It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Evils of Christian Conservatives, and How Can it be Stopped

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 22 2005 @ 02:00 PM
link   
I fail to see where this nation is conservative at all, much less Christian. We've been moving steadily to the LEFT, if anything.

Welfare state, single mothers heading families, no father around, high crime rates--thank liberalism for that, folks!
If anything's a threat to society, it's liberalism. Followed by neoconservatism.




posted on Oct, 22 2005 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amethyst
I fail to see where this nation is conservative at all, much less Christian. We've been moving steadily to the LEFT, if anything.

Welfare state, single mothers heading families, no father around, high crime rates--thank liberalism for that, folks!
If anything's a threat to society, it's liberalism. Followed by neoconservatism.


I agree about the Neoconservative part, but our laws are based on a Christain Conservative point of view. Those in charge of our country claim to be conservative, and there laws reflect that.

I don't Believe the majority of American are Conservative, or Liberal. IMHO they are Moderate. Lately it seems as though if you want to get elected all you have to do is use words like "Values" and for some reason church goin American vote for you. It doesn't matter what your track record is.

However, I do think we are wittnessing the downfall of Conservatizm in the USA
... Just look at the polls

peace



posted on Oct, 22 2005 @ 02:29 PM
link   
Well, I'll tell you what, we're finding out what happens when we kick God out of everything. Just look at what's going on.

Like I said in another thread, liberals don't believe in "if it ain't broke don't fix it." They fix things that don't need fixed and wind up breaking it.

I for one don't think that fatherless families, people on the dole, killing the unborn, and killing off "undesirables" via euthanasia is good for any society.



posted on Oct, 22 2005 @ 03:22 PM
link   
Sorry Amethyst blame it on human nature, not on liberalism or anything else.

What goes on in our nation now is something that has been going on since men walk the earth in two legs, with religion or not religion.

Killing the unborn, fatherless children, back in the time bastards, murder, wars, prostitution, slavery, abuse of the Innocent, has been going on God has not been able to fix it, Jesus dying in cross have done anything either so the only way to fix it is eliminating the root of the problems.

The human species, even the lesser species like animals act by instincts we do it for pleasure, control and just because many has the power to just do it



posted on Oct, 22 2005 @ 04:03 PM
link   
You almost have it, marg.

Thing is, liberalism tends to want to give in to human nature, and conservatism wants a leash on it.

We have to have *some* restraint on our desires and everything.

Picture a dog on a leash with a choke chain. Liberals want the dog without the collar period--or at least without the leash. A well-balanced person would want the collar on, but only pull on the leash if the dog wants to get into some mischief. Now the very far right wants the leash pulled at all times--no matter what.

Hope that analogy is a decent one....



posted on Oct, 22 2005 @ 04:16 PM
link   
One day Amathyst we will learn to love and respect each other then we will finaly find our rightful place in the universe and be at peace with each other and closer to our creator.

We are going right now through a very hard time in our human experiences but it will eventualy get better it is light after the end of the tunnel after all.



posted on Oct, 22 2005 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
One day Amathyst we will learn to love and respect each other then we will finaly find our rightful place in the universe and be at peace with each other and closer to our creator.

We are going right now through a very hard time in our human experiences but it will eventualy get better it is light after the end of the tunnel after all.


When exactly will this be? I cannot imagine that humans will reach such a fanciful time & place, not matter how great it sounds. Marx theory of economic determinism where history moved from feudalism to industrialisation to a communism that was remarkably similar to your vision was equally incorrect. Marxism ultimately fails because human nature is not selfless but selfish.

I think you had it down earlier, Marg when you said that human instinct was horrible. We are a pretty ugly species with hundreds, if not thousands, of years of war, misery, exploitation, slavery, suppression, intolerance, prejudice etc under our belt. What makes you think that this will change? A faith in the power of democracy? In big business and capitalism? In the inherent goodness of organised religion?

Human nature has pretty much always veered en masse towards selfishness, violence, power and greed. Nothing, not even a comet hitting the earth and wiping out most of the world's population will change this - if anything such a cataclysmic event would probably bring such instincts for self-preservation & survival out even more.

Moreover, the disparity between 1st world and 3rd world countries is absolutely massive. I don't see the current world being much different to how it has always been. There are some who are priviledged enough to enjoys the benefits of wealth, while others suffer at the dregs. There are too many powerful groups with a vested interest in keeping the world as it currently is, thank you very much.

The future will hold very similar aspects to the present and the past. For some people it will be good, it will be perfectly liveable if not opulant for others, while it will be pretty awful for the rest.

[edit on 22-10-2005 by kedfr]



posted on Oct, 22 2005 @ 05:31 PM
link   
kedfr
history tells that when people and nations are hit with very big tragedies people tend to unite.

We are nearing such tragedy that will impact the entire world, the survivers will unite and from tragedy it will be a better world. You see.



[edit on 22-10-2005 by marg6043]



posted on Oct, 22 2005 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
Full metal history tells that when people and nations are hit with very big tragedies people tend to unite.

We are nearing such tragedy that will impact the entire world, the survivers will unite and from tragedy it will be a better world. You see.



Forgive my ignorance but what is full metal history?

Incidently, my experience of history has tended to indicate the opposite - in times of major turmoil, societies are sucked into violence, civil wars, rioting, revolution etc. Disharmony tends to breed further disharmony.



posted on Oct, 22 2005 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by kedfr
Forgive my ignorance but what is full metal history?

Incidently, my experience of history has tended to indicate the opposite - in times of major turmoil, societies are sucked into violence, civil wars, rioting, revolution etc. Disharmony tends to breed further disharmony.


I mistook you by another member,
I will fix it.

Yes thats when the turmoil is cause by the same governments but if we have a major disaster that will take most of the population in our world we will do like other species do, will unite to preserve our own species.



posted on Oct, 22 2005 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
Yes thats when the turmoil is cause by the same governments but if we have a major disaster that will take most of the population in our world we will do like other species do, will unite to preserve our own species.


Surely if the world is annihilated by whatever disaster is going to hit, then supplies will be incredibly limited. We will fight amongst ourselves for whatever is remaining - yes some may band together into tribes but this is the same as what happens now, only on a smaller scale.

The movie 'Wall Street' had the famous phrase 'Greed is good' and to some extent that is correct. This sense of selfishness and will to survive is hard-coded into our DNA - indeed it is one of our most vital impulses and is a major factor as to why humans are so dominant in the world today. Yes, it is allied with a desire to protect our friends/familes but the sense of love to one's fellow man only goes so far. I cannot envisage the utopia of which you speak of ever happening.



posted on Oct, 22 2005 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by kedfr
Yes, it is allied with a desire to protect our friends/familes but the sense of love to one's fellow man only goes so far. I cannot envisage the utopia of which you speak of ever happening.


No utopia will be something that will come from the learning experiences of having our own species almost to extinction, but it will not be in our own life time, I know that for sure we are just in the bad part of it.



posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 04:57 PM
link   


The Parallelogram
You sound like a Good Modern Christian, your preacher would be so proud of his good obiedient sheep. Did he tell you to say that or did you think it up on your own?


This post is precisely one month old, but I hadn't noticed it until now.

Did you even read my post?

Get tied, sunshine... I'm no Christian, I'm Discordian. Those wacky masochistic Anerists wouldn't have me in a million years.

You call me a sheep? Listen to yourself, playing right into the hands of the establishment and their polarizing propaganda. Split the people in half, and keep the two sides angry at each other... they won't even begin to notice the real problems.



posted on Oct, 24 2005 @ 04:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Amethyst


Welfare state, single mothers heading families, no father around, high crime rates--thank liberalism for that, folks!
If anything's a threat to society, it's liberalism. Followed by neoconservatism.


Lets see how the world would be without so called liberalism.
You would be married at 12.
If you are poor or female you would have no education.
Your parents would arrange your marriage.
If your a women or poor dont think about voting.

Amethyst you seem to enjoy the benfits of "liberalism" while at the same time blaming freedom loving people for societys problems. One thing is for sure its about time elements society started to rid itself of reglion.


[edit on 24-10-2005 by xpert11]



posted on Oct, 24 2005 @ 05:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11
Lets see how the world would be without so called liberalism.
You would be married at 12.
If you are poor or female you would have no education.
Your parents would arrange your marriage.
If your a women or poor dont think about voting.

Amethyst you seem to enjoy the benfits of "liberalism" while at the same time blaming freedom loving people for societys problems. One thing is for sure its about time elements society started to rid itself of reglion.
[edit on 24-10-2005 by xpert11]


Liberalism is in general no bad thing, but it cannot be ascribed benefits which are not merited.

In European history (from the middle ages to around the 18th century - ( cannot say much for other areas of the world), it was generally only the upper classes who married in their early teens - and these were arranged marriages as part of political alliances or for economic gain. The middle and lower classes had considerably more freedom in who they married. The poorer elements of society did not marry until they had economic independence - something that often did not happen until their twenties.

Voting and female suffrage was something else, although it was perhaps more to do with the societal change than a mass drive of liberalism. The First World War gave massive impetus to the Suffrage movement of the early twentieth century, not least as women contributed massively to the war effort in terms of employment. Much as male universal enfranchaisement was a consequence of the war, so was the right of women to vote (although all women over the age of 21 didn't get the vote until 1928).

Personally, I think a far greater reason for changing social attitudes to women, work, voting, marriage etc were the effects of industrialisation, although even here it is dubious as to whether it was truly liberating for women. The socialist trade union movements of the 19th century were far more interested in male rights than female, despite a great number of women working in factories etc.

However, the right to vote is more than a symbolic act - in a very real sense, the nature of parliament then includes different elements of society - such as the middle classes, poor, women etc and bills and these groups therefore become more powerful voices in society to elicit change.

Would women have got the vote and would there have been universal male sufferage without World War I? Possibly, although it would have probably taken much longer the war was certainly a major catalyst for change. Political acts of parliament are usually the result of wider economic & social movements than merely the forces of liberalism or conservatism.



posted on Oct, 24 2005 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by LDragonFire
Christain Conservitives, those self-rightous, holier than thou, judgemental, scaredycats


I just wanted to say that that line was hilarious
Did anyone else see the irony, or was I the only one?

Thanks for the reminder of why I stopped coming to PTS



posted on Oct, 25 2005 @ 01:10 AM
link   



Voting and female suffrage was something else, although it was perhaps more to do with the societal change than a mass drive of liberalism. The First World War gave massive impetus to the Suffrage movement of the early twentieth century, not least as women contributed massively to the war effort in terms of employment. Much as male universal enfranchaisement was a consequence of the war, so was the right of women to vote (although all women over the age of 21 didn't get the vote until 1928).


Would women have got the vote and would there have been universal male sufferage without World War I? Possibly, although it would have probably taken much longer the war was certainly a major catalyst for change. Political acts of parliament are usually the result of wider economic & social movements than merely the forces of liberalism or conservatism.


well world war 1 was hardly a factor in women voting in this part of world.
'Womanhood Franchise granted!!!' With uncharacteristic ebullience Catherine Fulton, the dignified matriarch of a landowning New Zealand family, recorded this in her diary on 19 September 1893.Her exclamation reflected the elation of women all over the country. When the news came through that the governor had signed the measure that enfranchised women there was spontaneous celebration. 'Splendid meeting', ran the telegraphed account of one gathering, 'City Hall crammed mostly women enthusiasm unbounded thousand handkerchiefs waving for victory.
link

Liberalism is a social and econmic movement. Consertives lost the "war" along time ago remember when social consertives were against the poor getting an education?



posted on Oct, 25 2005 @ 05:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11
well world war 1 was hardly a factor in women voting in this part of world.
'Womanhood Franchise granted!!!' With uncharacteristic ebullience Catherine Fulton, the dignified matriarch of a landowning New Zealand family, recorded this in her diary on 19 September 1893.Her exclamation reflected the elation of women all over the country. When the news came through that the governor had signed the measure that enfranchised women there was spontaneous celebration. 'Splendid meeting', ran the telegraphed account of one gathering, 'City Hall crammed mostly women enthusiasm unbounded thousand handkerchiefs waving for victory.
link

Liberalism is a social and econmic movement. Consertives lost the "war" along time ago remember when social consertives were against the poor getting an education?


As I said in my post, I was referring to European (and more specifically British) history as that is my field of speciality. I believe New Zealand was the first country in the world to grant women the opportunity to vote.

Even so, I believe that acts of Parliament are a reflection of wider forces than merely political philosophies like liberalism or conservatism. I cannot analyse the New Zealand situation in any detail as I haven’t done any research on it, but I still maintain that so called ‘liberal’ values are a product of the social/economic conditions. For instance, I would argue that homosexuality was legalised in Britain in the 1960s because improving infant mortality rates/increasing age expectancy meant that homosexuality became less of a threat to fertility/population rates etc than it would have been in previous decades. Much many religious 'sins' have their origins with a social dimension in mind (often as means of social control), so it is that secular laws are a consequence of the society that created them. Laws are as much a representation of wider culture as films, books etc - more than just 'liberalism' or 'conservatism'.

As regards to female suffrage, again I would suggest that it was the wider social/economic conditions were responsible in pushing it into the mainstream. While there were liberal groups pushing this as a policy, it was the rising visibility of women in the workplace (and therefore growing economic power) that eventually meant that they had to gain representation in the political process. Moreover, it is no co-incidence that the suffrage movement was dominanted by the middle and upper classes. These were women who already had economic power and demanded political power.

I am not a social/economic determinist. However, the role of liberalism in changing society is often overplayed. Certainly, there are instances where individuals have pushed ‘progressive’ policies. However, I would argue that liberalism is a symptom of these social/economic forces than an underlying cause - just as conservatism is a symptom of wider societal forces.

There are many reasons why universal education was not granted for all. In part, some workers themselves did not want their children going to school as they felt that their time would more usefully spent working. Also, there was the not inconsiderable cost of education – the state just simply wasn’t equipped to offer free education for all. Moreover, there was the underlying fear of revolution by the elites which inhibited a movement towards change.

This does not mean that there was universal illiteracy – on the contrary, one would be surprised at just how many people could read & write – even among the poorer elements of society. In the early Victorian era in Britain, working class children (both boys and girls) attended school until around 11, though the girls’ education was usually worse than their male counterparts. The 1870 Education Act did make compulsory education for all children aged 5-13 and in many respects this was a direct consequence of the 1867 Reform Act (passed by a Tory government), to provide an educated electorate. Even in earlier periods (such as the 16th & 17th century) literacy rates were surprisingly high – not least because the rise of Protestantism meant that people were more inclined (and encouraged) to read vernacular bibles rather than bibles in Latin.



posted on Oct, 25 2005 @ 07:35 AM
link   
For the people of this nation to unite..........again.......it would take another tragedy. It would take something far worse than Katrina, Rita, all the other major hurricanes, terrorist attacks, what have ya, for this nation to unite as one. 9-11 happens, you saw how many people all flocked to churches, but in the months after, those people that flocked to those churches left never to come back again. I believe that it would take two, maybe three things, to get this nation back together and to realize that there is a power out there that we CANNOT imagine with our small minds. First thing it would take, is a MAJOR nuclear catastrophe to occur at one of our nation's nuclear facilities, Oak Ridge in Tennessee, or Sandia National Labs in California. Second, it would take several hurricanes that are the size and as powerful as Katrina to hit the United States, or anywhere for that matter. And the last thing it would take is, you guessed it, Doomsday or Armageddon, which ever you prefer.



posted on Oct, 25 2005 @ 11:25 PM
link   
kedfr I ask you this what is liberalism ?
# I love one liners#



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join