You assume that the past is good and the future is frightening

–MR

Such an illogical statement cries for comment. Any sane person understands that there is a past, a present, and a future. They know a lot about the past and can draw lessons from it. People are generally aware of the present reality they are immersed in, but are most certainly not aware of the totality of events, trends, and ideas that exist in the now. When it comes to the future, there are no certainties, only the guidelines and principles used of the present and past to help project and plan for the next period of life, whether it be a day/week/month/year/decade or whatever.

I see conservatism and conservatives themselves as actively and busily trying to plan, organize, integrate, measure and construct a future based upon well-known, reliable and unchanging principles that ensure a worthwhile life for everyone in our nation. Not in some silly fear or fright state, but in a very, very realistic, rational and positive state of mind.

Perhaps this statement of MR reflects more his own fright of the future, and his own fate…

Personally I don’t see how to solve this “problem” with conservatism.

“Let’s go back to 1950/1776/1492″
NOT a winning slogan.

Rick Moran wrote: Despite what many on the left may say, these are not cut and dried issues (except those “enhanced interrogation techniques” that are clearly torture) where the left is on the side of the angels. In fact, they have tried to politicize the national security/civil liberties debate to their shame.

Yes, speaking out against EITs IS so shameful. Always gotta punch a hippie even in the middle of an admission that at CPAC the guy who spoke against water-boarding was loudly booed. So is water-boarding “cut and dried” torture or the other kind? Hard to keep up these days…

What part of this didn’t you understand?

Readers of this site know that I side with Barr in this debate - at least on waterboarding torture.

Is it the fact that there are words of more than two syllables that is giving you problems? I was not talking about opposition to torture. The issues that are not cut and dried have to do with the Patriot Act, the TSP, SWIFT, and other measures that are certainly open for debate - except on the left where hysteria has replaced reason in discussing these measures.

I have supported a strict interpretation of the anti-torture convention as well as torture as it is defined in the Geneva Convention. In other words, I agree with you. I know there is one word of more than a syllable there so I hope you understood that.

ed.

Perhaps you should read more often than occasionally; you might learn something despite your quirky, atheistic biases.

Many young people go through the stage of rejecting Christianity, but eventually realize their mistake. Apparently, you haven’t progressed that far in your journey. Perhaps you never will.

You consider the Bible a joke, while most of 300 million people don’t, something like: “look at our boy there in the parade! He is the only one marching in step!” That statement alone marks you for what you are: a hater of Christians for your own reasons…

No, it marks me as someone who occasionally reads history, and who understands something about human nature.

It is all about Christian morality, and no statement to the contrary will change it in the minds of a supermajority of the population. That was shown by the number of states whose majorities voted against SSM.

As to the attitude being driven by prejudices and desires, one might ask where such opinions originated, and why? Could it be the teachings of Christian clerics and Biblical scholars over some 3 or 4 thousand years? Could it be that Romans 1:26-28 was considered to be Paul’s New Testament advice to the sect coming from God?

You consider the Bible a joke, while most of 300 million people don’t, something like: “look at our boy there in the parade! He is the only one marching in step!” That statement alone marks you for what you are: a hater of Christians for your own reasons…

Some conservatives are driven by their understanding of the Bible and their religious leaders, which condemns homosexuality in several books—notably Leviticus and Romans.

The Bible is every Christian’s b-tch. They find there whatever they go looking for.

The Bible gave support to slavery, to stoning for adulters, for the right of parents to kill their children for disrespect. Telling me you found something in the Bible is a bad joke. Christians have never given a damn what was in the Bible, they’ve just used the book to validate their own pre-existing desires and prejudices.

It’s not about Christian morality, it’s bigotry, prejudice, and a sadistic desire to harm the “other.” You’re trying to dress homophobia up in the exact same outfit Christians used to justify genocide and race hatred.

Other conservatives, that happen to be atheistic in their religious outlook, are not bound by what the Bible and religious sects say, and can thus freethink their way out of the dilemma of respecting the customs and traditions of marriage versus a more open interpretation.

Still others simply wish that the whole issue would go away, disappear, and not come back.

There are also agnostic conservatives that wish to ride the tide of social change (read: the hedonistic tendencies of many to release all of the bonds of morality) regardless of the tide’s breakaway impact on fundamental Christian moral values.

Those minorities that want to sunder the conservative cause by calling the stand of Christian conservatives for Civil Unions and not gay marriage to be wrong, are themselves being intolerant of a religious and moral belief system and a tradition that is widely and deeply held in the nation; perhaps by 80-85% of the population.

I fail to see the advantage of elevating this now to a divisive, emotional, political, legislated, special kind of morality issue for conservatives, rather than leaving it to be the fundamental religious issue it most surely is and will remain to be in our society.

The long term question is: whose morality will be followed, that of the continued relaxation of moral standards, customs and traditions seemingly championed by humanists and feelgood hedonists, or of reenforcing the Christian moral standards of our society?

In all cases where this has come to a vote, Christian morality has won handily.

So, let me see if I have this straight (heh): you want to harken to the history of ancient Egypt, Greece, Rome, China, Japan, ancient Aztecs, etc as support for your anti gay marriage position?

Each of your cited authorities practiced slavery. They would have made your exact argument — in favor of slavery — by pointing to preceding governments as authority. They would have done the same for democracy more generally. Or for any of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. They’d have said, “Did Ur have freedom of speech? No!”

So you see the problem there? It’s the core problem of conservatism. You assume that the past is good and the future is frightening. When of course the past has been a long stream of horrors and the cases you cite their futures were quite an improvement. In western civilization we have moved by fits and starts, often involuntarily, usually inefficiently and stupidly, from less freedom to more.

To take some of your cited civilizations: in ancient Greece (and Rome) pedophilia was an open and accepted practice, as was infanticide. Nowadays? Not so much pedophilia and not so much infanticide.

Ancient Rome? Slavery. Mutilation. Political change by assassination. Imperialism. Public entertainments of appalling bloodthirstiness. Nowadays? Well, modern Italy has its problems, but they don’t set starved lions on Christians.

But it’s particularly funny that you would cite the Greeks and the Romans both of whom — particularly in their armies — openly practised the sort of man-boy relationships that are today condemned by gays as pederasty.

As for the Aztecs, good lord. Really? You’re going to cite the Aztecs as moral authorities? Why not Genghis or the Nazis while you’re at it?

If you want to appeal to history then understand history.