Who said that gays have to be Democrats?

[Kulindahr]

You've found a political philosopher with a lovely grasp of the language. But as far as applying what he's written to anything that's happening in the government, I'm sorry, but he's just another pundit with some more catchy talking points.

....

It's impressive rhetoric, don't get me wrong, but you keep quoting this one source as a foundation for argument.

Just because one admirably adept essayist puts Conservatism under Rembrandt's light doesn't give you a rung-up on the ladder of political discourse over anyone with dissenting opinions.

So quote Kirk all you like, but the system under which we're living is still as it is. I wish rhetoric were the antidote, but we're far past that.

He didn't "find" anyone, nor is the guy he's quoting "just another pundit". You seem to be doing a lot of work here to disparage that source, but do you even know who the source is? If you want to find someone whose writings set forth what the actual conservative principles are, Kirk is where you go.

Rather than disparage the source, you'd do better to look at what that source says, so you can engage in knowledgeable discussion.

 

[construct]

It's amazing to see the reaction when I tell people who know that I'm gay, that I am a conservative.

It's amazing because it makes virtually no sense. The whole "Democrats are the only ones who stand up for gays" thing is complete bullshit, and I think that most gays, most Republicans, AND most Democrats know it.

Virtually no one these days knows that it was, in fact, the Republicans who initially opposed slavery, not the Democrats. The modern Democratic party was essentially born out of the desire to use the government to punish people who are different than the majority.

If anything, I believe that conservatives, and Republicans, are the ONLY party that gays should believe stands up for them.

I notice that you seem to have abandoned this thread. Were you merely stirring shit? If so, you've certainly stirred it.

I would only point out that the meaning of the word 'conservative' and the party now associated with it have shifted considerably over the past hundred years. The old definitions are anachronistic. 'Prevent' no longer means 'precede' as it did in Shakespeare's day. Likewise, 'conservatism' is no longer tethered to the philosophy of Edmund Burke.

 

[Alabaster]

Kulindahr, much of my point was that saying "today's Liberals" or "in today's sense" is precisely the problem. If you study the origins of each ideal, naturally, there's been an evolution away from their original intention...I thought I made that clear.

Regarding Sodom, Gomorrah, David, and Jonathon: you haven't sat through a rural Primitive Baptist sermon in western North Carolina. It might be obvious to you or others that such-and-such has been well-known for over a thousand years, but that doesn't change the fact that it's still being preached as divine wrath and condemnation all across the country and the world. The same goes with the story of David and Jonathon - sacred texts are interpretations of translated parables. In the end, it comes down to what one is taught during one's upbringing. Forgive me for interjecting my opinion into a thread built upon opinion.

"The reason they get away with it is because Americans pretty much engage in idolatry over the "two party system", being firmly convinced we have to vote for one or the other of the "Re-Elect Us Party" (REUP)."

That's precisely my point...why rephrase it as a rebuttal?


"He didn't "find" anyone, nor is the guy he's quoting "just another pundit". You seem to be doing a lot of work here to disparage that source, but do you even know who the source is? If you want to find someone whose writings set forth what the actual conservative principles are, Kirk is where you go.

Rather than disparage the source, you'd do better to look at what that source says, so you can engage in knowledgeable discussion."

Ok so he..."came across" a political philosopher with a lovely grasp of the language? He "discovered"? "Uncovered as a result of his dedication to his thesis"? Acceptably worded now?

And I'm not "disparaging" his source, Kul, what I was trying to get across is that in my opinion, now would be the time to take that knowledge and research and apply it where it counts, not bitch at each other over syntax and vocabulary. From the sounds of it though, a nudge to act more and scrap less has only invited yet more political bullshit into the discussion. Do me a favor and don't worry about it...totally my mistake.

Droid:
Your words,
"We're not talking about the here and now; we're talking about how the current crop of republicans that call themselves conservatives are anything but. You can cite Bunning all you want, but you're just proving my point that he is not a conservative in the traditional, accepted sense. The reason I cite Kirk and others is because of that point, which you seem to have missed."

My words,
"We can talk philosophy all you want, but the entire point of my post above was the fact that the IS NO philosophy left in Congress."

Again, why rephrase exactly what I just said as a rebuttal? That's just...provocative, at best.

Your words,
"And I'm well-versed in the flip-side of the political philosophy coin as well, but that's not what was being discussed here. Your post however, doesn't really show an understanding of where the two ideologies are at odds, otherwise you wouldn't have made the sweeping (and inaccurate) claims about conservatism that you did."

My words,
"Perhaps I was a bit blunt in describing the two philosophies, but I was working under the assumption that anyone willing to put forth an opinion here would be knowledgeable enough in both areas of discourse."

So let me see if I have this right, I concede a blunt paraphrase and indicate a level of respect for your understanding of the topic at hand and...what, exactly, just happened? I'm a bit confused. I'm starting to worry you're too concerned with proving me wrong to actually read what I'm trying to say to you.

And as far as this discussion is concerned, I believe the title of this thread is "Who said that gays have to be Democrats?" if I remember correctly. Followed by numerous posts about religion, Conservatives, Republicans, Liberals, Democrats, bigots...see where I'm going with this? There were other posts both before and after yours, written by people other than yourself. This is, after all, a discussion forum, with many other voices contributing to said discussion.

Until you can respect someone's opinion and perspective as one in over 300 million differing opinions and perspectives, don't bother. However flowery you insult someone, it's still insulting. And, for the last time, I'm sorry if you take every dissenting post personally, but my point (again) is that we can do something, but until we do, we're doing nothing, except railing each other - which is fucking useless, unless you enjoy it, in which case, my time, effort, and intentions are pretty much useless here as well.

If you have no need nor desire for differing opinion, don't expect much back for yourself. That's the problem, but you'd know that if you'd been reading and not reloading.

I respect your intelligence, but I despise the tone. Sorry, man. Not worth the energy I could be spending making actual strides towards that idea of compromise that you failed to absorb with those that are more interested in argument. Best of luck with that, both of you...

 

[construct]

Oh, and Alabaster, I certainly sympathize with your observation that theory can sidetrack practice. In order for theory to be useful, it must issue in practice. That is why I'm convinced that we have to begin our theorizing with an analysis of our own time and how it came to be this way. Only then might we develop a strategy to shift it into a better future.

 

[Alabaster]

Holy shit, Construct...is that...could it be...my god, that sounds like...compromise!

There's hope!

Thank you for taking the time to actually digest my apparently outrageous proposition.

 

[Alabaster]

Why, construct, that sounds measured and prudent.

*snort* I totally just lawl'd...

 

[construct]

Holy shit, Construct...is that...could it be...my god, that sounds like...compromise!

There's hope!

Thank you for taking the time to actually digest my apparently outrageous proposition.

Oh, it's hardly outrageous. Our federal government as structured by the Constitution is constructed with checks and balances that force compromise if we're going to actually get anything done.

We can fight all we want about who is the true this or that. It's rather like "button, button, who's got the button." But if we're going to move forward, we have to see where we all are (and what values we are trying to protect). What something is called takes time to shift, and shifting that language may or may not be important for shifting into a better practice. Shifting practices is the goal and the working out of the theory.

 

[JB3]

Kulindahr, much of my point was that saying "today's Liberals" or "in today's sense" is precisely the problem. If you study the origins of each ideal, naturally, there's been an evolution away from their original intention...I thought I made that clear.

Regarding Sodom, Gomorrah, David, and Jonathon: you haven't sat through a rural Primitive Baptist sermon in western North Carolina. It might be obvious to you or others that such-and-such has been well-known for over a thousand years, but that doesn't change the fact that it's still being preached as divine wrath and condemnation all across the country and the world. The same goes with the story of David and Jonathon - sacred texts are interpretations of translated parables. In the end, it comes down to what one is taught during one's upbringing. Forgive me for interjecting my opinion into a thread built upon opinion.

"The reason they get away with it is because Americans pretty much engage in idolatry over the "two party system", being firmly convinced we have to vote for one or the other of the "Re-Elect Us Party" (REUP)."

That's precisely my point...why rephrase it as a rebuttal?


"He didn't "find" anyone, nor is the guy he's quoting "just another pundit". You seem to be doing a lot of work here to disparage that source, but do you even know who the source is? If you want to find someone whose writings set forth what the actual conservative principles are, Kirk is where you go.

Rather than disparage the source, you'd do better to look at what that source says, so you can engage in knowledgeable discussion."

Ok so he..."came across" a political philosopher with a lovely grasp of the language? He "discovered"? "Uncovered as a result of his dedication to his thesis"? Acceptably worded now?

And I'm not "disparaging" his source, Kul, what I was trying to get across is that in my opinion, now would be the time to take that knowledge and research and apply it where it counts, not bitch at each other over syntax and vocabulary. From the sounds of it though, a nudge to act more and scrap less has only invited yet more political bullshit into the discussion. Do me a favor and don't worry about it...totally my mistake.

Droid:
Your words,
"We're not talking about the here and now; we're talking about how the current crop of republicans that call themselves conservatives are anything but. You can cite Bunning all you want, but you're just proving my point that he is not a conservative in the traditional, accepted sense. The reason I cite Kirk and others is because of that point, which you seem to have missed."

My words,
"We can talk philosophy all you want, but the entire point of my post above was the fact that the IS NO philosophy left in Congress."

Again, why rephrase exactly what I just said as a rebuttal? That's just...provocative, at best.

Your words,
"And I'm well-versed in the flip-side of the political philosophy coin as well, but that's not what was being discussed here. Your post however, doesn't really show an understanding of where the two ideologies are at odds, otherwise you wouldn't have made the sweeping (and inaccurate) claims about conservatism that you did."

My words,
"Perhaps I was a bit blunt in describing the two philosophies, but I was working under the assumption that anyone willing to put forth an opinion here would be knowledgeable enough in both areas of discourse."

So let me see if I have this right, I concede a blunt paraphrase and indicate a level of respect for your understanding of the topic at hand and...what, exactly, just happened? I'm a bit confused. I'm starting to worry you're too concerned with proving me wrong to actually read what I'm trying to say to you.

And as far as this discussion is concerned, I believe the title of this thread is "Who said that gays have to be Democrats?" if I remember correctly. Followed by numerous posts about religion, Conservatives, Republicans, Liberals, Democrats, bigots...see where I'm going with this? There were other posts both before and after yours, written by people other than yourself. This is, after all, a discussion forum, with many other voices contributing to said discussion.

Until you can respect someone's opinion and perspective as one in over 300 million differing opinions and perspectives, don't bother. However flowery you insult someone, it's still insulting. And, for the last time, I'm sorry if you take every dissenting post personally, but my point (again) is that we can do something, but until we do, we're doing nothing, except railing each other - which is fucking useless, unless you enjoy it, in which case, my time, effort, and intentions are pretty much useless here as well.

If you have no need nor desire for differing opinion, don't expect much back for yourself. That's the problem, but you'd know that if you'd been reading and not reloading.

I respect your intelligence, but I despise the tone. Sorry, man. Not worth the energy I could be spending making actual strides towards that idea of compromise that you failed to absorb with those that are more interested in argument. Best of luck with that, both of you...

I do respect the ideas and opinions of others. However, when you posted in this thread (and with each successive post) you have demonstrated that you have not actually read the previous posts and the reason why we were discussing what we were. It was you that derailed what we were discussing, because you didn't bother to actually read what occurred prior to this page. I read what you were saying, but what you were saying in response to my posts had absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand, hence me telling you so. If you wish to debate the merits of philosophy vs. reality then create another thread to do so, or at the very least attempt to alter the course of discussion in this thread instead of simply quoting me and then hijacking my words (which were intended for another topic within this thread entirely).

Before such a thing as compromise can happen, you need to demonstrate that you have an understanding of the argument at hand, something that you have failed to do with all of your posts in this thread. I would suggest that you read carefully all of the posts prior to the ones in which you hijacked the thread, and then maybe we'll talk. I'm not holding my breath though...

 

[JB3]

That would be true, if you were talking about North Korea.

No, its pretty much true now. How else can you explain the government removing choice from the hands of citizens and forcing them to do the 'greater good'?

 

[JB3]

Thomas Jefferson didn't say that in an 1802 letter:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."

I doubt so much changed in 13 years.

Those were his words and his alone, and sat dormant for more than 70 years before the Supreme Court decided to use them as the basis for a 'separation' that we have today. (in decisions that are still widely criticized as suspect legally)

If you read it carefully and with a critical eye (as well as the letter sent by the Baptists to Jefferson) you will understand that his response referenced nothing remotely resembling the separation of church and state as we now know it. Progressives like to use that as 'proof' that such a thing as separation existed at the founding or thereabouts, when it proves nothing of the sort.

 

[Xzilla7]

Those were his words and his alone, and sat dormant for more than 70 years before the Supreme Court decided to use them as the basis for a 'separation' that we have today. (in decisions that are still widely criticized as suspect legally)

If you read it carefully and with a critical eye (as well as the letter sent by the Baptists to Jefferson) you will understand that his response referenced nothing remotely resembling the separation of church and state as we now know it. Progressives like to use that as 'proof' that such a thing as separation existed at the founding or thereabouts, when it proves nothing of the sort.

"The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretence, infringed.'' - James Madison (Original wording of the First Amendment; Annals of Congress 434 (June 8, 1789).)

So no, that wording didn't make it into the final draft. But most founders, excepting those such as Patrick Henry, went to great lengths to emphasize that the United States was not a theocracy and was not established around any religion. The government is secular. They most certainly did not want government operating under the guiding force of religion, as they felt that this was dangerous. It was the responsibility of the individual to practice their religious freedoms.

 

[hotatlboi]

But most founders, excepting those such as Patrick Henry, went to great lengths to emphasize that the United States was not a theocracy and was not established around any religion. The government is secular.

Something that is most of lost on the right who somehow have convinced themselves that all the founders were advocates of mixing government and religion. Nothing could be further from the truth.

"Question with boldness even the existence of a god." - Thomas Jefferson (letter to Peter Carr, 10 August 1787)

"When a Religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its Professors are obliged to call for help of the Civil Power, it is a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one." - Benjamin Franklin (from a letter to Richard Price, October 9, 1780

"The clergy...believe that any portion of power confided to me [as President] will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly: for I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion." --Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Rush, 1800.

"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not." --- James Madison, "A Memorial and Remonstrance", 1785

 

[Alabaster]

I would suggest that you read carefully all of the posts prior to the ones in which you hijacked the thread, and then maybe we'll talk. I'm not holding my breath though...

hehe, that's cute...I've hijacked the thread, I like that. Once again, however, what you've apparently failed to grasp is the point. You seem to do that every time you open your mouth to speak. You either create your own arguments, goad others into one if you can't, and as I tried to make clear - You're not worth it, dude. This isn't your thread, it's a discussion forum that, from the looks of it, was hijacked a long time before I got here. The only thing greater than my disbelief in your ability to find a middle ground is my complete disinterest in continuing this farce you've got going here.

So, no, I'm not worried about you holding your breath all just for me. You're far too busy bitching for that. But you know what? That's cool! Whatever gets you off. But all you're doing is insulting your own intelligence, often, which is quite a shame, because you certainly are intelligent. As for me, I might chime in here and there, but you can just pretend I'm not here if it helps.

It'll be a mutual sentiment, if you can manage that much. Then again, I don't think anybody's really holding their breath on your account either.

 

[hotatlboi]

not in the sense as to prohibit the use of religious beliefs or terms by the govt or her officials

too many references of religious beliefs or terms by the 'govt' and by the founding fathers in their speeches and writings

i just wish the govt was truly secular

The government is secular but allows freedom of religion. Every man and woman is free to practice the religion he or she chooses, including people in government. So there is nothing wrong with a person in government expressing their personal religious belief.

Where we have a problem is if someone is trying to appeal to religion as the reason that government should govern in some way or take some action. This is why religious conservatives are wrong about gay rights for appealing to the Bible. The government as an actor is not supposed to be allowed to use religion as the basis for how it governs.

In no way though should this limitation prohibit free exercise of religion by anyone in government.

 

[construct]

You are aware, I assume, that "In God We Trust" first appeared on paper money in 1957.

 

[construct]

Here you go.

Aronow v. United States, 432 F.2d 242 (9th cir. 1970).

It is quite obvious that the national motto and the slogan on coinage and currency 'In God We Trust' has nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion. Its use is of patriotic or ceremonial character and bears no true resemblance to a governmental sponsorship of a religious exercise." Aronow, 432 F.2d at 243.

Because the use of the motto "is of a patriotic or ceremonial character," it appears to have no religious meaning at all. The same might be said of that 1782 document as well.

 

[Centexfarmer]

Ah, thank you for posting that! Those are just a tiny taste of what is in the rest of the book.

While I am certain that some of you with more progressive inclinations will disagree with the substance of what he is saying, Kirk is among the most eloquent of the conservative writers. Despite that though, he's pretty easy to understand and doesn't couch what he is saying in obtuse language and hard to understand turns-of-phrase.

As opposed to how a liberal would put it?

 

[Kulindahr]

Thomas Jefferson didn't say that in an 1802 letter:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."

I doubt so much changed in 13 years.

That's nice, but it doesn't address what he said, which was:

I agree with most of your substance here, save for separation of church and state. Such a thing did not exist at the founding, and the founders would be dismayed at the extent that one sentence has been misconstrued and warped in the way it has been.

It has been warped in many ways, used to actually stifle freedom of religion, and to teach kids in public schools that religion is to be hidden and not brought into discussion of anything at all.

That would be true, if you were talking about North Korea.

It is quite true, and I'm talking about liberals in the United States. They don't believe in private property, or free enterprise, or even individuality. They want everyone who uses public lands to go to the same places and do the same things, and in fact want those public lands mostly off limits to the public, and totally off limits to anyone but the middle class and up. They don't care if people lose their businesses or land or homes, so long as their principles are upheld.

And at the highest levels, today's liberals are more interested in providing favors and privileges to massive corporations than in caring for people -- which the current health care proposal shows wonderfully.

 

[Kulindahr]

not in the sense as to prohibit the use of religious beliefs or terms by the govt or her officials

too many references of religious beliefs or terms by the 'govt' and by the founding fathers in their speeches and writings

i just wish the govt was truly secular

Where I live, the government prohibits any exercise of religion at all by employees under many circumstances.

 

[Kulindahr]

"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not." --- James Madison, "A Memorial and Remonstrance", 1785

Actually Jefferson is in error here. When Rome fell, the Church in the West took over large amounts of civil administration in order to preserve the liberty and safety of the people. For a brief time they did that even better than the Imperial Government had. The sad fact of that, though, is that once the original actors were gone from the scene, the Pope parlayed that governance into tyranny.

There are a few other examples, but in essentially every case, once the first generation was gone, oppression resulted.