Are the Gloves Coming Off??

[Belk]

Neo-Nazis. They are certainly right wing, but as the National Socialism they promote has NEVER been part of the US culture, they cannot be called "conservative."


Conservative = maintaining the status quo, or trying to return to a previous status quo.

That it has been a part of US culture is not in the definition of if something is conservative or not.

 

[Dave-W]

That it has been a part of US culture is not in the definition of if something is conservative or not.

From Miriam-Webster online:

Definition of conservatism
1 capitalized

a : the principles and policies of a Conservative party
b : the Conservative party
​

2 a : disposition in politics to preserve what is established

b : a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change; specifically : such a philosophy calling for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs (such as retirement income or health-care coverage)​

3 : the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to change

• religious conservatism

• cultural conservatism

=============================================

Nazism is NOT now nor has it ever been established in the US culture.
Therefore it is NOT conservative.

 

[Belk]

From Miriam-Webster online:

Definition of conservatism
1 capitalized

a : the principles and policies of a Conservative party
b : the Conservative party
​

2 a : disposition in politics to preserve what is established

b : a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change; specifically : such a philosophy calling for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs (such as retirement income or health-care coverage)​

3 : the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to change

• religious conservatism

• cultural conservatism

=============================================

Nazism is NOT now nor has it ever been established in the US culture.
Therefore it is NOT conservative.

Huh. I'm missing where it says "Preserve what is established in your country". Perhaps you could bold that part?

 

[Dave-W]

Huh. I'm missing where it says "Preserve what is established in your country". Perhaps you could bold that part?

If you do not add that in there, then every system that has existed on earth can be called conservative. North Korea style totalitarianism is conservative as is the anarchy of Somalia and the unabashed hedonism of ancient Rome and Greece.

 

[PsychoSarah]

From Miriam-Webster online:

Definition of conservatism
1 capitalized

a : the principles and policies of a Conservative party
b : the Conservative party
​

2 a : disposition in politics to preserve what is established

b : a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change; specifically : such a philosophy calling for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs (such as retirement income or health-care coverage)​

3 : the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to change

• religious conservatism

• cultural conservatism

=============================================

Nazism is NOT now nor has it ever been established in the US culture.
Therefore it is NOT conservative.

You are technically right: "There is no single set of policies regarded as conservative because the meaning of conservatism depends on what is considered traditional in a given place and time. Thus conservatives from different parts of the world—each upholding their respective traditions—may disagree on a wide range of issues."

From the Wikipedia article on the matter.

One might argue that Nazism is conservative in regards to the United States, given that it was a political party gaining steam there before WWII and that was a very racist and eugenics supporting time in US history.

 

[Dave-W]

One might argue that Nazism is conservative in regards to the United States, given that it was a political party gaining steam there before WWII and that was a very racist and eugenics supporting time in US history.

"Gaining steam" and being mainstream in the culture are 2 very different things.

 

[Belk]

If you do not add that in there, then every system that has existed on earth can be called conservative. North Korea style totalitarianism is conservative as is the anarchy of Somalia and the unabashed hedonism of ancient Rome and Greece.

If people were trying to conserve those systems, then yes.

 

[Albion]

Neo-Nazis. They are certainly right wing, but as the National Socialism they promote has NEVER been part of the US culture, they cannot be called "conservative."


Conservative = maintaining the status quo, or trying to return to a previous status quo.

Neo-Nazis are, by definition, totalitarians. Conservatism is a view that aspires to conserve the liberties that have been won over the centuries.

 

[Dave-W]

Neo-Nazis are, by definition, totalitarians. Conservatism is a view that aspires to conserve the liberties that have been won over the centuries.

So who were the conservatives in the Brezhnev administration? Mao's administration?

 

[Albion]

So who were the conservatives in the Brezhnev administration? Mao's administration?

There were no conservatives in those governments. Are you thinking that the term is relative, such that there must always be those who are the Liberals and, OTOH, the Conservatives, in any given political situation or organization?

 

[98cwitr]

We who grew up on the 50's and 60's were fortunate. One parent could provide for all the needs of a family with one income. There were unions. There were pensions. Things were affordable.

When I got married, things were still pretty good. I was a stay-at-home mom for a number of years and my husband had a great job. I attribute the calamities hat followed to Reagan's busting the air traffic controller Union. We never had job security again and moved from state to state. Things have gotten worse since--and the best boomers stand with Bernie Sanders and Robert Reich economically.

I was born in the 80s and my wife is now a stay at home mom. I come from a fatherless home, and my mom had her fair share of debilitating issues. We weren't dirt poor, but we were the bottom rung of what might be considered middle class, but dipped sometimes into the top portion of lower class. That said, I had a very supportive extended family, who helped me get back into college and I was able to graduate, find good work, and climb the corporate ladder via my own motivations and putting the needs of my employer first. I can now say that I have the ability to support my wife and baby financially. I just wish kids had this same mentality, rather than looking to the government for assistance. Individualism does matter. If everyone would embrace the idea of personal responsibility and accountability, this world would be miles closer to peace and prosperity. jm2c.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I doubt any Second Century Christians ever knew an Apostle. Its the time thing.

Ignatius of Antioch was an elderly man when he was carried from Antioch to Rome. There is a pretty solid consensus that Ignatius wrote his letters (which were written on the way from Antioch to Rome) sometime between about 105 to 110, usually the year 107 is given (Wikipedia offers the year 108). He was already quite old, and there is pretty unanimous agreement among those who themselves knew him, that he had known some of the Apostles in his youth. Seeing as he was a child and young man in the mid-1st century, it's hardly extraordinary to think that he did, in fact, know the Apostles.

As a "time thing" it's helpful to remember that people don't age according to centuries. A person born in the 1940's could easily have met someone famous in the 1960's and still be alive today to talk about it.

It is worth remembering, however, Christians got along fine without a Bible until the Fourth Century when the Holy Roman Catholic Church decided they needed rules to enforce.

Not how the Biblical Canon came to be.

1) there was no "Holy Roman Catholic Church" in the 4th century. In the 4th century Christians spoke of the catholic Church, where "catholic" was an adjective; and there was nothing Roman about it. The term "Roman" in "Roman Catholic" depends on who you ask: Catholics argue that Roman Catholic refers only to Catholics of the Latin or Roman Rite (as distinct from, e.g., Byzantine Catholics or Maronite Catholics who are Catholics of the Byzantine and Maronite Rites respectively); while Orthodox and Protestants tend to use "Roman" to refer to See of Rome. There was a Catholic Church in the 4th century, just as there had been a Catholic Church in the 2nd and 3rd century, but there was no "Roman Catholic Church" in the sense of a discrete ecclesiastical institution from the rest of Christendom until the Great Schism of 1054.

2) The Christian Biblical Canon was not settled in the 4th century, no more than it had been settled earlier; and debates and discussion over the canonicity of certain books continued for centuries. If you are imagining that the Bible was established at the Council of Nicea then this is incorrect, the Council of Nicea didn't discuss the Biblical Canon, it simply wasn't a topic of discussion or debate; neither (though many imagine otherwise) did Emperor Constantine play any role. It doesn't take much looking into historical source material to see that the Canon was still fluid during and after the 4th century, compare the list of canonical books offered by St. Athanasius in his 39th Festal Letter to the Canon lists offered by the local synods of Carthage and Laodicea (all 4th century), or consider that even as late as the 8th century the Apocalypse of St. John was still a highly controversial text and St. John of Damascus had to argue for its inclusion among the Eastern Churches; and even still in 1200 the Armenian Bible still did not include the Apocalypse in its Canon, though it did include the spurious text of 3 Corinthians.

In truth, there has never been a definitive closing of the Canon agreed to by all Christians. The Council of Trent settled the matter for Roman Catholics in the 16th century, various Protestant groups defined their Canon to the exclusion of the Deuterocanonical books in their confessional texts (e.g. the Articles of Religion, the Westminster Confession), there is no pan-Orthodox official closing of the Canon that I'm aware of, and there remains slight differences in one or two books between Orthodox jurisdictions. Differences of opinion between Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox are demonstrative of the fact that the Canon of Scripture has been fluid for most of Christian history--until Trent no council, regarded as ecumenical by anyone, ever settled the matter; and only Rome considers Trent ecumenical, it is not accepted by Orthodox or Protestants.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[RDKirk]

2) The Christian Biblical Canon was not settled in the 4th century, no more than it had been settled earlier; and debates and discussion over the canonicity of certain books continued for centuries. If you are imagining that the Bible was established at the Council of Nicea then this is incorrect, the Council of Nicea didn't discuss the Biblical Canon, it simply wasn't a topic of discussion or debate; neither (though many imagine otherwise) did Emperor Constantine play any role. It doesn't take much looking into historical source material to see that the Canon was still fluid during and after the 4th century, compare the list of canonical books offered by St. Athanasius in his 39th Festal Letter to the Canon lists offered by the local synods of Carthage and Laodicea (all 4th century), or consider that even as late as the 8th century the Apocalypse of St. John was still a highly controversial text and St. John of Damascus had to argue for its inclusion among the Eastern Churches; and even still in 1200 the Armenian Bible still did not include the Apocalypse in its Canon, though it did include the spurious text of 3 Corinthians.

In truth, there has never been a definitive closing of the Canon agreed to by all Christians. The Council of Trent settled the matter for Roman Catholics in the 16th century, various Protestant groups defined their Canon to the exclusion of the Deuterocanonical books in their confessional texts (e.g. the Articles of Religion, the Westminster Confession), there is no pan-Orthodox official closing of the Canon that I'm aware of, and there remains slight differences in one or two books between Orthodox jurisdictions. Differences of opinion between Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox are demonstrative of the fact that the Canon of Scripture has been fluid for most of Christian history--until Trent no council, regarded as ecumenical by anyone, ever settled the matter; and only Rome considers Trent ecumenical, it is not accepted by Orthodox or Protestants.

-CryptoLutheran

OTOH, there are books of the canon that have not been disputed since the latter 1st century. Certainly by the Marcion heresy, those letters identified by then as Pauline were not in dispute.

 

[ViaCrucis]

OTOH, there are books of the canon that have not been disputed since the latter 1st century. Certainly by the Marcion heresy, those letters identified by then as Pauline were not in dispute.

Right. Certain books have been accepted for as long as anyone has spoken about them. So it's important to make a distinction between Homolegoumena and Antilegomena when it comes to the New Testament Canon. The books of the Homolegoumena are called Homolegoumena precisely because they have never been in dispute and have been universally accepted for as long as we can tell.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Kaon]

The left spent at least twenty years prior to 2016 demanding that Christians separate their religion from their vote.

Congratulations, left, you gave us President Trump.

Edit- I should add that it's mostly Boomers who are worried about their respectability with regards to Trump voters. The generations younger than the Boomers mostly couldn't care less.

Considering that 2020 is likely to be the last election where Boomers are a political consideration, I don't think their concerns are worth listening to anymore. If they ever were. Which is doubtful.

It isn't about separating religion from politics; it never really was.

The problem was that vocal Christians and Christian leaders have openly supported a man that is an abominable image of Christ just because he is the lesser of two evils.

This isn't just conservatives and Christians doing this, but the hypocrisy of Christians defending a blatantly incorrigible man to justify a paradigm. People are getting tired of hearing about Christ from people who think certain people are animals who rape and murder, and openly justify the action of a man that is unapologetically ungodly - literally.

 

[RDKirk]

Right. Certain books have been accepted for as long as anyone has spoken about them. So it's important to make a distinction between Homolegoumena and Antilegomena when it comes to the New Testament Canon. The books of the Homolegoumena are called Homolegoumena precisely because they have never been in dispute and have been universally accepted for as long as we can tell.

-CryptoLutheran

For the sakes of others, those would be the four gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, the fourteen epistles of Paul, and the first epistles of Peter and John. Those were never in dispute even from the earliest times.

 

[Kaon]

For the sakes of others, those would be the four gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, the fourteen epistles of Paul, and the first epistles of Peter and John. Those were never in dispute even from the earliest times.

So, you are aware of the oscillating canonical status of Revelation, for example?

 

[thecolorsblend]

It isn't about separating religion from politics; it never really was.

The problem was that vocal Christians and Christian leaders have openly supported a man that is an abominable image of Christ just because he is the lesser of two evils.

This isn't just conservatives and Christians doing this, but the hypocrisy of Christians defending a blatantly incorrigible man to justify a paradigm. People are getting tired of hearing about Christ from people who think certain people are animals who rape and murder, and openly justify the action of a man that is unapologetically ungodly - literally.

I’m friendly with a good number of evangelicals and the unifying idea between them all is an “I don’t care anymore” attitude. Civility, conservative purity tests, insults, smears, they seem fed up with everything. Voting for Trump for them was an electoral middle finger to a system they’ve come to despise.

I don’t understand why people don’t understand this. They cannot be shamed, guilt-tripped or bullied into voting for some other guy. Their anger seems to overrule everything else. The rest of you can hate that as much as you want but these tactics of “calling out their hypocrisy” have never worked.

If you’re determined to change things, you’ll need to try something new.

 

[Phil 1:21]

I’m friendly with a good number of evangelicals and the unifying idea between them all is an “I don’t care anymore” attitude. Civility, conservative purity tests, insults, smears, they seem fed up with everything. Voting for Trump for them was an electoral middle finger to a system they’ve come to despise.

I don’t understand why people don’t understand this. They cannot be shamed, guilt-tripped or bullied into voting for some other guy. Their anger seems to overrule everything else. The rest of you can hate that as much as you want but these tactics of “calling out their hypocrisy” have never worked.

If you’re determined to change things, you’ll need to try something new.

Spending the previous eight years accusing everyone who didn't agree with Obama of being a racist didn't help their cause either.

 

[MyOwnSockPuppet]

Happily, I'm not an evangelical but a Catholic. Happily I didn't vote for Trump OR Hillary.

I didn't vote for either Senator Whitewater-emails-Benghazi-corporate-sponsored or Mr My-hotels-have-filed-for-bankrupcy-protection-six-times-heel-spurs-orange-skin-and-a-dead-woodchuck-on-his-head, but then again I'm not American.

As far as I'm concerned if those two represent the best candidates for the (largely American viewpoint) "Leader of the Free World" then I think it's probably a good time to start learning Russian.