Married A Horn said:
FLBear5630 said:
Redbrickbear said:
FLBear5630 said:
Assassin said:
FLBear5630 said:
Assassin said:
FLBear5630 said:
Assassin said:
FLBear5630 said:
J.R. said:
honest question. I hear the term "Conservative " thrown around this board incessantly , so I thought it would be interesting to hear from "conservatives" on this board how you would personally define it. The term has become somewhat illusive to me in the past 15yrs or so.
Definition of Conservative- Somebody that supports:
-Freedom of opportunity, not outcome
- The correct size of Government is based on need of the Nation, not some predetermined size of what it should be.
- Lowest tax rates to meet the needs of the Nation.
- Governments role is to create an environment for its citizens to be safe, successful, and free to choose. It is up to the citizens to do it.
(Needs of the Nation change based on the world around us.)
You're describing a Libertarian. A conservative is a bit different, a lot of what Libertarians believe except when it comes to upholding family and social values, traditional family structures, opposing murder of children through abortion, sex outside of marriage (I didn't do too well on that point) an so forth
No, I did not. Maybe your view of Libertarian. But Libertarians want much less govt than I described. I do believe Govt plays a role, not just in background. I also believe in separation of church and state, the moral stuff you mention is not the Govts place to dictate, it is parents. That is closer to Liberals that believe Govt should dictate morality, same concept just different particulars.
It's the very definition of a Libertarian:
- The correct size of Government is based on need of the Nation, not some predetermined size of what it should be.
- Lowest tax rates to meet the needs of the Nation.
- Governments role is to create an environment for its citizens to be safe, successful, and free to choose. It is up to the citizens to do it.
This is a LIbertarian. Smallest government that we can get by with. Certainly not the total definition of a Conservative
Where you lose it is the definition of what we can get by with. I am sure Libertarians would not approve of many of the things I think the Govt should do. DEA, for one. NATO/Alliances. SS. Medicare, I believe a society takes care of the elderly. Libertarians would not.
As for definition of Conservative, you seem to equate Conservative with morality, at least what you consider moral. Slippery slope.
I prefer to keep morality out of my Govt, get enough of that at church. If we have morality in Govt than I am being preached at what I do wrong and hit for money everywhere! Can't take another letter from Paul telling me what to do and a tithing homily...
But you're not protecting the citizens of the US unless there is some involvement of the government in morality. for instance, there is no way in hell that we should allow a woman in California to castrate her son because she doesn't want him to be a man. That comes from the hate from Main Stream Media. TODAY's conservatives will not allow that, it's about to change. You can argue other idiocies by TODAY's liberals, such as murdering their own children via abortion.
They are called laws, statutes, regulations, standards, specifications all the stuff you guys are saying needs to go. What do you think moralities, sins, and commandments are? Regulations.
You seem to want a Theocracy not a Conservative Government, only Christian not Moslem. Think Spain, Middle ages...
American between 1789 and 1965 was not a medieval theocratic State
Lets get real....
(even the medieval theocracy you image did not really exist outside of the Pope's self ruled Papal State and the Teutonic order's State in the Baltic region.....England, France, Spain, Portugal, Poland were all secular States ruled by a King...the Latin Church had a large amount of influence but they were not technically theocracies. They were not ruled by the Clergy)
Really, Spanish Inquisition really did t happen.
US has never been a Theocracy. The Constitution require it not to be. Why? If it really wasn't a thing? Just out of the blue?
Keep religion out of government. And we need a government. A loose collective of do what you want will last about a week.
Pretty sure the founding fathers relied heavily on Biblical principals and quoted it often - referencing God many times. 'In God we Trust' 'One Nation Under God' ...etc.
They wanted to get the govt out of the church and they didnt want the catholic church running the government.
Exactly,
They were highly religious and did not conceive of a future Union that did not have a highly religious population and moral based laws.
But of course they did not grant the Federal Gov. the power to create a State Church that all must pay money to....not least because they knew there would be no agreement on what the Church would be.
New England was Congregationalist (descended from the Puritans)
Pennsylvania was Quaker (with German protestant minorities)
New York was Dutch Reformed- Calvinist (with other protestants there as well)
New Jersey was Presbyterian (with other Christian minorities)
Maryland was Catholic (with heavy protestant church members as well)
Virginia and the Lower South were Anglican (with Methodist, Baptist, and Presbyterian minorities)
And interesting enough the Federal Gov. or Federal Courts never felt they had the power to force States to not have established Churches....the States got rid of them on their own over a period of several decades.
[
All 13 American states had established churches or required officeholders to profess a certain faith in 1776. The process of states ending these establishments is known as "disestablishment". Massachusetts was the last state to disestablish its official church in 1833]
