However I cannot honestly self-identify as conservative, since even though I pray honestly, I don’t go to church and am a bit too tolerant of some things to really be conservative.
It’s not a hindrance that I’ve found. Most of the time I’m tolerated here. Despite having a strong belief in trade protectionism, and I’m very proud to be a FReeper.
I guess I consider myself a Tea Party libertarian.
Those are some slick spin-divisions between types of Christianity, constitutionalists, Tea Partiers, and libertarians. What is this, the balkanization of the Republicans? Or should we call it the Protestantization? Whatever, it supports myriad divisions, and leaves the Left laughing with glee.
I call myself a conservative because I believe in conserving the doctrine of negative rights put forth by the Constitution of 1789. That political philosophy, to me, defines America, and is the highest political expression of the Greco-Roman, Judeo-Christian teachings of thousands of years of Western history. I truly believe that if we lose it - as the Left is pounding away to accomplish - we will be plunged into a thousand years (or more) of global collapse, and billions dead in the process.
That's why I want to conserve it, against anyone - the Left, gay-hating-Christians, Christian-hating-gays, RINOs, or anyone else who would throw it out in the name of "higher principles" invoked solely to polarize people and destroy the unity necessary for its preservation.
I see your point, yes.
Thing is, there is a mainstream of conservative thought which has been its center for as long as our nation has been its home - which includes a strong moral component, in addition to the constitutional aspects of negative rights you mention.
Maybe that second pillar of conservatism - that having to do with freedoms, should be more accurately defined. As well as the first - having to do with morals.
The two can at times end up in direct opposition to each other. My own tendency when faced with that contradiction, is to come down on the side of freedoms. Others would quite rightly decide the side of morality is more important.
Both are conservative, but it seems to me the morality side has a more solid claim to the word “conservative”, and I won’t try to claim it as my own. Nor should the gay group. For pretty much the same reasons.
(and for the record, I’m not gay)
My point was not to Balkanize. We’re all mostly on the same side I think. But the group should be more honest and stop trying to claim the term “conservative”. They’re not.
Republicans have been self-balkanizing for the past 25 years or more.
Or should we call it the Protestantization?
If, by that, you mean a tendency to stage schisms, viciously fought, over increasingly small distinctions, ... yes, that's a pretty good description of where we are today.
“Gay hating Christians”? How about “Christian hating libertines”? That’s more accurate.
Good post.
That's why I want to conserve it, against anyone - the Left, gay-hating-Christians, Christian-hating-gays, RINOs, or anyone else who would throw it out in the name of "higher principles" invoked solely to polarize people and destroy the unity necessary for its preservation.
I think you may be confused. Negative rights permit or oblige inaction rather than permit or oblige action (positive rights). The negative rights specifically identified in the Constitution do not stand alone as they were specifically identified in reference to the government. The negative rights identified are limits upon the government NOT limits upon the citizens who may or may not partake regardless the government may NEVER infringe. Additionally, ALL else not specifically identified the domain of government is reserved to the citizenry to be decided...
NOW it would seem that we see the belief in homosexual sex being good stuff attempting to impose itself over religious belief or for that matter common sense public opinion -where exactly is the authority for this homosexual sex premised rights absurdity that the government now seeks to impose upon society? It does not come from God -it does not come from the people -where then does it come from?
Calling something hate does not excuse absurdity...
Your position is premised upon no authority save the whim of government -cloaked in reference to the Constitution it is actually a leaf blowing in the wind that signifies the opinion of citizens is moot and society is but a lapdog to government imposed morality...