Conservatism without religion?

page: 1
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 02:35 AM
link   
This has always been the thing that causes me to shy away from conservatism and go more towards libertarianism. The problem with libertarianism is that it just scares people. Even I have to admit full fledged libertarianism isn't realistic at all.

But then, just when conservatism starts to sound good, they go off into religious territory. All that stuff about not accepting homosexuality and sexual freedom of all kinds is a big turnoff to people who aren't living in the dark ages. Liberals end up getting people who might otherwise be more conservative for this reason alone.

I'm not saying conservatives should give up on the idea of religious freedom. On the contrary. If you want to be a Christian or a Jew or whatever, go for it. Just don't force it.

If conservatives started being more accepting of sexual freedom and atheism, it would send the liberals into a panic because other than the perception of racism and the class thing, that's all they've got.

Is this just a fantasy? I really hate liberalism (as we know it) but conservatives (as they are) simply cannot challenge them in the modern world. And frankly, I don't want people who don't believe in sexual freedom running the country either.




posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 02:51 AM
link   
reply to post by BrianFlanders
 


I'd think about forming your political ideology without regard for the labels of conservatism, liberalism, or libertarian. Don't feel the need to describe yourself in one word that gets twisted by the masses and lowered to the least common denominator.

You can pick and choose what you like from conservatism, you don't have to adopt the tea party platform as doctrine or leave completely.

The conservatism and liberalism of today aren't much like what they were when the terms were coined anyway. they've been hijacked and mass marketed by the parties and then reverse proganda'd by the opposition.

I'm sure in the coming years as the trend of more independent continue, the word independent will be redefined as well to probably mean an antisocial psychopath or something, just like liberals are tyrants and conservatives are bible nuts.
edit on 7/18/2013 by PatrickGarrow17 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 02:58 AM
link   
I feel like most of what I hear about conservatives and their beliefs comes from the mouths of liberals. I am told that conservatives believe this or that and its unacceptable and so on ...




Is this just a fantasy? I really hate liberalism (as we know it) but conservatives (as they are) simply cannot challenge them in the modern world. And frankly, I don't want people who don't believe in sexual freedom running the country either.



Yes it is a fantasy. I don't know what you mean exactly when you say you want leaders to believe in sexual freedom. Adults can have sex with whoever they want to, whenever they want to. They can believe whatever they want to. It would be nice to move on to more pressing matters that face our nation. But alas, 'tis my own fantasy.



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 04:26 AM
link   
reply to post by BrianFlanders
 

Yes, Patrick is right ... it's really hard to nail down where people stand when they're discussing philosophical positions versus political party positions. I'm not even sure how Americans (or most people frankly) manage to keep up.


Originally posted by TruthLover557
I feel like most of what I hear about conservatives and their beliefs comes from the mouths of liberals. I am told that conservatives believe this or that and its unacceptable and so on ...

This surprises me! Well sort of.

I guess I find I'm more of a political spectator these days, especially when it comes to America. If it isn't one side crying Conservative fascist, it's the other screaming moral relativist leftist! Oh no! The leftists are coming! And then the goose stepping will happen, and the things I like will be banned, and the leftists will make me morally corrupt, and the fascists will out law cartoons and- and- and- ....

Blah ... is just next to impossible to actually be on the same wave length as someone else in a political conversation using written or spoken word. I think we should revert to pictionary for political discourse.

At least debate time will be more interesting.

Edit: Side note ... I might blow persons minds here but I suspect am libertarian conservative or something crazy like this ... but I get called leftist a lot, so you never know.
edit on 18-7-2013 by Pinke because: Edits:



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 04:30 AM
link   
Conservatism without religion?

Yep. I manage just fine thanks. Though admittedly I'm not as "conservative", if by conservative you mean to the right politically, as some. I'm sort of religious, in that I believe in God...but I'm not into the dogma that tells me to believe thus and thus... Nor am I keen on telling others how to believe, or disbelieve.

So, yes, one can be conservative without being over the top religious.



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 06:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by TruthLover557
Yes it is a fantasy. I don't know what you mean exactly when you say you want leaders to believe in sexual freedom. Adults can have sex with whoever they want to, whenever they want to. They can believe whatever they want to. It would be nice to move on to more pressing matters that face our nation. But alas, 'tis my own fantasy.


Well, for example, check into the legal definition of the term "obscenity". Basically, it allows any form of pornography to be prosecuted by the government. All they have to do is find a jury that will convict. I figure there are a couple of main reasons why this doesn't happen often...

1. They generally choose not to prosecute people for obscenity. But as long as the law is there, the threat is always there.

2. When they do choose prosecute, it's generally tough to get a jury to convict unless whatever it is makes them angry (see Max Hardcore for reference). This one is all about what the average person thinks about this kind of expression. The majority of people who might end up on a jury may not be likely to convict someone for relatively benign porn right now but moods and attitudes can change and can be changed (If you're posting here you should know how effective propaganda can change the minds of millions of people 180 degrees.

So clearly, this is not freedom in the real sense of the word. It's a privilege and obviously, the majority of Republicans would probably vote to ban pornography if they ever got a chance.

And of course, there is a significant element on the left (particularly within the feminist movement) that takes a very similar position (for slightly different reasons).

Now, with the issue of "healthcare" and substantial sums of insurance money coming into play with Obamacare, many people on the left are starting to look at many different forms of sexual activity in a different way. These are people who maybe in the past didn't have a problem with (for example) people having unprotected sex because the way they saw it, it didn't affect them as long as they made wise choices in their own sex lives.

Now, such people might worry about higher insurance and "healthcare" costs as an indirect result of what they see as the sexual irresponsibility of other people. The same people who enthusiastically support the Obamacare individual mandate would likely support some kind of forced condom usage. (I realize such a thing would be hard to enforce but they would find a way).

And then you get into even thornier issues such as the fact that homosexual males tend to have some relatively unhealthy sex practices involving the anus. And note that I am not judging just pointing out that this could be a perfectly reasonable (on the surface) excuse to persecute them. It shouldn't be too difficult to get a study done that shows how risky such things are and how expensive it can be to medically treat.

Obviously, insurance companies, accountants and people who don't like to pay high medical/insurance bills are going to have a problem with anything that drives up costs and cuts into profits.

This is but a small sample of what I mean when I say we don't really have a viable political alternative if we are concerned about freedom in this context.



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 07:23 AM
link   
reply to post by BrianFlanders
 


While I understand the desires of those who wish to toss out the labels "liberal" and "conservative", I totally understand and agree with your post.

You CAN have conservatism without all the controlling aspects of being a Conservative. But the party itself doesn't want to give that up. Religion should be a beautiful part of one's life, not something THRUST on other people. That's where people have turned it sour.


Originally posted by BrianFlanders
Even I have to admit full fledged libertarianism isn't realistic at all.


Neither is full-fledged conservatism or full-fledged liberalism. I think having these ideologies as an "ideal" or a goal that indicates a direction is a good thing, though. And libertarianism is where I would focus. It's really the best of both worlds, IMO. Not anarchy, but freedom that neither left or right truly supports.



But then, just when conservatism starts to sound good, they go off into religious territory. All that stuff about not accepting homosexuality and sexual freedom of all kinds is a big turnoff to people who aren't living in the dark ages. Liberals end up getting people who might otherwise be more conservative for this reason alone.


This is SO TRUE! If conservatives would practice what they preach as regards freedom for all and their dedication to the founding fathers and the Constitutional protections, the Democratic party would shrivel up and die, I believe.


If you want to be a Christian or a Jew or whatever, go for it. Just don't force it.


Exactly. And as someone who gets called a liberal all the time, I FULLY support freedom of religion. I don't support forcing religion into government or onto other people. If religious people would just practice their religion: go to church, pray, sing and have revivals, and stop forcing their personal beliefs on others through law, they would have enormous respect from the rest of us.



If conservatives started being more accepting of sexual freedom and atheism, it would send the liberals into a panic because other than the perception of racism and the class thing, that's all they've got.


Not sure what you mean about "the class thing" and I believe that racism does exist, and is not just a perception (but liberals USE it)... but generally, I agree. If conservatives TRULY practiced freedom of religion (accepted that some people don't want any part of it) and really practiced general freedom (homosexuality, reproductive choice, etc.) liberals wouldn't have much to contribute at all.



Is this just a fantasy?


I think so, for now, at least. People are just too stuck in their ways and committed to their team (political party) to come together on a common ground. It's almost like the control that each "side" wants is FAR stronger than the ideology itself. I mean, if you get a conservative representative by himself and have a long talk about the concepts of freedom and the separation of church and state, they would almost HAVE to come out of it on the side of marriage equality. But they'd go back to their constituents and rail about the evils of homosexuality - because that's what the people want and that will secure his job for another 2 years...

Great post!



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 07:42 AM
link   
Sure. If you believe in lower taxes, more personal freedoms, smaller government, then you can be a conservative without religion. Conservatism is more about less taxes and smaller government than religion.



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 07:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by BrianFlanders
This has always been the thing that causes me to shy away from conservatism and go more towards libertarianism. The problem with libertarianism is that it just scares people. Even I have to admit full fledged libertarianism isn't realistic at all.


Okay. So never wear a hoodie because you might scare some little old lady and stop trying to cure cancer because it just isnt realistic.

Your issues with libertarianism seem contrived.



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 08:11 AM
link   
reply to post by jjkenobi
 



Originally posted by jjkenobi
Sure. If you believe in lower taxes, more personal freedoms, smaller government, then you can be a conservative without religion. Conservatism is more about less taxes and smaller government than religion.


Those are nice talking points, but the fact is, conservatives (and now I mean the GOP) don't generally believe in more personal freedoms or smaller government unless those freedoms are the ones THEY agree with, like firearm ownership and "religious freedom" (by which they mean freedom to force their religion on others by legal means, by outlawing gay marriage and adoption, outlawing reproductive choice and forcing religion over science in schools).

As regards smaller government, again, they want smaller government where THEY find it serves them, but will grow the government in an instant to control people's personal choices. Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush were the biggest "government growers" in history and subsidized the military and corporations, which are entities that suit THEIR beliefs.

Don't get me wrong. Democrats are not much better. But when talking about lower taxes, more personal freedoms, smaller government, today's conservatism pays lip service to these concepts and nothing more.



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 08:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by BrianFlanders
And then you get into even thornier issues such as the fact that homosexual males tend to have some relatively unhealthy sex practices involving the anus. And note that I am not judging just pointing out that this could be a perfectly reasonable (on the surface) excuse to persecute them. It shouldn't be too difficult to get a study done that shows how risky such things are and how expensive it can be to medically treat.


Just a couple points on this. It's not just homosexual males who have anal sex. And not all gay men do. And many do it safely. So, to "persecute" gay men for health care reasons would be somewhat arbitrary.

Also, there are many activities and conditions people engage in that are unhealthy. Smoking, drinking, race-car driving, rock-climbing, being a professional athlete, skateboarding, surfing, sugar consumption, obesity, skiing, etc... If we're going to cut people out of healthcare because of their risky activities, it seems a bit unfair to pick on only gay men...



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 10:10 AM
link   
The 2 party system that we have now stinks as both parties just tell lies about the other. We desperately need a third party and both of them know it and will do everything they can to stop it.
Think about it....right now it's all, he said this and they said that. It's just a lot of name calling as they all just try to keep their cushy jobs. A third perspective is needed to also get the media from being such little sheep to the liberals.

I am conservative but am Agnostic, and DON"T believe in the tall tales of the Bible. I go the route that Jesus was married with kids and that the Romans made him immortal 400 years later to bring calm to Rome.....blah, blah, blah.

With that said, I too get very frustrated that issues like abortion and gay rights get thrown into the political mix. I stopped giving money to politicians because they all lie, cheat and steal. If someone can find a politician in Washington that hasn't made a nice sweetheart stock deal or mortgage deal, let us know.

The only thing a 2 party system can agree on for the American people.....is that they want to keep their power and screw the rest of us.

What would happen if the American People woke up and figured out that the Deficit Spending that our Gov't has been doing for the last 30 years, is a direct TAX on the American people. They stole our productivity during that period, as you would have thought that our cost of living would have went down with all this great technology that we have. NO, the gov't stole that productivity, via deficit spending. Think about it....The more we invent in America to supposedly make our lives easier and more productive (more productivity means more money in your pocket, right?), the more it seems we are going in the opposite direction as more people live paycheck to paycheck. Don't even get me started on healthcare costs. Was there a daycare center on every corner 30 years ago?? NO, but soon the wife needed to work part time, then after a while it became full time to keep up. Again, the gov't slowly taxing more, taking more and more until suddenly they have to build up big bubbles in certain parts of the economy to keep the game going.

When the next big crash happens ( and it will), and the Dems and Republicans sit back and point fingers again at each other, maybe at that time we might want to think about a third party to keep the other 2 parties from further destroying our country. Maybe a political party for the people, not the machine!!!



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic


Just a couple points on this. It's not just homosexual males who have anal sex. And not all gay men do. And many do it safely. So, to "persecute" gay men for health care reasons would be somewhat arbitrary.


Indeed. I meant to point this out but the post was getting pretty long by the time I got there. I understand that straight people practice anal sex too. What I meant was that the simple fact that many people choose to do it in a way that can be detrimental to your health (and that is their right, IMO) will allow the control freaks to discriminate against such people with a (seemingly) rational excuse.

When the time comes for that, no one who matters will interrupt the "discussion" (as they're fond of calling it) by pointing out that no one has the right to tell these people what they can and can't do even if it is detrimental to their health. Even if it does indirectly impact the cost of "healthcare" and health insurance. That is irrelevant in the context of freedom.

But the public is relatively easy to manipulate when you go at it from this kind of oblique angle. The ugly fact of the matter is that most people only believe in their brand of freedom. They will go along with oppression if it's oppression they find to be convenient for them, their opinions and especially their finances.

The instant I went against the Obamacare mandate, I was attacked on financial grounds (Not here but everywhere else).

"Well, these people who don't have insurance drive my rates up! Why should they be allowed to do this to me?"

To say to these people "It shouldn't matter if their choice not to participate in the health insurance market indirectly makes your costs higher. They have rights too. The have a right to choose". You just couldn't make that argument because they didn't care. You'd be lucky if you had one or two other people making the freedom of choice argument and you'd invariably get shouted down.


Also, there are many activities and conditions people engage in that are unhealthy. Smoking, drinking, race-car driving, rock-climbing, being a professional athlete, skateboarding, surfing, sugar consumption, obesity, skiing, etc... If we're going to cut people out of healthcare because of their risky activities, it seems a bit unfair to pick on only gay men...


Oh no. I'm not saying they're going to cut people out of healthcare because of it. I'm saying they're going to go after their right to do these things at all. They're already talking about taxing people who they deem to be too fat into compliance with their wishes. They've already made smoking prohibitively expensive. They certainly are hard at work demonizing people who choose to consume sugar. And the mandate hasn't even kicked in yet.

The point I'm trying to make is that it's going to be nearly impossible for conservatives to oppose them because it's a seemingly pro-business policy, which is typically conservative territory. Except the liberals are not interested in being pro-business at all. It's all about control. Doesn't matter to them if they have to manipulate conservatives into accepting it.

Why do you think Romney had no realistic chance of beating Obama? It's because Romneycare and Obamacare were virtually identical on the most controversial part (The mandate). Romney wasn't offering anything other than to turn his back on his own policies. Which everyone knew he wouldn't do if he actually won.

Obama didn't even have a real opponent in 2012.

This is what I am saying. They are coming for the rest of our freedom and they're going to use the same template they used with Obamacare. They will say (for example) that people who eat too much are harmful to "the greater good" (which they love to use that excuse). They will say that these people need to be "cured" of their deviant behavior because it's costing the system too much money. And so on. Step by step they will decimate every freedom anyone ever thought they had.
edit on 18-7-2013 by BrianFlanders because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 10:51 AM
link   
BH - Once again, I am forced to agree with your well worded and absolutely correct opinion. And perhaps what we need is not another political party, but an elimination of ALL political parties. The people who are supposed to represent us should just state where they stand on all of the issues and then we the people can vote based on that instead of the longstanding left/right battle.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Exactly. And as someone who gets called a liberal all the time, I FULLY support freedom of religion. I don't support forcing religion into government or onto other people. If religious people would just practice their religion: go to church, pray, sing and have revivals, and stop forcing their personal beliefs on others through law, they would have enormous respect from the rest of us.


As someone who used to believe that you were essentially a liberal cheerleader, I had my eyes opened by your post on a different thread a while back and took your "side". I would say that I am often called a republican because my opinions tend to lean conservative - at least on size and power of government and spending. I would say that socially I lean liberal.

What I believe a great many of us want is a government that will live within a budget, make itself much smaller and give control back to the states, quit bombing the entire planet and quit making laws to control every single aspect of our lives... stay out of our bedrooms, stay out of our houses, let us smoke, drink, eat fatty foods if we want, let us sleep with and marry whomever we want (as long as they are of legal age). I don't personally support abortion (especially the way it is now used primarily as "birth control") but I also know that it is NOT my place to make that decision for another person! I know a few women who have gone through an abortion and I do not think any less of them. I also am a Christian, but I don't really care if someone else is not or if they have different beliefs or no beliefs or worship trees or whatever - freedom of religion should go hand in hand with freedom from religion - and I can't understand how some of the super uptight religious types feel that two men getting married or two women getting married will affect them and their unforgiving beliefs in any way! Let people do whatever makes them happy as long as they don't infringe on another persons freedoms. If you don't want to see two men kissing or holding hands or whatever, DON"T LOOK!.

Let's get back to a government who is there for ALL of us and not just for lining their own pockets and controlling the rest of us serfs!



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 11:29 AM
link   
reply to post by tallcool1
 



Originally posted by tallcool1
What I believe a great many of us want is a government that will live within a budget, make itself much smaller and give control back to the states, quit bombing the entire planet and quit making laws to control every single aspect of our lives... stay out of our bedrooms, stay out of our houses, let us smoke, drink, eat fatty foods if we want, let us sleep with and marry whomever we want (as long as they are of legal age).
...
Let's get back to a government who is there for ALL of us and not just for lining their own pockets and controlling the rest of us serfs!


Excellent! If we would only concentrate on what we ALL can agree on instead of being manipulated into exacerbating our differences, we would be a nation of MUCH happier and more powerful people! Instead, we hand our power over to these parties and let them have their way with us...

I have never been a member of a political party. My positions on political issues come from both sides of the aisle and everywhere in between. I vote on policy, not party. I believe in freedom! But for everyone.

Can there be conservatism without religion? Of course! But there is a segment of the far-right (evangelicals) who wish to tie religion into government so the two can never be separated. They actually want religious law (like Sharia law, only Christian) but they would never admit that. They vote in religious representatives and jerry-mander the districts so that these reps and others like them will STAY in power. There is a concerted effort in the religious right to gain CONTROL of the country and they're moving with a religious conviction the rest of us have no clue about. They will not stop or be stopped except by a concerted effort to do so. And I don't see that happening.

It's interesting to see how politics has changed over my lifetime. Scary and (I think) hopeless, but interesting.



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 11:55 AM
link   
I couldn't agree more. Nothing makes me crazier than partisan hacks. Both political parties are corrupt, evil, and disgusting. As far as their platforms go I agree with several points on BOTH sides.

But I also think our government is hopelessly broken beyond repair. Every single congressman, senator, and member of the whitehouse and SCOTUS has got to GO. Anyone in bed with big corporations needs to go. Citizens United needs to go.

But I'm really at a loss as to how we're going to make that happen beyond Revolution or our military stepping up and saying "ok, that's enough of this constitution raping we're gonna honor our oaths."



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Malynn
 


A good step in the right direction would be if everyone stops listening to the talking heads. They gain s lot from dividing us, their best tactic? Telling us that compromising is weak or when you do it, you are losing to the other "side".
Even though all sides are us and every so called win is a loss for us all as the gap widens. Really my feeling is this: we all want the same things but just want to do it in different ways.

Though there are those who profit off the suffering of us all, some in money, others in ego.

I think listening and compromise help the most to heal any divide.



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by BrianFlanders
 


why does "conservatism" and "liberalism" need to exist in the first place? that is a better question

eff those things that are used to divide people



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 02:40 PM
link   
I am of the opinion that there's a lot more to conservatism than their religious leanings. Their leanings just tend to get a lot more attention because that's what people focus on. There's where the controversy is, and everyone loves a good controversy.



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by votan
reply to post by BrianFlanders
 


why does "conservatism" and "liberalism" need to exist in the first place? that is a better question

eff those things that are used to divide people


Well, people who disagree are supposed to be divided. I personally don't want to be one with people who are wrong. I am just as distrustful of people who want us to all just get along as I am of people who try too hard to work on wedges.

People who are wrong need to be opposed.






top topics



 
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join