Students to be taught there is no God

[neat62]

grampben;

Nope. Liberalism is a philosophy first founded by John Locke and Jeremy Bentham.

Where did I say otherwise?

There are many conservatives who are pro choice.

There are, but they are not conservatives.

Your inclusion of the word liberal indicates that you think being pro conservative is as important as being pro life.

I do. Modern conservatism, in the US anyway, is synonymous with pro life.

 

[CWBetts]

Don’t be silly. Conservatism is synonymous with corprate money. It merely serves their purposes to claim the pro-life banner at this time. The minuite it is no longer to theor advantage, they will abandon it.

 

[neat62]

CWBetts;

Don’t be silly. Conservatism is synonymous with corprate money. It merely serves their purposes to claim the pro-life banner at this time. The minuite it is no longer to theor advantage, they will abandon it.

No, if anything, Republicans are doing that. But the same would go for Liberalism and abortion.

I am no longer a Republican, but I am a Conservative. There is a difference. Just like there is a difference between a Liberal and a Democrat.

 

[CWBetts]

Conservative–Limiting voter rights, pro-war, support of big business (laissaiz-faire capitalism), hyper-nationalist, moral absolutist

Liberal–mass participation in government, compromise over war, support ov lower classes, international cooperation, moral reletivist.

Granted these are broad generalizations I was given in a freshman history class. But it is not just “Republicans” but “Conservatives” that are in support of big business. I would not be to hasty to declare myself a hardline conservative.

 

[tomarin]

For primary school students in the Australian state of Victoria, the humanist indoctrination of state courses is no longer a subtle matter.

What did Chesterton say? “If there were no God, there would be no atheists.”

That said, you’re right – creationism belongs in a religion class. It’s religion masquerading as science.

 

[grampben]

grampben;

Where did I say otherwise?

There are, but they are not conservatives.

I do. Modern conservatism, in the US anyway, is synonymous with pro life.

There’s no way I can argue with you when you refuse to admit that someone who is pro choice could be a conservative.
Modern conservativism is defined by being more pro liberal markets. Social conservatism includes abortion etc, such as the christian democratic parties in Europe, but they’re not all pro 100% free markets.
Who decides what conservatism is if it has changed its meaning so much?

 

[tomarin]

There’s no way I can argue with you when you refuse to admit that someone who is pro choice could be a conservative.

How vividly I remember during the primaries last spring when Rush Limbaugh attacked Mike Huckabee’s followers for encouraging “identity politics” – apparently for supporting a solidly pro-life, Christian candidate over a flip-flopping Mormon one. That confused and hurt me for a time (since I was a Huckabee fan).

That said, having read a lot of G.K. Chesterton, I fully acknowledge that there is some relationship between being religious and being politically conservative. They’re not synonymous, and there are many conservatives who are not religious (some are even gleefully atheistic, like John Derbyshire); but generally believers and conservatives share a respect for traditional sources of authority such as the church, the state and the military.

 

[grampben]

How vividly I remember during the primaries last spring when Rush Limbaugh attacked Mike Huckabee’s followers for encouraging “identity politics” – apparently for supporting a solidly pro-life, Christian candidate over a flip-flopping Mormon one. That confused and hurt me for a time (since I was a Huckabee fan).

That said, having read a lot of G.K. Chesterton, I fully acknowledge that there is some relationship between being religious and being politically conservative. They’re not synonymous, and there are many conservatives who are not religious (some are even gleefully atheistic, like John Derbyshire); but generally believers and conservatives share a respect for traditional sources of authority such as the church, the state and the military.

My point was that being conservative doesn’t mean pro life. I didn’t mention religion. Nat Hentoff is a Jewish atheist pro life liberal.
Also, being religious does not make you pro military. Pope JPII was probably pretty religious and he wasn’t pro military.

 

[RobertLGarrett]

There’s no way I can argue with you when you refuse to admit that someone who is pro choice could be a conservative.
Modern conservativism is defined by being more pro liberal markets. Social conservatism includes abortion etc, such as the christian democratic parties in Europe, but they’re not all pro 100% free markets.
Who decides what conservatism is if it has changed its meaning so much?

Conservatives do.

 

[neat62]

CWBetts;

Conservative–Limiting voter rights, pro-war, support of big business (laissaiz-faire capitalism), hyper-nationalist, moral absolutist

Liberal–mass participation in government, compromise over war, support ov lower classes, international cooperation, moral reletivist.

Granted these are broad generalizations I was given in a freshman history class.

Yeah, and they are completely off the mark.

But it is not just “Republicans” but “Conservatives” that are in support of big business. I would not be to hasty to declare myself a hardline conservative.

Just as the richest person in Congress is a Liberal. Or how the Kennedy’s became millionaires. George Soros, billionaire. Bill Gates. This is nonsense.

And a true Conservative, is not as you describe. And dealings with big business is hardly limited to Republicans or Conservatives. I am all for generalizing, but this is way to far off the mark to even be considered.

 

[neat62]

grampben;

There’s no way I can argue with you when you refuse to admit that someone who is pro choice could be a conservative.

Modern conservativism is defined by being more pro liberal markets. Social conservatism includes abortion etc, such as the christian democratic parties in Europe, but they’re not all pro 100% free markets.

Who decides what conservatism is if it has changed its meaning so much?

There are all kinds of Conservatism in the world. I am speaking in general about US Conservatism. We can break all forms of Conservatism, or Liberalism into 100 different parts if youd like and how each one in 50 different countries has their own adapataion. But that is just crazy.

Most people here are Americans. This site is based out of the US. Can you see why I speak about how it is in America and not the UK? I have no interest in what Conservative or Liberal means in the UK, I deal with how it is right here, for simplicity sake. And I speak in generalities otherwise these threads would go nowhere fast, and eat up all the time in the world debating the smallest details and differences.

 

[CWBetts]

CWBetts;

Yeah, and they are completely off the mark.

Just as the richest person in Congress is a Liberal. Or how the Kennedy’s became millionaires. George Soros, billionaire. Bill Gates. This is nonsense.

And a true Conservative, is not as you describe. And dealings with big business is hardly limited to Republicans or Conservatives. I am all for generalizing, but this is way to far off the mark to even be considered.

The man who gave me this is much more intelligent than you or I, and these are political science, and not popular media based, definitions

 

[neat62]

grampben;

My point was that being conservative doesn’t mean pro life. I didn’t mention religion. Nat Hentoff is a Jewish atheist pro life liberal.

Here, this generallt describes the ideologies in the US.
studentnewsdaily.com/other/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs/

And we can break it down from there.

Also, being religious does not make you pro military. Pope JPII was probably pretty religious and he wasn’t pro military.

Yet the Vatican has their own military

 

[neat62]

CWBetts;

The man who gave me this is much more intelligent than you or I, and these are political science, and not popular media based, definitions

Then that guy is an intelligent biased liar. * Conservative–Limiting voter rights* LOL This line proves it.

 

[RobertLGarrett]

CWBetts;

Then that guy is an intelligent biased liar. * Conservative–Limiting voter rights* LOL This line proves it.

My thought, as well. Intelligent indeed.

 

[CWBetts]

It seems to be time for an American History lesson. When the United States was still a very young nation, we were operating under a much different government. The Articles of Confederation were very liberal in nature. In fact, the conservative party, at thet time called the Federalist Party, wanted a stronger central government. They got waht they wanted. In 1788 the United States Constitution was ratified, with the understanding that a “Bill of Rights” to protect the rights of the citizens would be added. This was insisted on by the more liberal of the parties, the Democratic-Republicans. the voting rights were limited land-owning white males over the age of 21. This would go unchanged until the 14th Amendment, which would extend the right to blacks, insited upon not by Republicans, but Northern Democrats. Agin, the more liberal of the The next changes to government were brought about by the Progressive Party, again a liberal movement. The Progressives saw the extension of voting rights to women and the popular election of Senators, which previously were selected by state legislatures. Finally the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was pshed through by Lynon Baines Johnson—another Liberal Democrat. So you see the limitation of voting rights and participation in government was not simple rhetoric, but evidenced by history.

 

[tomarin]

My point was that being conservative doesn’t mean pro life. I didn’t mention religion. Nat Hentoff is a Jewish atheist pro life liberal.

Point taken – “conservative” and “pro-life” should not be used interchangably. You can be conservative and not necessarily pro-life; take the former mayor of New York City for example (please!).

I mentioned Limbaugh because I took him to be one of these areligious conservatives, and I know you can be pro-life on moral principle alone and not religious but in reality this is very very rare (Hentoff I take to be the exception that proves the rule, frankly). Usually when I debate the morality of abortion with liberals and/or agnostics/atheists I avoid religion altogether and focus on reason-based arguments, since I believe they will reject religious explanations out of hand.

Also, being religious does not make you pro military. Pope JPII was probably pretty religious and he wasn’t pro military.

I’m sure the Swiss Guards would be surprised to hear that.

 

[RobertLGarrett]

It seems to be time for an American History lesson. When the United States was still a very young nation, we were operating under a much different government. The Articles of Confederation were very liberal in nature. In fact, the conservative party, at thet time called the Federalist Party, wanted a stronger central government. They got waht they wanted. In 1788 the United States Constitution was ratified, with the understanding that a “Bill of Rights” to protect the rights of the citizens would be added. This was insisted on by the more liberal of the parties, the Democratic-Republicans. the voting rights were limited land-owning white males over the age of 21. This would go unchanged until the 14th Amendment, which would extend the right to blacks, insited upon not by Republicans, but Northern Democrats. Agin, the more liberal of the The next changes to government were brought about by the Progressive Party, again a liberal movement. The Progressives saw the extension of voting rights to women and the popular election of Senators, which previously were selected by state legislatures. Finally the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was pshed through by Lynon Baines Johnson—another Liberal Democrat. So you see the limitation of voting rights and participation in government was not simple rhetoric, but evidenced by history.

Try, if you can, living in today’s world and accepting that Conservatives are not looking to limit anyone’s right to vote. It is a stupid (opposite of intelligent…saves you having to look it up ) thing to put on a list defining “conservative.”

 

[CWBetts]

Try, if you can, living in today’s world and accepting that Conservatives are not looking to limit anyone’s right to vote. It is a stupid (opposite of intelligent…saves you having to look it up ) thing to put on a list defining “conservative.”

What about the contiued attempts of Conservatives to disenfranchise the poor in presidential elections, particularly in the battleground states. THe Republicans are opposed to anything that makes voting easier, and support anything that makes it more difficult. Don’t tell my I am wrong…I LIVE in one of those states, and have had to deal with it.

 

[RobertLGarrett]

What about the contiued attempts of Conservatives to disenfranchise the poor in presidential elections, particularly in the battleground states. THe Republicans are opposed to anything that makes voting easier, and support anything that makes it more difficult. Don’t tell my I am wrong…I LIVE in one of those states, and have had to deal with it.

You are wrong. However, you are also equating things that aren’t equivalent. “Making voting easier” is sometimes good and sometimes bad. If it leads to abuse, then it is bad. Why does voting need to be easier? If someone is too lazy or consider voting unimportant, why should I make it easier for them?

There may be some individuals who are doing improper things to prevent people from voting, but that happens on both sides. Neither party is interested in limiting the votes of citizens who qualify.