Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LesX who wrote (1488)	9/3/1998 8:52:00 AM
From: Jim Roof	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 67261

On Conservative Ideals - While I surely cannot speak for all conservatives I can speak for many, myself included. Conservatives are often labeled as the 'morality police' or at least in some manner are portrayed as wishing to intrude upon personal behavior. The basic reason for this is that Conservatives are more aware of the fact that without due exercise of personal responsibility the freedoms that they espouse are weakened and in some cases stand to be lost altogether. It is something of a paradox but a life lived within reasonably tight moral bounds is a life which can enjoy liberty to a greater degree than one hampered by the 'free personal expression' of numerous vices. There is no way in which morality can be divorced from public policy. While not promoting a particular religion's spiritual content it is not only possible, but necessary to promote the end result of the dogma. Conservative lawmakers are aware of this fine line (but not always) and are not afraid to adopt such outlooks as 'traditional family values'. Again, these core values do spring from faith's well but in no way should they be discarded due simply to their source. To do so is anti-religious. That is the worst religion of all and anti-religion has been to date the mindset most full of bloodlust, violence, intolerance and human rights atrocities. Many argue against the idea of 'morality' having a place in public policy and to prove their point they dredge up the crusades or the Spanish Inquisition on which to construct their argument. An honest answer to this is to bring up the likes of Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot and a host of atheists whose societies made a go at 'non-religious' morality. Therein lies the truth regarding how well lawmaking works when societies are constructed totally absent of higher moral ideals and instead are merely the product of intellect which has ceased to use the heart as its compass. Conservatives are also often labeled as 'non-inclusive' or 'intolerant'. Good laws cannot grant everyone every freedom they wish. Any law which could do so should be renamed more appropriately as a license. I find it amusing how the 'tolerant' crowd has no room at all for the 'intolerant' in their discussions. Broken down from a critical thought process, the 'tolerant' are basically stating that 'there are no absolutes'. Of course, that statement is self-negating. If there were no absolutes then how can one be certain of such a rigid foundation? This very basis of liberal thought cannot even sustain it's own weight, much less the weight of it's historic failings. On the other hand, a conservative is willing to state 'there are certain things which are absolute regarding the human condition'. While there may honest debate about what those things are, at least the very underpinnings of conservative thought start with a logically acceptable and sociably demonstrable premise. Jim