["Meanwhile, the Old Testament Patriarchs, including Solomon and David, were not exactly conservatives in the way that you would define it."
Oh? And what tenets of conservatism did they reject?]
You are a great debater, by the way.
The tenets David and Solomon would have rejected, if conservativism in 1400 BC meant what you say it means today, were the idea that a man of great power should settle for less than 300 wives and 400 concubines.
Patriarchal conservatism has followed examples like that (or of Mohammed) for thousands of years and it includes the sexual behavior of many in the Catholic priesthood for 2000 years (sadly, this entitlement is often now directed at little boys).
The majority of men in this world who call themselves "conservative" would be thinking of this patriarchal view...even if, schizophrenically, some adhere to religions that want to keep women under control whom other conservative men don't want controlled.
Conservative men fought conservative men for 6000 years of recorded history...over resources and women. It is all about who gets control.
But this I don't understand about religion:
Suicide bombers kill themselves to get a patriarchal job servicing 72 virgins. Foreign insurgents in Iraq are enticed by tales of Iraqi women wanting sex with freedom fighters. Yet they support a religion in this life that stops young women from even being nice to them.
I don't understand how any Muslim man can call himself "conservative" who wouldn't want the opportunity to get what he clearly wants. But we all know how these bozos get around that: they go to Australia and rape innocent women for not wearing veils. Our job in the WOT is to turn these guys into real conservatives by deprogramming them out of a religion that is counterproductive to what men really want...and start teaching them how to grasp what they really want conservatively, not religiously.
The WOT clearly shows that religiousity is not always conservative. Look at the alliance, albeit a fake one, between Islamic extremists and the western left. That may be a bad example, because they are so far following a conservative principle of attempting to completely defeat their conservative enemy (the USA) rather than ally with us. But they sure as heck all vote liberal. Why would they put out their eye to spite their nose? Answer: religious people, at the lower levels, often don't think conservatively when organized religion tells them how to behave against their personal interests.
What you call Judao-Christian would be more "Paulist" to me. But that is a whole different discussion of organized religion. Suffice it to say that the Catholic priesthood and the Vatican wasn't always about morality and religion. It was conservative only in that it wanted power (and sex) and was willing to use various control mechanisms to get it.
And if I said the Catholic priesthood was only acting "conservatively" when they took advantage of people under their control...I hope I don't sound like a fascist.
Lord Palmerston was conservative because he wanted world control (and sex) at all costs even if it meant that England would be friends with the anti-monarchists in France who had long since executed their royalty. He was a realist and the conservative men approved of him and his womanizing more than they approved of Queen Victoria. He was one of the MEN who created the British Empire...while Queen Victoria watched and fretted about "moral values" in the same way that liberals today fret about the "morality of it all" when they condemn us modern conservatives who are shaping the world in the manner that we want and securing the oil for future maintenance of our superpower status and standard of living.
If I sound like I, like so many British conservative men of her day, did not like Queen Victoria's attitude, I hope I don't sound like a fascist.
Yet Queen Victoria, ridiculed by men in England, became popular in what was becoming a moralistic matriarchal American society. The legacy popularity of Queen Victoria in the USA and her influence on the modern American evangelical movement cannot be easily dismissed as a myth.
Nor can we ignore the matriarchy/patriarchy debate.
There is a reason why premarital sex is off the political table in the 21st century. Conservative men are split on the issue. And increasingly, so are women. It won't be back on the table in our lifetimes.
Someone at Amazon actually made a cogent comment when she noted that some "conservatives" in America might run like lemmings to buy a book that condemns sex...and not know that they are taking the Republican Party over a cliff in thinking that this book is supposed to be part of the "culture war they want to have". It concerns me that the liberals might perform jujitsu on Republicans who overreach. They'll let us have our "culture war" until a red line is silently crossed.
Lord Palmerston and the British conservatives would demand that this woman author go back to the kitchen. To them it would be Queen Victoria mouthing off. Apparently to a lot of guys on FR today...this woman author is automatically our spokesperson if we haven't read her book.
Single males who completely disagree with your idea of sexual morality (maybe 20 million who vote) aren't so enamored of the word Republican that they would vote for a continued matriarchy if that were the main issue in an election.
Let's stick to condemning the homosexual political agenda. You know: the one where we grant them the socalled right to "marriage" and then their next policy is to win the "right" to donate blood. We can all agree that this is a left wing nightmare. On heterosexual "rights" there is very little agreement as reflected by the past 10 years of no Republican policy on the matter.
“The tenets David and Solomon would have rejected, if conservativism in 1400 BC meant what you say it means today, were the idea that a man of great power should settle for less than 300 wives and 400 concubines.”
I didn’t ask what they would reject if they were alive today, I asked what they *did* reject. In their day, God had not yet told us to be monogamous, so their polygamy was not contrary to any tenet of conservatism. Were they alive today, given their love for God, I tend to think they would follow that tenet of conservatism.
(And by the way, the only reason monogamy is a tenet of conservatism is because God said we should be monogamous, long after the time of Solomon and David.)
“Patriarchal conservatism has followed examples like that (or of Mohammed) for thousands of years and it includes the sexual behavior of many in the Catholic priesthood for 2000 years (sadly, this entitlement is often now directed at little boys).”
Utter nonsense. You sound like the product of a “women’s studies” program at Vassar, talking about “patriarchal conservatism” and “matriarchal conservatism,” and “keeping women under control.”
“Patriarchal” and “matriarchal” are adjectives that cannot rationally be used in conjunction with the noun “conservatism,” and any desire to “keep women under control” arises not from conservatism, but from human nature. Most men instinctively understand that if women were in charge, they would do things to make life utterly intolerable for men—as feminism and other forms of PC are in fact doing in the West today.
Further, the sexual behavior of priests in the 20th century was approximately equivalent to or a little more virtuous than protestant preachers, schoolteachers, and doctors, so there’s no justification for charging off into wild accusations about the conduct of priests.
“The majority of men in this world who call themselves "conservative" would be thinking of this patriarchal view”
I very much doubt that *anyone* who is of Western Civilization thinks of the chimerical “patriarchal view” you propose other than feminists, leftists, and academics. It’s another fictional evil like “Victorianism” and “McCarthyism.”
“...even if, schizophrenically, some adhere to religions that want to keep women under control whom other conservative men don't want controlled.”
Christianity has as many or more “controls” on men as on women. Interestingly, feminists who go on about “patriarchy” want the controls on men kept in place, or even strengthened, even as they insist on throwing off all controls that bear on women.
“Conservative men fought conservative men for 6000 years of recorded history...over resources and women. It is all about who gets control.”
It’s hard to accept that you really believe that preposterous statement. The only way one could possibly find any truth in that would be to reduce conservatism to nothing more than, “The people who are in charge want to stay in charge.” Of course, if we do that, then we must reduce “progressivism” to, “The people who are not in charge want to be in charge.”
Conservatism as it exists today is far more than that. It is a coherent worldview that has something to say on all facets of human existence. It is illuminated not by the lust for power, but by the desire to know the truth, and to reject evil and pursue good. That, of course, rules out starting a war for resources and women.
“But this I don't understand about religion:”
Best I can tell you don’t understand anything about religion, and are mistaken regarding those things you think you do understand.
“Suicide bombers kill themselves to get a patriarchal job servicing 72 virgins. Foreign insurgents in Iraq are enticed by tales of Iraqi women wanting sex with freedom fighters. Yet they support a religion in this life that stops young women from even being nice to them.”
For something like that to make any sense to you, you have to understand about three large books worth of things. I’m not going to type in three large books’ worth of material, but I’ll briefly sketch the conclusions greater knowledge would eventually bring you to.
Firstly, people long for God. What we call religion is a reflection of that. However, Evil, or Satan, interferes with our search for Him. Further, our view of God is distorted by the evil that lurks in our own hearts, as a bathroom mirror may be clouded by steam. As a result, people sometimes base religions on extremely distorted views of God. Worse yet, as in the cases of Islam, Baal worshippers, and the pre-Columbian, human sacrifice religions of Central America, Satan has sometimes clearly had the defining influence on shaping the religion.
In short, all religions are not equal. Some have more of the truth, some less, some incorporate more error and some less, and some have been completely highjacked by Satan.
It is completely to be expected that one will become confused if he attempts to understand religion using a simplistic model that assumes all religions to be more or less similar things.
“I don't understand how any Muslim man can call himself "conservative"
To the best of my knowledge, they *don’t* call themselves “conservative,” nor does anyone else—except, perhaps, those whose agenda is blackening the name of conservatism.
“Our job in the WOT is to turn these guys into real conservatives by deprogramming them out of a religion that is counterproductive to what men really want”
No, our job is to kill them, and to keep killing them until they are unable to harm us further. The job of missionaries is to convert them to Christianity.
“conservatively, not religiously.”
That’s a contradiction in terms. Conservatism is grounded in the truth, and that includes the truths of Christianity and Judaism.
“The WOT clearly shows that religiousity is not always conservative.”
Nobody said it was. However, conservatism, sufficiently advanced, is always illuminated by religious truth.
“Look at the alliance, albeit a fake one, between Islamic extremists and the western left.”
That alone should tell you that Islam is of and from Satan.
“Why would they put out their eye to spite their nose? Answer:”
Answer? Because that’s the way the Father of Lies does things. He loves it when he can trick us into shooting ourselves in the foot.
“religious people, at the lower levels, often don't think conservatively when organized religion tells them how to behave against their personal interests.”
Lower levels? What would the “lower” levels be, and what makes them “lower?” And I see you’ve now introduced the cliché bugaboo of “organized religion.”
Hint: Christianity *never* tells you to act against your own best interests; and insofar as you think it does, you are in error.
“What you call Judao-Christian would be more "Paulist" to me.”
My word, have you sucked down *all* the anti-Christian kool-aid on *all* the tables? Is there any single piece of transparent sophistry you haven’t fallen for?
“Suffice it to say that the Catholic priesthood and the Vatican wasn't always about morality and religion.”
Road apples. As a matter of fact, the survival of the Church despite some of the bad men who have occupied high position within it shows that the exact opposite is true.
“And if I said the Catholic priesthood was only acting "conservatively" when they took advantage of people under their control...I hope I don't sound like a fascist.”
You sound like a liberal, a Ward Churchill, a Nancy Pelosi, a Maureen Dowd, a DUer.
Taking advantage of people under your control is in no way conservative, and your statement that it is makes me doubt that you are actually a conservative.
Perhaps the best statement of conservative principles regarding that issue is from a man of the 19th century:
The forebearing use of power does not only form a touchstone, but the manner in which an individual enjoys certain advantages over others, is a test of a true gentleman. The power which the strong have over the weak, the magistrate over the citizen, the employer over the employed, the educated over the unlettered, the experienced over the confiding, even the clever over the silly; the forebearing and inoffensive use of all this power or authority, or a total abstinence from it when the case admits it, will show the gentleman in a plain light. The gentleman does not needlessly and unnecessarily remind an offender of a wrong he may have committed against him. He cannot only forgive, he can forget; and he strives for that nobleness of self and mildness of character, which imparts sufficient strength to let the past be but the past. A true man of honor feels humbled himself when he cannot help humbling others.
That, of course, was Robert E. Lee.
“Lord Palmerston was conservative because he wanted world control (and sex) at all costs”
Only a liberal would think those things made him a conservative. There is nothing conservative about lust and the lust for power. In the 20th century, the worst offenders in both those areas were all leftists.
“If I sound like I, like so many British conservative men of her day, did not like Queen Victoria's attitude, I hope I don't sound like a fascist.”
All this talk of “fascists” makes you sound like a liberal.
“Yet Queen Victoria, ridiculed by men in England”
Sounds like you also made a pass by the table marked “rewritten history” for some kool-aid.
“became popular in what was becoming a moralistic matriarchal American society.”
Didn’t you just get through complaining about men controlling women?
“The legacy popularity of Queen Victoria in the USA and her influence on the modern American evangelical movement cannot be easily dismissed as a myth.”
Sure it can. So-called “Victorianism” was nothing more than a call to actually observe the moral code that had been in place for 1800 years. Victoria didn’t invent Christian morality; she just said, “Stop being hypocrites, and practice what you claim to believe.”
“Nor can we ignore the matriarchy/patriarchy debate.”
Ignoring it would be kinder than heaping upon it the scorn it merits.
“There is a reason why premarital sex is off the political table in the 21st century. Conservative men are split on the issue. And increasingly, so are women. It won't be back on the table in our lifetimes.”
No, it’s just that some of the men who are progressing toward conservatism haven’t come around yet, but the numbers are high and rising. Not only is it on the table, the numbers of young men and women who reject premarital sex are actually on the rise.
“Someone at Amazon actually made a cogent comment when she noted that some "conservatives" in America might run like lemmings to buy a book that condemns sex.”
You regard that as “cogent?” Good Lord.
Firstly, the book doesn’t “condemn sex,” according to the reviews and excerpts I’ve read. Secondly, the offensive notion that conservatives are lemming-like is not grounded in fact, nor is the assertion that they would approve of a book that “condemns sex,” if such a thing existed.
It would have been more accurate for that person to say, “It enrages me that conservatives refuse to endorse the vices and depravity that I embrace.”
"culture war they want to have"
Conservatives didn’t want a culture war. It was forced on us by evil people such as your reviewer.
“It concerns me that the liberals might perform jujitsu on Republicans who overreach. They'll let us have our "culture war" until a red line is silently crossed.”
Buncombe. All the movement during the culture war has been in the wrong direction. There is no “red line” between where we are today and where we were before evil attacked.
“Apparently to a lot of guys on FR today...this woman author is automatically our spokesperson if we haven't read her book.”
And there’s another liberal buzz word; “automatically.” A lot of us have been reading Kate O'Beirne for years, and were familiar with her views long before this book came out.
“Single males who completely disagree with your idea of sexual morality (maybe 20 million who vote)”
Road apples. You go ask those 20 million how many would prefer to marry a virgin, and then get back to me.
That aside, calling mainstream Christian morality as it has existed for over 2000 years “your idea of sexual morality” is another cheap liberal debate trick. You’re not arguing against one faceless person on the Internet; you’re arguing against 2000 years of Christianity.
“aren't so enamored of the word Republican that they would vote for a continued matriarchy if that were the main issue in an election.”
Gee, first Christian morality is patriarchal, and now it’s matriarchal. Yup, you sure do argue like a liberal.
“On heterosexual "rights" there is very little agreement as reflected by the past 10 years of no Republican policy on the matter.”
Agreement? I don’t need no steenking agreement. Teenage pregnancy is down, pre-marital sex is down, abortion is down…looks to me like people are turning around and moving in the right direction.
By the way, “conservative” and “Republican” are by no stretch of the imagination synonymous. A person can reasonably claim to be conservative at some point *after* he realizes that sexual depravity and conservatism are incompatible.