Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Alright, so we've established the principle that human rights Trump Christian morality and can be used to compel Christians and inhibit their freedom to express themselves religiously. Now secular human rights are not derived from God because they are not Christian. Why do you prefer them over Christian morality?
I don't . Why do you draw that conclusion. Living in a pluralistic society is not about the morality I prefer.
You do, by your actions, in that you prefer to live in a society which mandates pluralism of religions rather than any particular religious system. It's also a question of whether or not the current model best allows for religions to publicly express themselves since you also believe that human rights trump any religious liberty question. This means that Christians cannot act fully as Christians in the public space so as to equalize everyone.
What society do you live in that you do not have to accommodate public morality standards?
All societies have public standards of morality. The question is why do you prefer a secular liberal morality as opposed to a Christian moral framework for society?
Again, why do you come to that conclusion about what I "prefer"? I merely state that reality of our current society. Even Christians do not agree on exactly what a "Christian moral framework" is and how to live it out in concrete situations.
Interestingly, resisting change and tolerating inequality are very different things. When equality is already assumed or established, changing the status quo means moving towards inequality. This is how something like DEI isn't only opposed by racists, for instance, but by people who previously took for granted that all races were equal and therefore resist the idea of giving certain races special treatment over others.In politics, researchers usually define “conservativism” as a general tendency to resist change and tolerate social inequality. “Liberalism” means a tendency to embrace change and reject inequality.
Psychologists have long suspected that a few fundamental differences in worldviews might underlie the conservative-liberal rift. Forty years of research has shown that, on average, conservatives see the world as a more dangerous place than liberals do. This one belief seemed to help explain many American conservative stances in policy disagreements, such as support of gun ownership, border enforcement, and increased spending on police and the military—all of which, one can argue, are meant to protect people from a threatening world.
But new research by psychologist Nick Kerry and me at the University of Pennsylvania contradicts that long-standing theory. We find instead that the main difference between the left and the right is whether people believe the world is inherently hierarchical. Conservatives, our work shows, tend to believe more strongly than liberals in a hierarchical world, which is essentially the view that the universe is a place where the lines between categories or concepts matter. A clearer understanding of that difference could help society better bridge political divides.
Many Differences between Liberals and Conservatives May Boil Down to One Belief
Conservatives tend to believe that strict divisions are an inherent part of life. Liberals do notwww.scientificamerican.com
Right . It is too easy to label as one or the other and make huge assumptions. But as we see political adds we also see candidates boasting of their conservative views. Sso they wish to label themselves and attract votes for that label. And it seems to me they are usually holding a gun.
Not this conservative.
Good point. Taking a conservative approach, thinking new ideas through first, saves time and energy in the long run. Rather than wasting resources on something that won't scale or otherwise isn't feasible. An example of practicality trumping idealism.
Do you consider not recognizing the legitimacy of homosexual 'unions' as a Christian moral norm? Or do you support said unions?
This is my last response with you unless you get reasonable. It is you who " is being deliberately obtuse in refusing to acknowledge what it is for the sake of an argument." I even tried to help you by providing motion picture rating standards. But you refuse. I do not support it's legalization. i would like to see agreed upon social standards. But then how do we enforce them?
I am asking a question. We seem to have this spectrum from conservative, rugged individualism on the right to progressive, socialism on the left.
Good question. I suppose somewhere in between helping people who actually need it, and creating a dependency class out of those who don't.
