“there are people of extremes on both american liberalism and american conservationism who look up to political figures as almost messianic figures in a historical fashion and a modern fashion.”
I rejoice to know that you do not necessarily regard me as one of those “people” of extremist American “Liberalism” or American “Conservationism” (?) who look up to political figures as almost “messianic,” but I must confess to some confusion as to whom it is you are referencing.
The only genuine American “Liberalism” of which I am aware would be the Jeffersonian liberalism (also called “Jeffersonian republicanism”) of the late (very) 18th Century and the early 19th Century, most eloquently explained by Jefferson and Madison. By the second quarter of the 19th Century, the party of Jefferson and Madison had been entirely hijacked by Jackson and the “Jackass” party, later identified as “Democrats,” so as to be rendered worse than useless. For a considerable time following, Democrats continued to identify themselves as “Liberal,” attempting to expropriate the exemplary reputation enjoyed by Jefferson and Madison, so that they (the Democrats) might attach their corrupt and immoral practices on the backs of these two worthies. Democrats have been expropriating anything of value ever since.
Finally, Democrats had so fouled the term Liberal, that it no longer meant anything of worth, necessitating the switching of terms, compelling them to now call themselves “Progressive,” which they stole from a movement of Socialists that might be best described as “Western European” and perhaps best exemplified by Robert “Bob” La Follette of Wisconsin and Theodore “Teddy” Roosevelt of New York State (ironically enough, two Republicans). Democrats have ever since been busily engaging in fouling the term “Progressive” as badly as they had formerly fouled “Liberal.”
Similarly, I am completely unfamiliar with the term “Conservationism,” the closest term I know being “Conservationist,” a noun meaning a person who advocates or acts for the protection and preservation of the environment and wildlife (not to be confused with modern Algoresmic “tree huggers” or other environmental tyrannical “Progressives”). I suppose it could be said that a genuine “Conservationist” is someone who practices “Conservationism.” I would understand the term in that context.
But, I assume you refer to “Conservatism,” as in the Conservatism of Edmund Burke, who was repelled by the extremism of the French Revolution, and whose ideas closely paralleled the ideas and ideals of Washington and Adams, and were not too greatly removed from the “republicanism” of Jefferson and Madison. Correct me if I am mistaken.
Rather than deal with a load of terms that have varied meanings as they are understood by diverse personalities, or are nothing more than glittering generalities, perhaps we, might approach the proposition in a different manner.
We are familiar with the philosophy of the Founding Fathers because they actually put their political beliefs into practice when they expressed their philosophy (as best seen in the Declaration of Independence) and as they implemented with the Instrument of governance (the Constitution) they devised. We may have a widely different views or understanding of what the Founders wrote, but we all have a general understanding of what they did. So, why don’t you explain, in some small detail, with what you propose to replace their work (rather than the misanthropic monstrosity the 0bamatrons intend)?
For example, do you propose the official state establishment of a particular Church? Do you propose that certain high government offices (such as the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, or perhaps the Secretary of Homeland Security) be conferred only on Establishment Church Prelates as a matter of constitutional privilege and right? Do you propose that certain high federal offices (such as President, Representatives, and Senators) be continued as elective, or do you envision all officers will be by appointment only by a Church Board of Governors? How far into government would you propose the following of this practice? How do you see it affecting the states?
You have announced your intention to crush “Gay Marriage, pornography, etc.” How do you propose to achieve this “crushing.” With show trials (to discourage further efforts) and boards of inquiry? Or do you propose to simply not allow elections on certain proposals, and to deny legislatures the power to consider certain issues?
Do you propose that membership, regular attendance, baptism, and financial support of the Established Church be required of all citizens? How do you see it acting on free inquiry? Would such a state necessarily dictate that error has no rights? How would this impinge on the freedom of speech? Rights to be determined by whom?
Thank you for your time and your consideration.
Perhaps you don’t realize that the damage is already done and the answers I offered for a better world were solutions to what should have been done.
Don’t take this a criticism, dear Friend. But,there is nothing that you or I can do that is going to change the world(we can only change hearts of minorities of people during these times)until Christ comes again.
We should speak out against things like abortion, pornography etc... and we should expect to be persecuted for this, like Christ was persecuted.
We keep trying in full understanding of loving goodness to the point where we can drink our persecution like water.