Ii thought the topic was interesting, but the article less in light of what I'd read and posted from the New Yorker.
Not if that was the conclusion, given what I read and linked to from last year.
Okay. I've never said that about either. I've noted that being conservative doesn't make you hard hearted (unless you bring that to conservatism on your own) and being liberal doesn't make you an enemy of morality (unless you bring that too).
It may be this area, but conservatives also tend to be conservative Christians (or rather likely vise versa by importance). The liberals in my extended family, are also liberal theologians. I believe the connect is strong. Do I question their love of God? Yes, I've lived around these liberal churches. I greatly question their values. God-first, else: serving two masters by word rather than deed.
Ironic if you believe either, but I don't believe a lot of conservatives believed it. Do you? And I doubt many liberals will believe it reversed.
I actually do believe it more consistently true. Bias? I'd have to be convinced it is anything but observation in my short life on this earth. I deem it consistently true and would have to be biblically convinced otherwise. I'm not seeing it (at least it isn't the rule but the exception as in your case as a moderate). Importantly, it needs to be said that I acquiesce, but only in my experience, as exceptions to those rules. Perhaps that is part of the narrow road as well and perhaps you have a point about conservatives being inconsistent to their First-Love as well. The rift, imho, is a spiritual one and pushes us back to 'in the world, but not of it, be not unequally yoked, and cannot serve two masters."
Because few people are trained or inclined to apply critical analysis and run amok with confirmation bias.
Agreed on this too, HOWEVER, it is always odd to me because I am analytical by character. Jumping bandwagons has always seemed crowd-following to me. I am too analytical for that. I rarely do bandwagons or fads. I am, however, to some degree, 'with' fundamental conservative evangelicals and sometimes not as critical/analytical by admission.
The only real question goes to causality. And that doesn't support either contention, which means the moment we start making general proclamations of that sort we have to understand that non-causal rules break down in the particulars. That is to say, you can't logically assume it to be true for anyone who identifies as liberal. You may have more reason to suspect the correlation exists, but that has to be tempered by the understanding that the notions still aren't causally linked.
As far as I understand the data, there is indeed a 'natural' inclination of truth to the study. Liberals tend to spend more time compartmentalized in their interests. Conservatives tend to think "how is this good for my family" first and foremost. Not to overtly conflate Conservative politics with Conservative theology, but there is a connection and it shows with elections, like this past one. We Conservatives did not see expression of much of any conservative values. The problem, simply, was we had no voice. Two terms of dumping conservative values completely and assault on us, and we are the majority group, shows up. "If" we were so motivated, we'd never have another Democrat in office and we could do it, so motivated. This is actually who we are. That is why liberals and conservative rifts are there. It is the dysfunctional families and redefined families, that are Liberal and fringe. Families ARE conservative by and large.
So it's better to get to know someone and figure them out that way.
Always. I agree and I'm talking by percentages as well. When we disallow a Liberal with family values, we've lost the conversation and become duplicitous.
I don't think that's true. Rather, liberals have a progressive agenda, for good or ill, that tends to challenge the status quo and conservatives tend to safeguard tradition, for good or ill, preserving it.
Then, imho, you've acquiesced it as true, despite the conscientious objection. IOW, I think you've said "I don't think that is true" while supporting that it actually is. One who supports the basic family unit IS by definition, Conservative, even if they are inconsistent in their political lives. It really is by and large, the actual observation and truth of it.
To me that's just your bias kicking in. They think, but they're wrong. The other guy. These days he's either ignorant, stupid, or dishonest. And that's why rhetoric keeps heating up and the chasm keeps widening.
Not what I'm saying. Rather, I'm saying what the Liberals said, was all along, against themselves without realizing it. "Yeah, that's just like those backward conservatives! They are so unyielding, stubborn and contentious and don't play nice with others" using the statistics to 'prove' their point. The problem was, the statistics, were true, whatever the inconsistent comment and vitriol AND the stats they used were the ones about 'them.' By the study, Conservatives are better at taking on social concerns. Why? Imho, because it isn't as much political and contrived, it is organic and family driven. Now, that is an observation that can be challenged, and I welcome it, BUT when we are talking about rights for contrived relationships (not organic), then these interests aren't part of conservative values and by definition, the difference imho, is readily evident.
Who decides what's fringe? Abolitionists were on the periphery of the social order once. Maybe some traditions need to be damaged. But the problem is, to my mind, largely among zealots who can't find value or see the sense when proffered from another ideological disposition. They'll cut off the nation's nose to spite its face.
Because I'm a Christian, and because I'm a father in an organic family, I say I am the one to say what is fringe. We simply ARE families. That's organic and natural and not something twice removed from most people. Look at the liberal agenda, it is nearly always about individual rights instead of group and societal thinking. It is true that we'd then ignore some groups by emphasis, but we are ever inviting those into our neighborhoods and culture. Lest I become too conservative, I am aware that Christ supersedes dysfunctional families but I'm crossing theological and natural concerns in a political section. For me, politics tends to be something not as natural to our values as living in functional family units. Somehow, I'm to be in the world, but not of it. Rather, I'm interested in getting the world to come to Him. That said, I am IN the world and so need to cause positive effect. I think 'conservative' means preserving that which indeed is the best in and of us. Those values cannot change else we attack the very core of our necessary values that are genuinely in need of conservation.
Which values? And there's no "the media" Lon. That's an invention of the hard right and the ones who invented it don't even believe it, because they work for Fox News. You want a peek at the divorce rates among conservatives and Christians?
Yes:
Wrong Urban Legend Look
here too, political Conservatives also have a lower divorce rate than their Liberal counterparts AND this is the connection I'm saying necessarily is true and a part of these observations of our differences, naturally. A lot of what I'm saying is naturally, and obviously true. Conservatives, must necessarily be more family oriented and interested than Liberals (again, as a general but applicable rule).
According to Barna, Non Christians divorce at a rate of 38%, Born Again Christians 33%, Atheists 30% and Catholics 28%.
I've read these. First of all, only 65% of atheists get married. The other 35% cohabitate. While the data is solid, I'm finding I disagree more often that Barna is doing a good job on reporting those statistics accurately. As the links above suggest, committed bible-readers and couples who pray together, rarely get divorced.
Sorry, but that's just not true. Why by necessity? Why at all? Being liberal doesn't mean rejecting all tradition. It means rejecting those traditions that liberals feel are contrary to their notion of what constitutes the best social compact.
Because family values ARE conservative values. Look again at those links and regarding the one that shows a much lower rate among political conservatives vs. Liberal politicians. It IS true.
Hostile in what way, by what definition and to whom or what? Perspective tends to provide that answer and it looks different, shoe wise, depending on which you're standing in.
Conservatives, as families, aren't the ones marching in streets. When we do? We bring our strollers. It is different and observably so.
Families are certainly great training grounds for cooperative learning and action. So are other social vehicles, many of them liberal in nature. And liberals have families. In fact, I bet you could be introduced to any number of families and without asking pointed philosophical questions have no idea about what sort they were...and some would leave little doubt. The little doubt crowd tends to be largely comprised of people who can't wait to tell you about their philosophical underpinnings, of course...or who have tell-tale bumper stickers and window decals.
I disagree. Families are organic and nature. Anything else? Artificial. Between you and I, we understand that the church is organic, as well as our faith. This won't be seen as organic to others in this political thread. It is 'why' imho, you are not a liberal. I honestly believe it would be very difficult for you to be a political liberal, as a family man and Christian man.
I'm not a liberal, but if you want reasoned opposition on a good bit of that I'm your Huckleberry.
And perhaps the only one who actually can, imo. I don't know of many liberals on this site that could be honest as you will be concerning the conversation, and I welcome it. They couldn't ask for a better representative when it comes to trying to discuss something in a meaningful way. On top of that, I think you also understand your wife well. It makes you a strong candidate for huckleberry imho.
Well, for a bit. Finished early this week, but I'll be mostly out for the next couple of weeks. :cheers:
Well, yes, there is that too. Sometimes, as I remember, you can use some of this to help with some of your school work. It'd be worth a couple of threads, I think, to occasionally have feedback in discussion and debate regarding school-politics etc. -Lon
