I cannot imagine how the 'conservative' message attracts young people today. I'm quite sure that the median age of today's true conservative has to be at least in the 60's, although I have no data on that.
The other point about what is called 'conservatism' is that it is poorly defined and widely usurped.
Take this young person [I have my doubts of his age] who calls himself Yankee Doodle. He claims to be a hard-ass conservative when he is really an anti-abortionist.
It's a great cloak for an array of radicals with specific agendas they wish to promote.
That is why, Steve, your comment about 'wanting to improve things' doesn't set well with these agenda-driven people.
I'd hate to use 'cloaking' as in the costumes of the KKK, but that is how these people operate: disguised as 'conservatives.'
Here's an oddity: we both know the non-political meaning of 'conservation:' to maintain the current status. So when these anti-abortionists hide under the cloak of conservatism, they are calling for the status-quo which, according to the Supreme Court, is abortion rights.
To that last statement, I can't resist saying, DUH! OF COURSE pro-lifers are calling for the status-quo --prior to 1973. They don't suddenly become liberals wanting change --just because abortion is legal now. Not even the author of the above piece would call pro-lifers liberals because they want change in the NEW status quo --new since 1973. We are wanting to preserve the status quo of thousands of years of civilized people who didn't approve killing their young in the womb.
It would be interesting if the median age of conservatives is 60 as he guesses --since they would have been young during the hippie years. A C-Span program yesterday featured conservatives talking to youth. There are several conservative activist groups in college today. The conservative movement, usually pro-traditional values, is alive and well among young people --even if they are possibly outnumbered.
I find it BIZARRE that the author sees pro-lifers as "cloaking" themselves as conservatives. HUH??? Social conservatives by definition ARE pro-life and pro-family values --traditional family values. Many of us want constitutional amendments that spell out the "right to life" in the constitution to protect the rights of the very young, the elderly and disabled --and also an amendment to define marriage --because who would have thought at the Constitutional Congress in the 18th Century that this great nation-to-be would legalize abortion and gay marriage??? Not in their wildest dreams did our constitution's framers think that needed to be spelled out. If they could've seen into the future, even the Deists among them would've thought today's people wanting gay marriage and abortion had lost their minds or become terribly foolish or wicked.
The majority of those who call themselves "conservatives" are social, economic, and political conservatives on most issues --but, of course, there is diversity within that group. We certainly expect the GOP to represent our views on all three --or we'd have to form a new party. Abortion and sexuality are BOTH important to God, therefore they are of primary importance to those who believe in Him. But we are hardly guilty of deception, "cloaking" our pro-family views with a broader label of "conservative."
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
14 comments:
I consider myself to be a fiscal conservative and am disappointed that our current president and the Republican congress past didn't discipline themselves in pork spending.
On social issues some would call me a liberal on some topics and a conservative on others.
I object to abortion for any reason and believe marriage is a legal union of one man and one woman.
It's a shame we should even have to consider a constitutional amendment to define marriage.
I am for a strong military, as I believe that is the first and foremost job of the federal government as spelled out by our founding fathers. We must be prepared to protect our country from all enemies, whether foreign or domestic.
I am for the states deciding issues that are not specifically addressed in the constitution, and I believe in our judges from lowest to highest making rulings based upon our constitution and not foreign law. When they go that route they are on some pretty shaky ground.
I believe there is a certain segment of our society that are incapable of caring for themselves and need assistance for their basic needs.
I have a cousin dying right now who is in that situation.
I think we should give a hand up and not a hand out to the others. If a person needs an education to get a job or a better job after a lay-off I think we should make sure that person and family are taken care of for the basic necessities of life, such as housing, food, clothing and medical care.
I don't think it means we should supply them with cell phones and plasma TVs.
If we got the free-loaders out of the system and kept the same budget for people who really do need help we could give more money to these people so they could have better nutrition, clothes as needed and a decent place to live, along with good medical care.
For the ones in school I believe they should be given a few months after graduation to get a job and then be cut off. In these economic times and in an area where jobs are scarce maybe we should extend their assistance a couple of months but no more.
Conservatives are not just one or two issue voters.
That's true --we are not just one or two-issue voters as some claim--but where the parties agree in theory about prosperity and freedom for all --they don't agree on some basic moral issues --and those issues affect all sorts of social policy and social outcomes.
I'm weary of those who think the evangelical church only cares about those two issues --we DO care about the poor, the other nations, world peace, economy, environment, and religious freedom and autonomy, etc. but it happens that the party with the most Christians in it differs with the liberals on approaches to most issues. We don't believe in encouraging reliance on the gov't, e.g. by our policies. And we do believe in the freedom to preach and teach the Bible, politically correct or not!
"...the median age of today's true conservative has to be at least in the 60's"
No, the median age of the anti-war hippies is in the 60's.
"He claims to be a hard-ass conservative when he is really an anti-abortionist."
Yes, I am against abortion, and I am a conservative. I don't see how they are contradicting. Real conservatives believe that life is an unalienable right, because unlike the liberals, we believe in the Declaration of Independence.
His doubt of my age only serves me as a compliment.
You are right --it is a compliment for him to think you are really some 60 year old geezer like himself--almost as wise as he.
Stay strong sister. The Satanist/Marxist/Scientific Atheist's agenda to divide and conquer Christ's followers will fail miserably. I applaud you for entering the lion den to spread the Gospel. Hosannah in the highest - his word will be received. Saul of Taurus came to the light, and it changed the World. Even though he was a Roman agent who perverted the true Christian message (like Josepheus), the Gnostic texts located in 1947 have come to light, despite the Vatican's attempts to suppress them.
The Kingdom of the Lord is within us - that is the truth. By subjugating man and requiring blind adherence to a political system (organized religion), we are kept in chains. No more Babs, no more.
Huh, johnny? So how did St. Paul distort or romanize the message?
I'm not too aware of what I suppose are the Gnostic Gospels --I just know that we don't think they are valid --that they were written later --and THEY are revisions of or fanciful additions to the older Gospels? --if I recall correctly. Had not heard about them much lately.
Is there blind adherence to a political system that is organized religion and subjugating man in the US?
My unitarian minister sort of says the same thing. She says that the truth of God is within each one of us and that is where we should see God, instead of some cookie cutter formula that organized religion provides.
That's not very objective. It makes God subjective --whatever each of us thinks He/She/It is. And that reduces morality to whatever each one of us interprets it to be.
And that's the root of anarchy and chaos.
Some will conclude that they are justified in taking care of numero uno first of all, by whatever means possible. LIke all these husbands killing wives. Others may choose to follow JEsus and believe in giving of themselves for others.
I don't trust the god that some people will find within, do you? really?
Luke 17
And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.
Indeed Christ's kingdom consists of everyone who confesses and believes that he is Lord. His kingdom is indeed inside the believer. However you should be careful and discerning on those parts inside you that are God and that which is your sinful self.
Reminds me of those Christians who often say, "The Lord told me...." and on the one hand I commend them for faith --
but sometimes I wonder if it's not the Lord they are listening to, but themselves. I would not be SURE of that --but just be cautious --as I don't think that EVERY idea that comes to a Christian's mind is from the Lord.
Thinks for prepending the words of our Lord and Saviour with your personal spin.
You lost me, Steve. What words were spun? and prepended?
O I see --the words about the Kingdom of God being within us.
I'll have to go to that in context and ponder some more.
I bet you agree, however, that not everything that proceeds from the mind and heart of man is of Christ's Kingdom. Jesus also said, that it's not what goes into the mouth that defiles --it's what comes out of the heart--and out of our mouths, I believe. So if the Kingdom is within ALL people, there's nevertheless some evil within also.
Was He talking just to His followers as having the Kingdom within?
Post a Comment