Pretty hard to converse in the classical sense, it is a dead language here.
"Pretty hard to converse in the classical sense, it is a dead language here."
True, but there's always a chance that someone might accidentally get educated.
Wallace, I just want to ask a question and then perhaps we can consider the issue in a different light.
In the old days, European Monarchs derived their right to rule from the concept of "Divine Right of God" (actually, it's because they owned a monopoly of force, but propaganda is not a modern invention, you know). This set up a symbiotic relationship between monarch and official church (what better way for a church to maintain it's own power and prestige than to back the guy with the money and weapons, right?), and no one could achieve a position of political power without a) having the favor of the King, and b) belonging to the official religion.
If I recall, the American Revolution was, in part, fought to break such a system (in other words, to create a society which was more egalitarian and fairer, or, if you like, more LIBERAL), a system which could only result (so the theorists said) in tyrrany.
When you make the argument that conservatism and religion are linked, are you advocating a return to those days, in a more modern fashion, where worthiness for political office depends solely upon belonging to a special clique (a self-appointed elite with it's own personal viewpoints and interests, i.e. Social Conservatives) and membership in an religious organization or espousal of certain religious beliefs?
Because it sounds as if you are leaning that way. If I have misunderstood, please explain where I went wrong. Thanks!