How to get through to Conservatives?

[Crowns&Laurels]

Only after liberals/progressives force traditionalists into the next century.

Being that this 'next century' has been the primary spectacle in which the world may see an apocalypse, both by theologians and futurists, that notion isn't very settling.

History shows that when an extreme, rapid shift happens in a culture, it turns out for the worst. Modern liberal notions have reshaped social biases in less then fifty years, and has no brakes. I wonder what it will crash into.

 

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

Only after liberals/progressives force traditionalists into the next century.

I take offense at this. I am not a conservative in any way or form, but I do know that not a that is being conserved is without value and not all that is progressive is positive.

Society is not a thing to be held either in foreword or reverse at any breakneck speed lest we run over those in the middle. Lets not forget that it is those very people in the middle who accept or reject the ideas and ideals that each side is advocating. If you overun them they will marginalize you and who will they be listening to after that.

 

[Albion]

Only after liberals/progressives force traditionalists into the next century.

The point is that Liberal and Conservative both evolve over time, and the question of this thread deals the present situation.

 

[Martinius]

Well, times change, don't they?

No, not really. Everything I have seen in the past decade or two I have either seen at an earlier time or have known about through reading history. There were several events that occurred in my younger days that I really thought we had learned from and would never let happen again. I was unfortunately wrong. We have this apparently instinctive habit of denying the truths and lessons of past experiences. And also of not appreciating the fact that what we are and what we do and how we think is conditioned by our past and the past of our forebears. The Church, like most institutions, is not immune to any of that.

 

[Albion]

No, not really. Everything I have seen in the past decade or two I have either seen at an earlier time or have known about through reading history.

That would suggest only that events move in a circular way; it's still evidence of change.

 

[Martinius]

I'm also deeply concerned with the huge mingling that religion and politics has done in recent years.

Someone in another thread wondered why Americans are more "religious" than most other people, especially Europeans. One scholar (and perhaps more) who has studied this topic posited that the separation of church and state has greatly aided the growth of religion and faith in America, in essence encouraging it by not limiting or controlling it. It is an interesting phenomenon that the more religiously diverse our nation becomes the more some people want to remove or alter that constitutional protection.

 

[Martinius]

That would suggest only that events move in a circular way; it's still evidence of change.

But change that is cyclical, rather than progressive. I don't intend by that to imply that there has been no progress, but that some change is between two poles or extremes, moving back and forth. During my life I have witnessed amazing social progress and events that were not repeats of the past but actual positive change. But in some cases we seem to quickly forget what we have learned and the progress we have made, and repeat past mistakes or try to undo the good that has resulted from progressive change.

 

[hedrick]

Hmmm. That's interesting, considering that the thought police seem totally to be on the political LEFT these days. It's they who will try to get you fired or your business put into bankruptcy, etc. if you so much as speak a term that they don't approve of. I very rarely hear of anything like that coming from the Conservative end of the spectrum. Mostly, Conservatives defend and accept as right the idea of freedom of speech.

I was thinking more of actual prosecution. At least in the US, most of what you talk about is non-governmental. Of course these days, there’s more and more control of our lives by non-governmental authorities, so free speech is starting to mean less and less. More and more, schools and employers, as well as Internet services, are supposed to prevent bullying and other anti-social things. Because they aren’t bound by the first amendment, we’ve got problems. This is at least part of what you’re talking about.

(I'm less sympathetic with people who are in fields covered by public accommodation laws who don't want to serve gays or gay weddings.)

But I was really thinking of the war on drugs, and the various mandatory sentencing policies. They’ve ruined lots of lives unnecessarily. They tend to be supported by “law and order” types. However in fairness, many of those changes were bi-partisan. This fact is causing trouble for Hillary and others, who are supporting changes, and hoping no one notices that they advocated the policies in the first place.

However the State as nanny may well be non-partisan. While one tends to associate “law and order” with conservatives, prosecution (or more dangerously, non-judicial penalties) against parents for trying to make their kids self-reliant tends to come from motivations most associated with liberals.

 

[Albion]

But change that is cyclical, rather than progressive.

Sure. All I pointed to is the mistake in thinking that what these terms or movements might have been pushing for the better part of a century ago isn't especially relevant to what we were discussing here and now.

 

[Albion]

I was thinking more of actual prosecution.

Ah, that would be a different matter then.

At least in the US, most of what you talk about is non-governmental.

I don't think we can say that. It often becomes a matter of legal action.

Of course these days, there’s more and more control of our lives by non-governmental authorities, so free speech is starting to mean less and less. More and more, schools and employers, as well as Internet services, are supposed to prevent bullying and other anti-social things. Because they aren’t bound by the first amendment, we’ve got problems. This is at least part of what you’re talking about.

Yes, I'd agree to that.

But I was really thinking of the war on drugs, and the various mandatory sentencing policies. They’ve ruined lots of lives unnecessarily. They tend to be supported by “law and order” types. However in fairness, many of those changes were bi-partisan. This fact is causing trouble for Hillary and others, who are supporting changes, and hoping no one notices that they advocated the policies in the first place.

True.

 

[Martinius]

Sure. All I pointed to is the mistake in thinking that what these terms or movements might have been pushing for the better part of a century ago isn't especially relevant to what we were discussing here and now.

You seem to have, whether intentionally or not, provided confirmation of what I was saying in posts 44 and 47. I think it is very relevant, and many of the arguments we are having and the issues we are facing today are the result of what was done or not done, decided or not decided, decades and even centuries before us. Many people say that is not relevant, but any good historical review will show that it is.

 

[Albion]

You seem to have, whether intentionally or not, provided confirmation of what I was saying in posts 44 and 47. I think it is very relevant, and many of the arguments we are having and the issues we are facing today are the result of what was done or not done, decided or not decided, decades and even centuries before us. Many people say that is not relevant, but any good historical review will show that it is.

No, I still think you are missing the point here, but it doesn't look like further debate over this little matter would be worth doing.

 

[hedrick]

No, I still think you are missing the point here, but it doesn't look like further debate over this little matter would be worth doing.

Probably not. Remember that you're in a forum where posters are assumed to accept homosexuality, or at least are not supposed to attack that position.

 

[Albion]

Probably not. Remember that you're in a forum where posters are assumed to accept homosexuality, or at least are not supposed to attack that position.

Well, I don't know how I could have been any less specific or confrontational than I was in that last post, Hedrick. I'm initiating none of this, but people keep directing comments to me, even after I say that there's nothing more to say.

 

[Nemo Neem]

Conservatives, for sure, need to be more open-minded. That's what gets them into trouble. An open-mindedness isn't the same as telling them they're wrong.

The issue is whether or not what one person thinks is sinful isn't necessarily what another thinks is sinful. No Christian, liberal or conservative, should condone sin. Sin is sin. We should "hate" the sin, not the person. God hates sin but He doesn't hate His children. That's why Jesus came, to reconcile that.

A person is a person. You cannot fault a person for who they are, what they believe, or who they feel they are. You cannot say a person isn't a person because they adhere to the way their bodies function. Everyone is a sinner. Everyone falls short of the glory of God. And salvation isn't instantaneous. It is a lifelong journey; it is a journey toward perfect love. For sure, no one is perfect. But I think we need to stop debating what the Bible means to say and focus on what it actually says: that through Jesus, and Jesus only, do we achieve salvation. We need to focus on working out our own salvation and not worry about petty arguments that will only continue to divide the church.

 

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

Conservatives, for sure, need to be more open-minded. That's what gets them into trouble. An open-mindedness isn't the same as telling them they're wrong.

The issue is whether or not what one person thinks is sinful isn't necessarily what another thinks is sinful. No Christian, liberal or conservative, should condone sin. Sin is sin. We should "hate" the sin, not the person. God hates sin but He doesn't hate His children. That's why Jesus came, to reconcile that.

A person is a person. You cannot fault a person for who they are, what they believe, or who they feel they are. You cannot say a person isn't a person because they adhere to the way their bodies function. Everyone is a sinner. Everyone falls short of the glory of God. And salvation isn't instantaneous. It is a lifelong journey; it is a journey toward perfect love. For sure, no one is perfect. But I think we need to stop debating what the Bible means to say and focus on what it actually says: that through Jesus, and Jesus only, do we achieve salvation. We need to focus on working out our own salvation and not worry about petty arguments that will only continue to divide the church.

I think that certain people attribute change with the rejection of traditions and simply assume that morale and ethical values come part and parcel with tradition. They simply assume that anyone attempting change is in reality wishing to destroy these things and label that person's intent as evil and reject them because of the mental imagery they've allowed to fester in their own minds.

It's not an issue of being open minded, since most people have an open mind when situations are brought to them on familiar grounds. Conservatives as well as liberals need to take guidance from their own hearts instead of the political leadership and the media who is intent on controlling as many people they can to prop them up in the seat of power.

This is imo the real reason we should have a separation between church and state. It's not to keep the influence of religion out of politics but to keep the influence of politics out of religion.

 

[Albion]

Conservatives, for sure, need to be more open-minded. That's what gets them into trouble.

That's what Liberals constantly tell them--agree with everything that the Liberals stand for or else you won't do well in the next election or you're a bigot or you aren't a good Christian or you will offend someone.

At the same time, the Liberals are the ones wanting to change everything (which of course offends many people) and they don't care in the least if their motives are bigoted, self-serving, etc.

The point is that the entire "Conservatives need to be..." stuff is phony.

 

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

At the same time, the Liberals are the ones wanting to change everything (which of course offends many people) and they don't care in the least if their motives are bigoted, self-serving, etc.

Not all liberals are activists and not all activists are idealist. It is the idealists who become ideologues that become a detriment to free speech and free will. They are the one's who consider themselves the modern day Moses and fell that by their own hand is the only way the rest of society can be brought into their own version of the promised land.

To use a blanket statement about those who may just be in agreement with you might be more destructive than it needs to because it pushed people away and reiterates the narative that holds the far left together.

 

[Albion]

Not all liberals are activists and not all activists are idealist. It is the idealists who become ideologues that become a detriment to free speech and free will. They are the one's who consider themselves the modern day Moses and fell that by their own hand is the only way the rest of society can be brought into their own version of the promised land.

To use a blanket statement about those who may just be in agreement with you might be more destructive than it needs to because it pushed people away and reiterates the narative that holds the far left together.

You make a valid point, but since the topic sentence here is a generalized one, "How to get through to Conservatives," a generalization about their opposite number--Liberals--is appropriate. Still, we all should be careful about accusing or characterizing individual people on the basis of such labels as these.

 

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

You make a valid point, but since the topic sentence here is a generalized one, "How to get through to Conservatives," a generalization about their opposite number--Liberals--is appropriate. Still, we all should be careful about accusing or characterizing individual people on the basis of such labels as these.

Partisanship in any form, including the I-word(Ideology) has the the potential to of changing otherwise highly intelligent and thoroughly well adjusted people into babbling idiots who spew mindless rants designed to placate the mental imagery that pops into their own heads when the opposition is discussed.

I apologize profusely to you for quoting you coments. It was a thoughtless act that was thouroghly unfair to you. I should have posted it before, without bringing anyone else into it.

My comments should have been a general ones that encompassed the entire partisan ideal including the wording in the title of the post. Please forgive me.