This is a damn shame.
One of the things I’ve enjoyed most in my years reading FR has been the diversity of opinions that are contained within the conservative-republican arena.
What I’ve seen also, however, is the definition of “conservative” become narrowed and exclusive. Conservatives used to champion individual freedom, fiscal responsibility and small government. What happened? Why do we have to pass some sort of religious litmus test now?
Conservative has always meant pro God along with the other things that you mention, they go hand in hand, don't try and pretend that it is new, it is just the opposite, the fifth column, anti-social conservative, "conservative" is the new phenomena.
[[What I’ve seen also, however, is the definition of “conservative” become narrowed and exclusive. Conservatives used to champion individual freedom, fiscal responsibility and small government. What happened?]]
nothing- we still do- What has changed is the fact that evos tried to dictate how FR should be run, and when JR didn’t comply, they then resorted to petty tactics, and trollish behavior, then ran away screaming about intolorance, and blaming everyone else but themselves for their getting banned.
Challenging discussions are welcomed, and, although some get heated, most folks on both sides say what they have to say, and coem back another day and everythign is just fine, and both sides welcome such exchanges- the ‘changes’ you speak about htough are that the evos have resorted to militant radical tactics that are, on the surface, nothign but outright hostility towards those who don’t beleive as they do- they’ve made it theirm ission to actively seek out htose that have strong Christian beliefs, and follow them around harassing htem- this is exactly what has changed over hte last year or so-
Yes, there’s always been rivalries- and always will be- but we’ve witnessed lately a ramped up concerted effort by a few on FR that is unbefitting any site- especially a site which has expressly stated that it’s a right of center site-
As I’ve mentioend several times now- Those screamign about intolorance are themselves the most intolorant folks you’d ever want to meet- Folks who think Christians don’t have a right to bleeive that God meant hwat He said, who laid down historical facts in His word, and beleive htere are no other Gods- This apparently is unacceptable to those who choose not to beleive God’s word is His infallible word- but rather beleive His word is nothign more than a ;collection of ‘good suggestions’ to live by, that aren’t really historical facts, but just a collection of myths passed down and set to print’
[[Why do we have to pass some sort of religious litmus test now?]]
You don’t- but when folks claim to ‘beleive in God’, then turn aroudn and throw things like ‘You literalists are ignorant, and don’t understand the bible’ in our faces, then they can expect to be challeneged on the issue- the fact is that htose who were banned didn’t like being challenged, and turned around and turned the discussions into personal attacks- EVERY single time.
The definition of conservative hasn’t changed- but as mentioned already, there is, and always has been, degrees to which one is dedicated to conservatism. A person who beleives in abortion, beleives that it’s not wrong in God’s eyes to be gay, beleives that the govenrment shoiuld create a welfare state instead of folks being responsible for themselves, who beleives that criminals shoudl be afforded more rights than they gave their victims or that ‘victims deserve’ etc etc etc certainly can’t howeve4r claim to be a cosnervative when their values are not ifnact conservative, and should expect to be challenged on these and other basic principles of conservativism.
Linsay Graham claism to be a conservative, and if you’ve been following his latest statements, I think you’ll agree that he’s movign more and more to the left, moving away from the basic precepts of conservativism, and he rightfully should be called out for his claim of conservatism.
Those hwo beleive that the the bible and evolution are compatible shoudl be questioned o nthe issue, because the evidence does not support that claim- and one can only beleive that IF they don’t beleive that God’s word is infallible, an historical record, and an account given by God of the creation of hte world and everythign in it. One MUST disregard many key historical issues in order to beleive that, and doing so makes God out to be a liar and hte writers to be liars as well- when they specifically, and repeatedly stated that they were not writign of their own accord, but writing through the Holy spirit the words of God Hismelf.
We’ve been over this many times on FR so I’ll not go into htis further except to say that when someone quesitons hte historical record of God’s word, and calls those who beleive God’s word ignorant, and uneducated, and ‘intolorant of other people’s beliefs’, and do everythign in their power to disrupt and derail, and shut down threads discussing those issues, or demanding that they not be posted in general chat, but relegated to back room discussions which very few people frequent, they themselves are infact being intolorant of true bible believing Christians