but then when other people don't accept something, its a civil right?

The use of the -phobia suffix is not generally used to denote fear of. In this case, it's more the "irrational aversion to" meaning that's used. Also, people are not called Islamophobic because they aren't Muslim, they're called this because they're excessively prejudiced against Muslims.

And it's not just conservatives and/or Christians who get slapped with this label.

Well, I wont lie, there are some people that miss represent Christians and conservatives.

Misrepresent is one word. What does this have to do with Islam?

Its just, in a 21st century world, where women's rights is a huge political topic, we also take up for a culture that endorses the beating of women that are raped.

What the fuck does this have to do with your previous sentence? Why is this not in a separate paragraph if you're moving on to a new topic.

So, do we accept what's behind to move forward?

What does this even mean?

This is just one version of how we move forward but bring what's behind us with it and call it a future.

What?

Its not that I or any other conservative is scared of a Islamic person, its just we cant over look the bad things that are happening, the same as I can say with some people that call themselves "Christians" but have a hard time actually showing the love and compassion Christ commanded. Yet, does the love and compassion demand that you over look things that are wrong, things that are dangerous, things that cause issues? Nope, but you should reprimand in love of another person, and not in hate, and that's the things so many have failed at.

Overlook is one word. Why are we back to Islam? You shifted to women's rights briefly, verbosely said nothing about it, then you go back to Islam and now you're back to Christian compassion?

3rd and my final thing. This one will get me in a lot of trouble with the more liberal side of politics.

You can't get in trouble with "the more liberal side of politics" because politics are not people. You can get in trouble with more liberal posters, but that's not the same.

Civil rights didn't come from man, because if they did, nothing would be civil.

No. Civil rights are definitely decided by people. If you were trying to argue that human rights are inherent, that's one thing, but civil rights are a bit different.

If we legislate morality, you push people to do the opposite, but do you over look un moral actions, nope.

The word you were looking for is "immoral"; "un moral" is not a thing.

How is creating legislation to protect a person's right to vote going to push people to do the opposite?

Through out history, what was defined as civil was ever changing, is that what we would want in our nations, in our cities? To have a ever changing format of what's right and wrong, what acceptable, to only have freedom and justice if your on the side of the political party that won the most recently election.

It's not just about the political party that just won an election. As you may have noticed, in many countries the courts have a lot to do with helping push for minority rights as well, even in opposition to legislation created by members of political parties which try to deprive others of their rights.

A example of this is the recent Indiana bill, using religious freedom, discrimination occurs, and that's what religion should not be used for. My question is, do we become so secular and so accepting, that we block out groups and views that can do good, but because of the name we don't allow them to do anything?

I'm sorry, are you trying to argue that religious people who are clearly using the guise of "religious freedom" to discriminate against others to say that secularism is not a good thing? You're aware that this bill is designed to allow Christians to discriminate against gay people, right? It's not Muslims who fought for this and pressed it through, but Christians.

Also, as asinine as this bill is and as much as it shouldn't exist, fortunately, there are courts that exist to overturn that bullshit.

We allowed Islam into the 21st century with out changing a lot, all I ask is that Christians be allowed the same with out chaining their faith to meet the current political views.

Wait. So now you're saying that the legislation in Indiana is good? I'm confused.

Because, in the end, what good is faith if every other person determines it, except a unchanging standard that is the headline for what you believe in.

What? Also an* unchanging.

That's why for me, Christianity and conservative ideas, will never be split.

So finally, we get to your opinion on conservatives!

Its true, their are liberal Christians, and some liberal ideas work fine, make a good economy, make a good place to live in. Yet, its the idea of non-chaining standards, morals that help some one live a good life, and the belief that by doing this, we make things better in the hope for a brighter future. And for me, that should actually be conservatism.

First of all, you're using the wrong "it's" again. A good rule of thumb for "it's" versus "its" is that if you can replace it with "it is", you should use "it's".

I'm not sure how you can simultaneously accept that society is lacking in many regards while suggesting that keeping it that way will lead toward a brighter future. Won't that just lead to more of the same?

I know the more liberal side will hate everything I wrote her probably, but hey, I want a honest discussion, a honest view, pull apart what I said, if its the truth, it should stand firm.

The biggest problem with what you wrote is that it's totally unclear, possibly contradictory and your title is misleading.

So, my question is, the things I wrote down, should that be real conservatism, should it be accepted, in a 21st century world should Christianity play a part? Lets have a honest discussion, and lets try to keep it civil with out a lot of cursing and what not.

No. Religion has no place in politics.

[Christainville]

Well OP clearly has no intention of participating in their own thread. This is just a blog-and-run, it seems.

Actually I do, I was offline at the time.

[Christainville]

You are referring to the Old Testament.

That's a cop out. Many Christians take the words of the Old Testament as being a part of their faith.

And to be honest, they are we don't practice a lot of what the Old Testament says, animal sacrifice, etc.; yet they whole Bible is the whole Bible, and its wrong to just take out part that are useful at the time.

[Christainville]

Its just, in a 21st century world, where women's rights is a huge political topic, we also take up for a culture that endorses the beating of women that are raped.

What the fuck does this have to do with your previous sentence? Why is this not in a separate paragraph if you're moving on to a new topic.

So, do we accept what's behind to move forward?

What does this even mean?

This is just one version of how we move forward but bring what's behind us with it and call it a future.

What?


Well, look at it. Most times conservatives are called old world, or that we don't move forward, any number of things that would tie us to a old mindset of thinking. At the same time Islam is considered conservative, and practice a lot of things that we wouldn't see as alright under human right laws and what not, but they are still accepted as a part of it. So, do their human rights violations and actions, and ways of life stop anyone from accepting them into the 21st century world? In a very liberal, progressive world, that has a goal of taking a select old world system with them? Its interesting because they way they do things is the opposite of what progressives would see as progress would accept as being modern. Now, if I said this about a Christian, then we can outlaw, and say bad thing, and do what ever; if it was Islam, we just need to progress them and bring them into the 21st century. Also, anyone against this now has a mental issue called Islamaphobic.

So, that's what I meant by that.

[Christainville]

3rd and my final thing. This one will get me in a lot of trouble with the more liberal side of politics.

You can't get in trouble with "the more liberal side of politics" because politics are not people. You can get in trouble with more liberal posters, but that's not the same.


Actually I can. When it comes to religion and politics, the two topics I used in this forum, people normall take a side and stand on it, and it can get very rough. So, yes I am talking to people, but they are grouped in the mindset, making them a progressive side, or a conservative ide, etc. That's what I meant.

[Christainville]

I didn't say that theocracies are the only working form of government.

Indeed. You said "subtracting religion [...] from government in an attempt to create a neutral state, is not wrong, but impossible."

So, I ask again: Have nations that separated church and state (that is, subtracted religion from government in an attempt to create a neutral state) collapsed due to the impossibility inherent to their method?

Well, they didn't collapse, they just were taken over by the stronger minded religion. Example, the Christian Roman empire wanted members in the church so bad, more people that honestly were not interested in God came for social reasons. Then, a stronger because they loved the faith, Islam, came and took over parts of the empire. So, when you try to de religion everything, you make a fight against religion that is ever going for what ever control they can gain, and then politicians use this socially to win elections. So, any government attempt to destroy religion has honestly made it stronger, and government attempt's to accept it made it weaker.

[New DeCapito]

Indeed. You said "subtracting religion [...] from government in an attempt to create a neutral state, is not wrong, but impossible."

So, I ask again: Have nations that separated church and state (that is, subtracted religion from government in an attempt to create a neutral state) collapsed due to the impossibility inherent to their method?

Well, they didn't collapse, they just were taken over by the stronger minded religion. Example, the Christian Roman empire wanted members in the church so bad, more people that honestly were not interested in God came for social reasons. Then, a stronger because they loved the faith, Islam, came and took over parts of the empire. So, when you try to de religion everything, you make a fight against religion that is ever going for what ever control they can gain, and then politicians use this socially to win elections. So, any government attempt to destroy religion has honestly made it stronger, and government attempt's to accept it made it weaker.

So, using the reasoning I highlighted for you, you're saying the government should try and destroy religion in an attempt to make it stronger? This is one of the most contradictory things I have ever read.

[Christainville]

Christainville wrote:Its just, in a 21st century world, where women's rights is a huge political topic, we also take up for a culture that endorses the beating of women that are raped.

juxtaposed with:
Christainville wrote:Yet, does the love and compassion demand that you over look things that are wrong, things that are dangerous, things that cause issues? Nope, but you should reprimand in love of another person, and not in hate, and that's the things so many have failed at.

Makes no sense whatsoever...according to your messed up views in that case we should not overlook the fact that you endorse the beating of women and should justly punish you...Bazinga! as Sheldon Cooper would say.

It actually reads like this, so your the one that read it that way.
Its just, in a 21st century world, where women's rights is a huge political topic, we also take up for a culture that endorses the beating of women that are raped. So, do we accept what's behind to move forward? This is just one version of how we move forward but bring what's behind us with it and call it a future. Its not that I or any other conservative is scared of a Islamic person, its just we cant over look the bad things that are happening, the same as I can say with some people that call themselves "Christians" but have a hard time actually showing the love and compassion Christ commanded. Yet, does the love and compassion demand that you over look things that are wrong, things that are dangerous, things that cause issues? Nope, but you should reprimand in love of another person, and not in hate, and that's the things so many have failed at.

Now, the point of that is to say. As a Christian person, I hate the action, but I have done things in my past and future that I have and will need forgiveness for, so my anger should be at the wrong act that was done and not at hating the person. I may dislike them for what they did, but I cant hate them and play judge and jury over them because I have done bad things in my past. So, I need forgiveness, so I must forgive others, its that simple, and its not always easy. Yet, if you claim to be a Christian, these are some of the thing you must do.

So, how you came up with I endorsed beating women, I wont figure that one out, but hey its your view, enjoy it.

[Christainville]

Well, they didn't collapse, they just were taken over by the stronger minded religion. Example, the Christian Roman empire wanted members in the church so bad, more people that honestly were not interested in God came for social reasons. Then, a stronger because they loved the faith, Islam, came and took over parts of the empire. So, when you try to de religion everything, you make a fight against religion that is ever going for what ever control they can gain, and then politicians use this socially to win elections. So, any government attempt to destroy religion has honestly made it stronger, and government attempt's to accept it made it weaker.

So, using the reasoning I highlighted for you, you're saying the government should try and destroy religion in an attempt to make it stronger? This is one of the most contradictory things I have ever read.

No, you read that wrong, I was just outlining a trend we have seen in history. I don't want the government to do anything in the religion area to make it stronger or weaker.

[Christainville]

Its just, even atheists, have a faith. they have a faith there is no god

It would be nice if conservatives could go even a paragraph without lying about and insulting their enemies.

well, its a honest claim. Atheists do have a faith, because its a faith that their is no god. That simple.

[New DeCapito]

So, using the reasoning I highlighted for you, you're saying the government should try and destroy religion in an attempt to make it stronger? This is one of the most contradictory things I have ever read.

No, you read that wrong, I was just outlining a trend we have seen in history. I don't want the government to do anything in the religion area to make it stronger or weaker.

Nice to know. Why couldn't you have stated this in the actual post, instead of writing a badly-worded argument and then having to explain it?

[Greater-London]

well, its a honest claim. Atheists do have a faith, because its a faith that their is no god. That simple.

Hmm I wouldn't really call it a faith, at least not in the same way a religious person has faith. Faith in a religious context is believing in something in a spiritual context even when there's no proof. Atheist's simply don't believe in god because their is no evidence for he/she/them, so that's more an absence of faith.

[The Enclave Government]

As a atheist and a conservative, i'm frankly kinda irked by how you claim Christianity and Conservatism are linked. They aren't. I supported the Bush presidency and its policies, yet my atheism makes me a non-conservative?

Also, your statement that atheists have faith is false IN MY CASE. I do not speak for the atheist community, but personally in my view atheism is the lack of faith in a higher deity. I do not believe there is no God, I have proved to myself through rational functions there is no higher deity. That may not be the one others choose.

Also, it's disgusting how Christians discriminate. Here's a prime example.

(from George H.W Bush in a campaign interview with Mr Sherman, a political interviewer)

Sherman: What will you do to win the votes of the Americans who are atheists?

Bush: I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in God is important to me.

Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?

Bush: No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.

Most prominently....

No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.

That's disgusting.

[The Enclave Government]

I would like to remind everyone here claiming or saying ''what atheists believe'' is false because we don't have a organized code on our views. We're all individual people having our own reasons for being a atheist. In my view, that's one of the reasons I became a atheist. I truly feel that this allows me to be me. Call me a hipster or a rebel, but I do not like the idea of submitting myself to a orthodox institution to be myself.

note me using the word feel rather then believe.