[Ohioan]

I wish the writer, an intelligent comentator, would not adopt such sloppy terminology as referring to those Conservatives who take intemperate positions on certain philosophical issues as "social conservatives." All Conservatives are both social conservatives and fiscal conservatives. Those who are purely preoccuppied with a few issues, are really not true conservatives, but preoccuppied people with some conservative tendencies.

I think that the great weight of the scientific evidence supports both evolution--which has been witnessed in the historic period--and the obvious fact that the Creator knew what he was doing. This observation does not lead to advocacy for any form of indoctrination. Science and theology are both disciplines that seek to find truth; to understand truth. There is no logical antagonism between the two, but some intemperate folk of various points on the ideological spectrum have clouded what is obvious, because of intemperate agendas.

I have just posted the Feature for December at my web site. It does not deal with this issue, because it is not really a Federal issue--and should not become one. See: Primary 2006!--Tactical Tips For Conservative Candidates.

William Flax

[af_vet_rr]

I wish the writer, an intelligent comentator, would not adopt such sloppy terminology as referring to those Conservatives who take intemperate positions on certain philosophical issues as "social conservatives." All Conservatives are both social conservatives and fiscal conservatives. Those who are purely preoccuppied with a few issues, are really not true conservatives, but preoccuppied people with some conservative tendencies.

That's an interesting point - I actually seperate people into groups, but maybe you're right. I stopped saying the GOP was the party of Conservatives long ago, and maybe I should go ahead and stop referring to those with views incompatible with certain Conservative beliefs as "social" or "fiscal" Conservatives, and just call them liberals.

[curiosity]

I wish the writer, an intelligent comentator, would not adopt such sloppy terminology as referring to those Conservatives who take intemperate positions on certain philosophical issues as "social conservatives."

I think you're absolutely right. It really, really bothers me that "social conservative" has become equated with biblical fundamentalist.

It is true, unfortunatley, that in the US, right now, most social conservatives are probably into creationism or ID. But it is not true historically, and even now, it is not true internationally.

Poland, for example, is a far more socially conservative country than the US. Far more religious, I'd venture to say. And yet, no one there has any problem with evolution.