Not Conservative Enough

I just found out that my finally embracing my conservativism and walking away from the democratic party is *sniffle* not enough.  It turns out that although I loathe what is happening in DC, think this president and his administration is deeply divisive and even more radical than many seem to see, and want all this tax and spend madness and rapid government expansion to stop stop stop, I’m not welcome amongst other conservatives *sob*.  I can say all day long that I am opposed to cap and tax, that I am and have all along been opposed to a government takeover of our health care system, and that I am offended by the PC brigade and their attempts to remove God, and lately the American flag!, from America society.  And still, I’m not conservative enough.

The “victory” for the Conservative Party in New York’s 23rd district is a bit of an eye opener for conservatives like me who aren’t socially conservative.  Those of us who, like Scozzafava, support gay marriage and who are pro-choice seem to be getting the same push that she got.  Granted, she was pretty liberal, way more so than I am, in that she supported the bailouts and the stimulus, and seemed to think raising taxes was a wondermous idea.  But the message that trickles down to we newly-minted conservatives who still cling to those socially liberal views that pushed us into the Democratic Party to begin with is that we are not conservative enough to be welcomed by or to stand beside our fellow patriots and work to remove the current Congress and president.

I’m not sure that’s a smooth move on the part of the “true” and bestest conservatives, apparently the Tea Party movement.  Now, I’ve supported the Tea Party movement all along, and one of the things that I liked about it was that it professed to be open to anyone who didn’t like what was going on in Washington.  “Taxed Enough Already” didn’t seem to trumpet “Required: Orthodox Conservative Values.”  Now, though, the message going out is that it’s not open to any and everyone who opposes expanding federal power and control and who is opposed to raising taxes on any and everything, it’s a closed club for only those who pass the conservative test, who are orthodox conservatives straight down the line.

At the risk of stating the obvious, few few few people in America are that conservative.  When people identify as conservative in polls, they are not saying they are fundamentalist Christians who oppose abortion and gay marriage.  They are, mostly, like me.  People who are aghast at what BO and his traitorous horde are doing to our country, to our economy, to our freedoms.  They’re probably opposed to raising taxes (though many may not truly understand the disastrous repercussions of raising them for big business and the wealthiest among us) , they’re probably vaguely opposed to cap and tax (again, perhaps not fully understanding the implications), and they’re definitely opposed to big government.

If support for abortion and/or gay marriage is your litmus test for a “true” conservative, you’re going to be in a world of hurt when it comes to getting enough votes to make a difference either next year or in 2012.  This move to alienate self-identified conservatives who aren’t walking in lock-step with the far right is going to do one thing and help one person only.  Dems will win, BO will stay in office.  If you take nothing else from his campaign and win, understand that his message of unity and reaching out across races, genders, and political aisles played the largest part in his success.  If he had run as the far left radical that he is, he wouldn’t have gotten very far; indeed, he likely never would have made it to the Illinois state senate.  Likewise, only the smallest minority of people are far right conservatives (fewer even than those on the far left), and you can’t make any change or improvements with such small numbers.  Take a page that worked out of BO’s playbook and be a bit more inclusive of people who are ticked off, motivated to facilitate change in Washington, but who may not share your core socially conservative values.  Doing otherwise will silence a great many of us who have been making noise and offering our support.


34 thoughts on “Not Conservative Enough

  1. Fuzzy, think back to Reagan. Did he pass laws preventing a woman's right to choose? No. He cut taxes and sparked an upsurge in the power of the American Entrepreneur.

    As for Gay Marriage, that will be decided on a state to state basis. Feel free to put whatever lawn signs in your yard you want. I did.

    I am against abortion, but do not believe in passing laws to prevent women from choosing abortion. Odd point of view. I believe in defeating abortion by educating women and girls about its realities and by giving aid to the ladies though counseling and charity. And I have been involved in this personally.

    I believe in Gay partnership rights. Full rights. Call it anything EXCEPT marriage. Why change an institution that is almost as old as human society. It is a slippery slope for our children. You don't have to agree with me on this to be “acceptable” in my book.

    Hon, you will never find a “perfect church”. Sorry people are so rabid with their opinions. I don't pull many punches, myself. But if you ask me, I think you fit in just fine. Please stick around my blog.

  2. Yay! Thanks, Opus! I've never found any politician that was a “perfect match” for all of my views, who has? Geez, I voted for McCain last time around even though I thought he was too liberal on many issues (like amnesty for illegals). I think that your point about Ronald Reagan is the best one yet; he didn't overturn Roe v. Wade (nor did President Bush, whom I did vote for–I was too young to vote for Reagan, alas). I would never and have never based a vote on an issue like abortion or gay marriage, that's not how I see our civic role/duty. But then, I'm for states rights over federal, so these, to me, are not federal government decisions. Or they shouldn't be.

    I vote based on taxes, size of government, experience, and a few other very secret criteria (like how good their hair is . . . hehe, not).

    My main “issue” with gay marriage is that the opposition seems to be based in religion, and until atheists are denied the right to marry, I think it's just a bogus “excuse.” As to calling it something other than marriage . . . maybe, but that smacks of “second class” status to me, and I'm not for that. I definitely see the marriage is a social institution argument, but there are a lot of social institutions that we've changed (thank God). I dunno, I just think it's a civil rights issue more than a moral, religious, or even social issue. But like you, I'm totally open to people who feel/believe otherwise. It's not a deal breaker for me.

    Same with abortion. I'm not “for abortion” as in Go Abortion! Woot, let's force them. Or anything remotely similar. I'm just for women having the right to choose and see this as compatible with my aversion to big government dictating what I do or don't do. Again, though, this is not a deal breaker for me unless it involves using public funds to pay for abortion. That's just wrong.

    I think there is, though, a real danger that moderates like me (and I don't even think I'm that moderate!) are being pushed out at a time when we really need all the numbers we can get.

  3. Agreed one hundred percent, Kerry! History tells us that this radical left lunge will be met with an equally radical lunge right, and I'm just not cut of radical cloth (unless you count being convinced that BO is out to destroy this country so he can “rebuild” it in socialist —> communist form).

    Fundamentalists of all religions, including my own, scare the crap out of me, and my concern is not only that mods are being side-lined but that the thing that will replace BO will be an equally radical (if certainly more “American”) agenda. I'm all for saving our republic, even if it does mean a far right backlash. That's not, however, ideal to me. That's why I agree that mods need to get motivated here, too, to stop what is happening in Washington and to add some balance to the reaction to it.

  4. Don't worry, Fuzzy, you aren't alone. There are many of us non “true” conservatives.

    Personally, abortion isn't for me, but I don't want the government to limit our choices. I wish more women would stop using abortion as a form of birth control, and I wish there was more education about what abortion does to your mind and body…but that's something we and doctors need to do – not the government.

    I also think gays should be allowed to marry. My mom also goes along with how marriage is a religious thing… she even goes so far to say I should never be married because I don't go to church! (Way to stick with your principles, I guess)
    The government shouldn't ban people from getting married to whom the want. But on the other hand, it's not their place to force churches to marry two people they don't want to, either. That's violating church and state. It's a slippery slope. If you legalize gay marriage, but leave it up to the churches to decide, it could lead to people suing certain churches… I dunno…it might be a mess. But maybe try it and see…I don't know.

  5. I don't wish to impress my values on what people do that isn't against the law.
    The True law, which simply stated, is infringing on the rights of others. Guess that puts most politicians on the wrong side.

    Anyway, Agreed – Bible pounding perfection seekers need not apply.

    If you criminalize abortion, you'll just push it back in the dark alley. I'm with Opus on that one, education, and most of all stop paying women more money to get pregnant and stay unmarried. Too many are making a career out of it.

    Lalala ala laaa la laaa la la
    Everything is beautiful…. in it's own…

    I do support, at least, the decriminalization of All drugs. Portugal did 7 yrs ago and it's working our great.

  6. PS – I feel the federal government should confine their activites and control to national defense and perhaps interstate highways/crime. All else should be governed and managed at the state level.

    Imagine, competition among states. The success failure statistics would be extremely obvious.

  7. Aw, thanks, Hazaa Dazzle! πŸ™‚ This is honestly the best argument going for opposing gay marriage, but it's a reaction to the PC brigade and the liberals who can't keep their hands off of Christian life and our God. We know exactly what will happen, the ACLU will start suing the Catholic Church or some such totally unacceptable intrusion into people's religion. I'm totally opposed to anyone telling anyone how to worship, what to believe, or how their religion should be practiced (unless it involves killing people in the name of God. Or Allah.). It's just wrong. And yes, in many ways, I do feel more strongly about that than I do about gay marriage, so . . . we'll see how it all plays out.

    Hee! No one Opus is after me, personally. But when this whole NY 23 thing started, the message going out was a loud and clear, tow the conservative line or get out of the way. I think that is being tempered now that she's endorsed the dem and more of her record is coming out. Why was she even calling herself a conservative at all? She's clearly as liberal as any liberal I've ever met.

    Kid, good points, I do think that our bazillion entitlement programs *and* the public lust for degenerate reality television (that Octomom finally got her show, I heard. *shudder*) urge people to make poor decsions. It's a twisted form of capitalism in a way, crank out some babies for cash and fame. But that's not about abortion, that's about irresponsibility and the government entitlement programs that encourage people to have babies they can't afford . . . simply to get more money from the government. The dark alley argument is one of the ones that makes me hold to my pro-choice stance, as is the government not telling me what to do with my body (including what I eat, how much sugar I'm allowed, etc.). As to legalizing pot (certainly not narcotics!), I'm basically against that except and only in the case of medical marijuana.

  8. Hi Fuzzy,

    I am a non-religious (though spiritual, NOT secularist) Conservative.

    Conservatism has long tried to forge an uneasy connection between religious (social) Conservatives and Libertarians. It has not always been easy to hold.

    I've come from the Libertarian perspective, despite some early Liberal (actually fascistic) leanings….modern Liberalism IS, at its heart fascistic.

    I DO support 1st Trimester abortion…and make “my compromise” on that issue at opposing abortion (except for imminent life-saving procedures) once the fetus/child can survive outside the womb on its own.

    The reason I can make that compromise is because I am NOT a Catholic any more and I DO NOT accept the doctrine of the “sanctity of all life.”

    That way, I feel I'm logically consistent on that issue, I support abortion until the fetus/child is capable of independence, I support Capital punishment and most wars, yes, even those for economic advantage.

    With Dede Scozzafava supporting Card Check (eradicating the secret ballot for Union votes), the $1 TRILLION Democratic non-stimulating Stimulus Bill and Obama-care (should be called Pelosi-care)….she was actually MORE Liberal than Bill Owens!

    This wasn't a slap at Moderate Republicans, her very nomination, by a cynical and inept NYS GOP, was a direct slap BY the Rockefeller-wing of that Party at its Conservative base.

    What the NYS crew managed to do was to taint or slime the likes of Newt Gingrich, John Boehner and Eric Cantor with their putrid stench.

    And they wonder why even us New Yorkers so often hate New York!

  9. I consider myself a conservative, but I'm not at all high centered on the conservative religious right type of issues. In fact those things turn me off. I'm a fiscal conservative and a constitutional conservative.

    While I feel that abortion is not a “good thing”, I don't feel the need to make abortion illegal. I DO, however, object to the public funding of such activities. The tax payers should not be funding abortion. There are plenty of charities or private foundations that can fill that niche.

    Gay marriage…..whatever. I have no objections. /shrug.

    The people who want to paint all conservatives as being from the family values, religious right and so on are the liberals who can't stand it if they can't pigeon hole people and are trying to denigrate the conservative movement.

    As a conservative, I am a proponent of limited government intervention into our lives. Goverment does have several vital funtions to perform….national security, maintaining the common welfare (which means to me police and justice system) and public works projects that are beyond the means of the public (such as interstate road systems, airports etc).

    Taxes should be equitable across the board and EVERYONE should have some 'skin in the game'. Now we have almost 50% of the population who don't pay any taxes yet can vote to themselves all the benefits provided by taxes.

    The government isn't our Daddy or Mommy and shouldn't be doling out goodies and bribes to keep us in line.

  10. Hi JMK and welcome! I'm not so sure that Newt Gingrich has been slimed, though I can definitely see how the left can (and likely will) run with that. I do wish that he'd be more firm in his principles and beliefs rather than letting the GOP (or any local bastardized version of it) dictate what he supports. If he couldn't get behind that crazy woman, then he should have just demurred. But I guess I'm a bit idealistic in some ways.

    Hi Dust Bunny Queen and welcome! I think that conservativism is tainted by the religious right. When you hear the disparaging and snotty comments made about conservatives by libs, they are usually snidely batting at fundamentalists. The truth of conservativism seems to be that we are not a bunch of Bible thumping rednecks, clinging to our guns and religion, but a bunch of patriots who want to keep our republic, limit federal government, and tax responsibly. The way that this nation is going under BO scares me to my core; we won't be the same if we can't get him neutered next year and out of office in 2012. As is, we have a lot of work to get back on track. And one of the first things we need to do is cut the hell out of all these entitlement programs, rebuild the economy so those 40% not working and/or paying taxes get back in the workforce and stop sponging off of those of us who DO pay taxes, and put a screeching halt to the PC brigade and its complete control over our schools and our lives. People are being sued for displaying an American flag on American soil, for daring to teach a song that contains the word “God” in music class, and it's all gone too far.

    Oops, sorry, I tend to go off tangents. Anyway, you're right, we need to fix this whole inequity in tax paying. Better still, make voting contingent on paying taxes! (okay, so that's probably not constitutional, but it's getting pretty bad and will only get worse if some hard changes aren't made fast.)

  11. I would have to say I am very much a social conservative. My faith guilds my life and helps to shape my views, but I believe in being open minded. Nobody is going to agree with me 100% of the time.

    I do oppose abortion and gay marriage, yet I can see why others might support it. I would like to see the abortion issue decided on a state to state basis. I can see why people in Utah are so opposed to abortion and on the other hand why people in New York may want it. I find it dreadful, but I think the states should decide.

    We can have differences of opinion, and still be one in our purpose to bring our country back from this Obama nightmare. Our founding fathers also had many differing opinions.

  12. Let me try this again….this was a great post Fuzzy. You've brought up an issue a lot of rehabilitated liberals face. I’m passionately conservative about certain issues and moderate on others. As a result, I find that I have to censor myself among both liberals and conservatives. If I express my conservative views around liberals then I’m a right-wing nut job. If I express my views regarding certain social issues among conservatives, then I must be a liberal.

    I am a conservative, no doubt about that. I'm just not a one size fits all conservative. I’m hard core in my support for limited government, controlled spending, the military, national security, and fighting back tooth and nail against the infringement upon our constitutional rights.

    My stance on gay marriage is softer; fact is, I don’t get all worked up about it. If two adults of the same sex want to get married, so be it. I wish them well and a lifetime of happiness together.

    Abortion is a trickier matter. Regardless of moral or legal issues, women always have, and always will, obtain abortions. I remember when abortion was illegal and desperate women resorted to desperate measures. Back-alley abortions, along with self-aborting techniques that would make your skin crawl, often left these women sterile, sometimes dead. While I’m opposed to treating abortion as just another form of birth control – and believe anyone who views it as such is negligent, ignorant and self-centered – I support access to medically-safe abortion procedures. Abortion is an issue I struggle with, but in my heart of hearts I can’t see us returning to back-alley tactics. With that said, I don’t want to pay for anyone’s abortion as part of a power grab by the left wrapped up in a so-called healthcare reform bill being rammed down my throat. Nor would I ever support late-term abortion.

  13. Hi Trestin, I completely respect your and everyone else's religious path and opposition to abortion. I think that people who feel as you do would never have an abortion simply because it's legal. And I don't think anyone (outside the BO administration and the far left enviro/population kooks) would ever ever support forced abortions, nor do most people support taxpayer funding for abortion (I certainly do not). And you're right, our founders all had very differing views on a number of issues, and they came together on the “big ones” dealing with limited government, and the rights of the states and the people. We can certainly do the same. πŸ™‚

    Chick, my thoughts exactly. I certainly don't think that abortion should be used as a means of birth control, and simple state legislation could fix that, I think. I am torn on late-term abortion simply because it's a relatively rare procedure done to save the life of the mother. If the baby can also be saved, he or she should be, of course. I don't think you can walk into Planned Parenthood or wherever and get one like you can a first tri-mester abortion (but I could be wrong). Again, though, abortion and gay marriage don't define my ideology. If it came down to voting for a radical loser like we have in the WH right now and a pro-life, anti-gay marriage conservative who wants to limit government, cut taxes, support our military and national security/defense then I'm voting for the conservative every single time. Period.

  14. “I'm not so sure that Newt Gingrich has been slimed, though I can definitely see how the left can (and likely will) run with that. I do wish that he'd be more firm in his principles and beliefs rather than letting the GOP (or any local bastardized version of it) dictate what he supports. If he couldn't get behind that crazy woman, then he should have just demurred.” (Fuzzy)
    I think Gingrich, Boehner and Cantor have been wounded among Conservatives for acceding to the NYS GOP. Yesterday Richard Viguerie wrote, “The moral of the story is that [some of] the current leadership of the GOP prefers Democrats to conservatives. Conservatives have felt this disdain for years, the country club blue bloods put up with Reagan, but they never liked him. Now they are trying to tell us he was a moderate?

    “According to the Republican Party leadership, conservatives are just supposed to vote for the liberal Republican and shut up. That is why we are in a fight. Given no voice in the party, half of all conservatives are no longer in the GOP.”

    THAT is going to hurt the likes of Gingrich and Company IF they allow themselves to continue being linked to those northeast “Rockefeller Republicans.”

    While there is an “uneasy truce” between Libertarians and social/mostly religious Conservatives, BUT Dede Scozzafava is NOT a part of that.

    She was clearly among that 3% of those Liberal Republicans.

  15. Hi JMK, I definitely see your point, but Scozzafava was a freak of political nature, and I think it's important that we conservatives NOT engage in the sort of internal struggles that the libs would love to see. If we don't stick together, we'll lose next year and in 2012, and there is far more at stake here than there has been in a long long time, perhaps in our lifetime.

    The libs are busily flipping through Alinksy's Rules for Radicals and looking for ways to undermine our progress. My post here and the response, as well as other conservatives around the blogosphere are all talking not about division but about coming together in this one great fight. That, I think, is more important than falling victim to external accusations of division. Where it counts, we are of one mind, and if, in 2013, we want to shun the Republican Party, so be it. In the meantime, we don't have the luxury of back biting and in-fighting.

  16. Hi Fuzzy… great post. its a great reminder of several things. First, that all of us humans have knee-jerk defensive reactions of attacking upon feeling attacked (or betrayed). With the left, its calling us racist, etc. Conservatives, being human also, have the same reaction but with different content (at least that's what I gather from your post, building up from whatever has happened over the past week).

    Either way, its wrong. Which brings me to the second. Conservative, liberal, etc. are terms that relate to ways of governing a country. While the two concepts are not independent, morality and belief in the Constitution are at 90 degree angles to each other (mathematically = orthogonal), like jets that go the same direction at two different altitudes. The direction is common, and when the goal is to get 10,000 people to DC on Thursday for the same goal, what altitude they fly at isn't important. Not a very good metaphor, but…hope this makes a little sense.

  17. Thanks muchly, Velcro! πŸ™‚ Not sure I fully understand your mathematical metaphor, but from what I can gather you're saying that we don't have to be on the same page to be in the same chapter (hehe, my degrees are in English, so I'm comfortable with book metaphors and cliches :P).

    I do hope that we don't fall prey to libs who are trying to impose division where there is none (or shouldn't be) or to allow some splits (being hammered by Beck prior to yesterday's NY23 loss, anyway) to pervade our forward momentum. That will lead to people peeling off, being silenced, and ultimately, I think, to a quick stall in the grass roots movement (really before it's done anything super substantial like we need to do next year and in 2012).

  18. I didn't state my point too well (and I apologize if this is more blather), but my point was not just to reduce unnecessary division, but that herein is a big part of conservatism: that we do not regulate what others believe, but that we fight for their freedom to decide their beliefs for themselves. I hope that's a bit less muddy.. πŸ™‚

  19. I think of myself less as a conservative, and more of a “rascally daredevil”. Sometimes, I find myself about to do something conservative like not watch a Michael Moore movie or sneer scornfully at a hippie, and then suddenly the urge to leap from a burning building onto the wing of a Harrier Jump Jet sets in – and I do it. I don't know, some folks are like, “Man, its all those muscles” or “Perhaps its those lightning tattoos encircling your upper arms”, but really…I think its probably both of those things. So, just fyi…conservative? Ya I'm conservative, but mostly I'm a badass who takes no prisoners.

  20. I have to agree with Opus' comment. In fact, if I didn't know better it almost sounds like something I was going to write anyway.

    I have my own reasons for social conservatism, I don't want, nor am I comfortable with an outside “organization”,church, or government agency telling me how to live…my moral life is between me and God, my husband, and any other folks I allow to be a part of my life (I am picky)

    I do not like the idea of redefining gay “marriage” to make it welcomed by all people with open arms. To me, that falls into the category of the government mandating the socially acceptable, or the lack thereof…..federal government has no business there (within reason, I say that because of the hideous NAMBLA movement on the move, and they aim to amend the constitution).

    A move like this might give license for many more problems stemming from politically correct nonsense, particularly if angry militant 'same sex oriented' folks decide to pick a fight with a person who in their militant opinion “clings” to values they wish were illegal. That is not right either, and I have seen militant gays in action, it is scary.

    Again, the federal government is not set up to mandate the public into decent moral behavior. I don't think it's prudent cranking out laws turning every act into a criminal one. Less government,is best govt.

    I have no problem with gay people, the ones I have known, I get along with them. Don't push agenda at me, and I won't push agenda on them. Simple, easy…and this allows me to have my views, and they have their views…

    I say let them live how they want, they want the same rights as married folks? Fine let them have the rights, full civil union rights….but do not by law change the definition of marriage…it is between a man and a woman. I should not be forced to change my views on marriage, especially if they are doing it just to put the matter in my face.

    On, abortion, I couldn't agree more with Opus, it isn't likely to reverse roe v. wade, but I would love to see it become a state matter. I would love to be 100% assured that NONE of MY money is going to Planned Parenthood or any other abortion facility. I can openly speak on this, I have had two abortions, it is a most horrible experience, and it is murder, a murder for no other reason than fear or inconvenience on the part of the mother. The way around this horrid act is to educate. To fully educate there must be accountability by Planned Parenthood facilities, transparency in their business approach (not compromising privacy of women). We, the public, have a right to know the truth, no matter what. If the truth of the industry is allowed to be widely circulated without hinderance, it is likely to cause abortion numbers to drop. Sadly, Planned Parenthood works diligently to keep this from happening.

    In conclusion, don't “feel” that you are NOT conservative enough. We all have different views, I can respect another person's views so long as like you said, there is logic and the person is honest in evaluation of their own premise. You are not unwelcome as a conservative because your social views are different than mine…or anyone else. It happens. To be united we must work past getting caught up in divisiveness to focus on a solution we can all live with, especially for future generations.

    thanks for your thoughts, and for letting me share mine.

  21. LOL, Candle, that makes no sense to me. And a great deal.

    Hi Conservative Blog-unclogged and Welcome! So you're going to take on the far right in my defense, too? LOL. I know you mean her first post πŸ™‚ Your views sound very in line with mine. I'm for personal responsibility and individual freedom with limited government involvement; I've always felt this way, that's why I'm pro-choice and that's why I was never a very good liberal to begin with. Liberals love big government, they love being told what to do and taxed when they are naughty and patted on the head with a government check when they are good (or the right color, socio-economic class, etc.). It's revolting to me. And I get really upset when I hear liberals claim to hate fascism, they don't. It's what they need and are working toward; they think that fascism and tyranny are the path to “equality.” That we the people are too stupid and too ignorant to have a voice, to have the voice that our Constitution grants us. We are too free for them, and freedom is the antithesis of what they want. What is more wrong-headed and backward than that?

    Sorry, I do go off on rants. Anyway, great comment!

  22. rants are allowed and probably good therapy for all of us right now…you are in good company.

    I wouldn't consider myself a middle of the road person, for myself…and this means…FOR me…I hold myself to some pretty high standards anymore…(spiritual standards) but it is weird, I am too free minded for the legalistic churchy crowd, and for the “anything goes we aren't really living in reality crowd and this all might be a dream so heck with morals crowd” I am stiff uptight person…go figure….

    I just want my kids to know what it is like to live in a FREE nation….

    but if people want to be irresponsible, then let them, just don't let them take me down in the process, after all I learned from my mistakes…

    Socio economics… stick a 'path' in the middle and that about has it summed up

    As for thinking we are stupid and ignorant, those in DC are mistaken, I do believe my family history is steeped in fighting for freedom….even when the odds were against us…(Sitting Bull-Sicangu-Lakota Oyate) my maternal grandparents were Lakota,…in fact the Lakota officially withdrew from United States…in 2007 because the government broke a treaty (big surprise) ..but the government is ignoring them…..if they can fight with principle so can we….

    we just have to keep talking and talking, it does change minds…slowly…facts and logic facts and logic…facts and logic

    rant away!

  23. You're mind kind of gal, CBU! And yes, it does change minds, that's how we got so off-course in the first place. We let the libs silence us and get out their “message” for far too long, too many minds were changed as a result. It's time to take back our voice, our schools, and our country. And hey, at least we are making ground in that crazy-arse “global warming” only now it's “climate change” because the earth is actually cooling “theory.” More Americans now recognize it as the total and complete BS and political scare tactic that it is.

  24. Fuzzy: Sometime ago i asked the question: “Can i be a Conservative?” on my blog.
    It's way too long to post it here and since i don't see any links to other sites i'll refrain from posting one to it until you give me a 'go-ahead'.

    Just believe me when i say that being an Atheist and a Conservative is something few people can reconcile…

  25. Hi WoMO and welcome! This is so interesting. I don't really see a conflict between being conservative and being atheist, so I'd be interested to read your post. You can link it here, or I can stop by your page tomorrow (it's after 2 a.m. here!).

    Conservatism is about smaller government, states having the power that is not strictly given the federal government or the people, fiscal responsibility, free market capitalism, individual liberty and responsibility. It is the latter, I think, that makes it particularly conducive to atheists. You believe whatever you want, just don't impinge on my right to believe what I want. If you want to worship nothing at all or a box of rocks, go for it. More power to you. But don't tell me that I can't believe what I do or that I can't say “Merry Christmas” or mention the word “God” in public. The Constitution promises freedom OF religion, not freedom from it. So my big gripe with many atheists (the Christopher Hitchins fundamentalist loon ones) is that they want to impose their worldview on others. I don't care if you don't believe in God, that's not my business, but it's not your business that I do. See? Isn't it nice? So much better than trying to legislate “equality” and force people to stop doing what they want to express their religion freely. I wouldn't be in the least offended if someone said “Happy Hanukkah” to me or “Happy Samhein” or whatever. So why would anyone be offended to hear “Merry Christmas”? Strange to me. And more about controlling people than anything else. But if you're thinking that you're conservative, my guess is that you aren't the sort who goes all weepy and wailing at the sight of Christmas tree or Menorah.

    Atheism is sort of like a religion, I think (at least the way Hitchins and his ilk go about it). All you need is your very own set of symbols and holidays, and you lot will be fine. πŸ™‚ Then when we see each other, I can say “Merry Christmas” and you can say “Happy Atheist Day” (or whatever), and we can go about our day with good will.

    Anyway, it's getting late and I'm getting silly. Bottom line is that liberals want to control, minutely, every aspect of society; conservatives do not. If you're in the latter camp and are not happy with how radically left BO and this Congress are, then you're A-Okay in my book. πŸ˜€

  26. Fuzzy,
    Thank you.

    There are so very many points you raise that i would love to rant about, but from reading through your writings, i know that i would only be “preaching to the choir”.

    Even though i have chosen to go through life as a godless heathen, i understand that a great many people have not. i also believe that as an AMERICAN it is my duty to protect this land and the principles and beliefs upon which it was founded. And since religion was addressed by the founding fathers BEFORE anything else (even by the Atheists signers), i believe it is part of my responsibility to this country to make sure your rights are no more infringed on than my own. That said, as long as religious people don't want to burn me at the stake or piously tell me how wrong i am… we will get along famously.

    “Merry Christmas”… i have been meaning to post something on this to my blog and say that i understand that Christmas is the Christian celebration of the birth or your Lord; Jesus. i have NO right to diminish that or your faith. Therefore, i gladly would greet you with a “Merry Christmas”.

    If my fellow godless heathens would THINK for a minute that the origin of “Holiday” is “Religious HOLY Day”, they might truly realize how foolish they come across.
    I absolutely LOVE this little factoid!

    Well, enough of my babbling, here is the link to both the main blog-site and the “Conservative” posting also:

    Again, thank you for saying yes to me, and i hope you like what i have say. Even if you don't like it, at least i hope it makes you think.

  27. Hey again WoMO, you're already making me think, and I just love that! πŸ™‚ I'll definitely come and check out your site; it sounds like we have a lot of common ground. And I can assure you that I will not call you names or preach to you about God; if you were to go off the rails and start preaching to me about the absence of God, I would simply remove myself from your company. As is my right.

    I take your point about “holiday” originating from “holy day,” but it has become a secular catch all. Veteran's Day, the Fourth of July, and Martin Luther King Day are all holidays in this country, and none of these are, strictly speaking, religious holidays (though I suppose a case can be made that patriotism and judging people by the content of their character and not the color of their skin are “Christian” in some way, that's a bit of stretch). One of my very favorite atheists love Christmas, especially the present-getting (but then, she's not a nutcase who thinks that crosses and Christmas trees are the bane of society), so I really don't have a problem with atheists as long as they leave me and my faith alone. πŸ˜€

    One of the main concerns of the signers, including as you note the atheists or agnostics, was the role of religion in maintaining a moral and social order that is fundamental to the crazy experiment they were undertaking. While not all atheists are godless in the sense of immoral or amoral, there is a mound of evidence that suggests that a spiritual (if not religious) underpinning helps society, making it stronger and allowing for social order with little government intervention. It's no coincidence that further we are shoved in the shadows, we people of faith, the more government interference is needed to force order (legislating everything from what we can say to how much and to whom we give charity/money to). I wrote a post on “God and Country” that explores this, and I maintain that thinking people of any religion or lack thereof must realize that there is truth to the fact that religion helps maintain and support a free society. Remove that, and the gulf that is left must be filled up . . . in our case, in this country, by the government. I don't worship a man, nor a body composed of men (er, and women, but you take my point), and I suspect that you don't, either. πŸ˜‰

What say you?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s