Posted on 07/24/2005 7:29:58 AM PDT by iconoclast
This is the first of a series of columns I intend to write on “the next conservatism.” In them, I will lay out where I think conservatism needs to go after the end of President George W. Bush’s second term.
Some people may wonder about the theme, “the next conservatism.” Isn’t conservatism always the same? Don’t we call ourselves conservatives because we believe in what Russell Kirk called “the permanent things,” truths that hold for all time?
(Excerpt) Read more at freecongress.org ...
There is the problem, imo. It is the first thing he lists as what the *next* Conservative, is. It is an obvious attempt to redefine Conservativism and it is *relativism* at it's hypocritical best.
Since when do you have to believe in God to belong to a political party?
The answer is .. you don't! But I realize that some extremists want to redefine it that way.
We cannot allow ourselves to become like the Democrats .. driving people out of the party because there is no room for anyone who disagrees with extremist views. I don't want to end up with hating divider, like Howard Dean, out there telling America that we too, are a party of intollerance.
No thanks!
Perhaps your perception doesn't match reality? ;-)
Let me reiterate my point: "Since when do you have to believe in God to belong to a political party?"
You did not address that. :)
The GOP in the recent past, since 1964, has been the main repository of Conservatism, granted. But, although that is still true (almost all conservatives are Republicans), it is becoming more tenuous (the GOP represents conservatives much less than it did in, say, 1985).
The desireability of writing the article, in itself, demonstrates the growing disconnect during the Bush years between political party (Republican) and philosophy (conservatism). The two are not equal. "Compassionate Conservatism" equals NOT Conservatism.
Oh, and Christianity and Originalism go hand in hand. Anything that is incompatible with that combination belong in their own party.
The author is making an attempt to redefine Conservatism. There have always been *fiscal* and *social* Conservatives .. but all under the big tent.
Being a Conservative has never been defined as "being a Christian" except by the extreme left, in a rather obvious attempt to split the party.
A great example of the kind of intollance exhibited by the far left. The kind of Christianity God preaches, is not, has never been, and never will be, a representative of intollerance.
IMO, anyone who attempts to portray it that way, is the wolf in sheep's clothing.
in-tol-lance???
Spell check is your friend. It will helps your argument have credibility
Yes, I am the spell check police. Do you want to see my badge?
God is "long suffering", not tolerant, there is a difference. More or less He puts up with our sin's giving us every chance to change, but eventually there is a separation between the sheep and the goats.
I don't see the connect. Explain please.
The Declaration of Independence gives us important insight into the opinions of the Founding Fathers. Thomas Jefferson wrote that the power of the government is derived from the governed.
Up until that time, it was claimed that kings ruled nations by the authority of God. The Declaration was a radical departure from the idea of divine authority.
Fortunately, I don't think it detracts from my arguments which are quite logical and articulate. (Don't go calling the *Has A Big Head* police on me now) .. hehe.
The Constitution is God inspired.
Look at it this way: Truth doesn't change.
One of the most common statements from the "Religious Right" is that they want this country to "return to the Christian principles on which it was founded". However, one only needs to do a little research into American history to discover that this statement is a lie. The men responsible for building the foundation of the United States had little use for Christianity, and many were strongly opposed to it. They were men of The Enlightenment, not Men of Christianity. They were Deists.
When the Founders wrote the nation's Constitution, they specified that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." (Article 6, section 3) This provision was radical in its day-- giving equal citizenship to believers and non-believers alike. They wanted to ensure that no single religion could make the claim of being the official, national religion, such as England had. Nowhere in the Constitution does it mention religion, except in exclusionary terms. The words Jesus Christ, Christianity, Bible, and God are never mentioned in the Constitution.
In America, the founding philosophy relied on what the Founders called a "self-evident truth," a belief that the people's individual rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are derived from and "endowed by their Creator." The document outlining their philosophy spoke of "the laws of Nature and of Nature's God," a reliance on "Divine Providence," and an appeal to "the Supreme Judge of the world." That basic set of ideas lies at the heart of the so-called 'miracle of America.' The author of that document called it a reflection of "the American mind."
Take away that underlying concept, and what is left is some configuration of a centuries-old and counterfeit idea that the rights of the individual in a society are grants of some other individual or groups of individuals in positions of power who are accountable to no one but themselves. It is that counterfeit idea of human rights that has enslaved most of the globe throughout the history of civilization, and persists in much of the world today.
The Framers of The Constitution of the United States of America in 1787 applied the ideas and philosophy of The Declaration of Independence to their task. Understanding the imperfection of human nature and the human tendency to abuse delegated power, they structured a limited government whose powers were separated, balanced, and checked, and whose Constitution contained the only method by which it, legitimately, could be amended in Article V--by action of the people themselves.
The Founders' ideas of liberty and the constitutional means for protecting it are worth preserving. American "conservatism," first and foremost, should identify and articulate for this and future generations the ideas understood at America's founding, for those ideas were based on "self-evident" truths that were and are unchanging. In the history of civilization no other set of ideas has produced as much liberty, happiness, and productivity that benefited the entire world as has that of the geniuses of 1776-1787.
Ideas have consequences! (Weaver)
One set of ideas produces liberty.
Counterfeit ideas produce tyranny and oppression.
One is worth preserving, and one should be rejected by freedom-loving citizens.
Which shall it be?
If it is to be worthy of its name, is this the question for American "conservatism"?
This post of yours goes off on fiscal versus social conservatives. That's a different issue entirely. I agree with your last sentence entirely.
While the fiscal-social conservative distinction may be accurate, they are not categorical. There are some who are both. And there is another unmentioned, almost forgotten segment, the foreign policy conservative (now tarred with the term "liberal"), as visibly represented by most of the Founders, and most everyone in government until the disastrous Wilson (some after him, e.g., Eisenhower).
I know that last paragraph is not entirely germane to your response; I gave it just so it won't be forgotten, because (I predict and you will probably disagree with) more and more of people whom we now term conservative will rethink their positions and have a conservative foreign policy component to their philosophy.
I have done extensive research into the founding of this country, the history, the people, the principles, the beliefs, the writings. I have read many books written by the founders and from where their principles come forth from.
What you wrote above is an fabrication, a half truth, a talking point and you know it.
Some were deists, but almost all were raised and taught in the fundamentals of the Christian faith. Almost all were at one time practicing Christians in one form or another.
Your second paragraph is correct, but you know as well as I do the terms "Jesus Christ, Christianity, Bible, and God" were at one time or another discussed as the Constitution was being written whether or not they should be included in the document
I wholeheartedly agree with their final version, as I would hate to be forced to believe in a "church or religion" against my will or to own property or to have rights.
Stop the propaganda that the founders were anti Christian.
They were anti state religion. Big difference, one you seem not to understand
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.