Posted on 03/09/2010 12:18:39 PM PST by Kaslin
The same way it worked in the centuries of this country's westward expansion.
What do you think? That people moving away from extended family is a new concept?
You still have extended family, no matter what their geographic location. Just because you move, doesn't mean that your cousins, aunts, and uncles are no longer your cousins, aunts, and uncles.
No, it wasn't misunderstood.
By anybody.
You've been granted mercy is all.
A difference without distinction.
Even supposed moral absolutists complete change their supposed moral absolutes from generation to generation.
Actually, they don't.
I'm not saying "let's all sing kumbayah and love each other",
No, you are promoting something far more dangerous.
I'm wondering what a modern conservativism that meaningfully advocated family values would look like.
Conservatives are the only ones that do advocate family values.
We have a clear positive agenda. It's pro marriage, pro-life, pro-God, pro-natural two parent heterosexual parent family.
It's perfectly fine to know what you don't like, but at the same time you have to know what you *like*.
We do know what we like and we've been telling you that and you haven't been listening.
Too much of modern conservative is focused on opposition and too little on coming up with a concrete vision for what an ideal society looks like and how to attain it.
Wrong again. Conservatives are fighting the good fight in maintaining traditional family values that have been shown to work for thousands of years.
This new values stuff you're pushing is what's not going to work and it won't be until it fails miserably and lives are ruined that you will figure it out. It's not an option for some social experiment to see what we can come up with for *new* conservatism. It will take decades to determine if it works and if it doesn't you've just screwed up millions of lives.
We need to get back to what worked for our grandparents and back beyond.
I think one of aspects of conservatism that seems to escape you is that it is up to individuals to decide what is “ideal” and then their individual responsibility to make it happen, personally.It's not that simple. Modern conservatism has mutated considerably(you don't see many temperance leagues these days).Remember the “pursuit” of happiness. As long as there is life and liberty, the pursuit of happiness is each person’s kuleana. (responsibility, area etc).
I do not want any “manifesto” whether socialist, communist, fascist, utopian, Fabian or so-called “conservative”, telling me what ideal is.
Social structure founded on strong (aka “natural”) families, with the eternal spiritual values that are universal (note my Thos. Jefferson quote) is what is needed, along with government doing what it is Constitutionally mandated, and NOT A SPECK MORE.
No new manifestos needed or wanted.
What I'm advocating is organizing political conservatism is a positive way as well as a negative one. Conservatism tends to argue that the church is the primary social element outside of the family for maintaining a stable and just society, but that's cold comfort to someone having to survive going past an inner-city "corner" every day.
It boils down to this, conservatism advocates a strong, cohesive society. That society is breaking apart and *modern conservatism* doesn't offer a coherent vision on how to solve those problems. I think it might be interesting to have a coherent *voluntary* view of what sort of activities would make society stronger given modern day problems.
“Marriage licensing has been a function of government in England (where nearly all American common law derives from) for nearly 800 years. NOBODY was suggesting otherwise until the libertarians decided to side with militant homosexuals a few years back.”
Gubberment involvement in marriage, at least in modern times, has been awful for the institution, it has taught people that gubberment defines marriage and that it’s just another lousy gubberment contract that can be broken and resumed as long as gubberments says so. Well, there’s a reason folks don’t respect their welfare checks too.
But the gays WANT gubberment involvement, because to most people gubberment really does define marriage, and can force people to treat their “marriages” as legit. But in reality two people of the same sex who say they are married and two people who have a piece of paper from the gubberment saying they are married are equally married, which is to say not at all.
Freegards
*Modern* conservatism DOES offer a coherent vision of how to solve those problems.
Get back to stable two parent HETEROSEXUAL parent families and absolute moral values.
This modern stuff, which you are simultaneously condemning as a failure and advocating as the answer is going nowhere.
*Modern conservatism* of the kind you are advocating is NOT conservatism, it’s liberalism. And it’s NOT conservative.
There is no way one can honestly say that a male-female relationship which would have been recognized in almost every society throughout history is the same as a male-male or female-female relationship which would hardly have been recognized in any. The difference is not a result of governmental or religious edict. It is far more fundamental, and no government edict can change it.
Read what metmom has been posting and answer what she says. It’s very simple. Just to re-state, here goes:
Society based on the natural family, already figured out and described.
Check.
Traditional, universal moral principles, as described above various places, and my Thos. Jefferson quote, none of which you acknowledged.
Check.
Local charities, churches, private organizations, etc to help those in need.
Check.
Government doing ONLY what it is Constitutionally mandated to do and NOTHING MORE.
Check.
What more could you possibly want to solve the problem? There is no “new, improved” truth needed.
Marriage predates government and religion. Prior to the existence of government, if I married a woman, the rules were pretty simple. You (bleep) my wife--I kill you.
Such rules no longer work when governments forbid people from killing other people without a governmentally-recognized reason. It thus becomes necessary for government to provide some recognition of a marriage, so as to restore the check on adultery which government itself had removed. What's important to note, however, is that while the marriage has both governmental and religious significance, its real significance is far more fundamental. Government must recognize it, but does not create it.
“Too much of modern conservative is focused on opposition”
The problem is that there is so much we *must* oppose. If we don’t oppose evil,we have ourselves to blame when it wins. The reality of pro *and* con won’t go away. We must stand for what’s right and oppose what’s wrong.
There are alot of people these days who don’t know what evil is.
“Government must recognize it, but does not create it.”
Relying on gubberment to defend something as important as marriage hasn’t worked, at least in my opinion.
Freegards
Excellent......
True. There are also people who deny that evil even exists. But the Bible tells us that good and evil are very real.
No, but if "You (bleep) my wife--I kill you" is no longer allowed, what alternative is there? IMHO, a big part of the problem is that marriage is often seen as being a creation of government and/or religion, and thus being amenable to their terms. Conservatives need to take up the argument that since neither government nor religion created marriage, neither can change its fundamental nature. It is what it is.
While that is true, that is no excuse or justification for not trying to have government defend it.
Government used to defend it when there were laws restricting the attacks on it, but thanks to special interest groups and the libertarian mindset, it isn't any more and would be prohibited from it if they had their way.
Well said!
That’s often because they like evil and think it is “good”. They also think good is “evil”.
I also believe that good and evil are absolute, that it is possible to definitively state “this is wrong”.
Unfortunately, those ‘in power’ think this is an outdated ‘quaint’ notion.
We’re gonna need lots of luck and prayer to get those guys out of office.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.