LGBT and the US Conservative Movement

King Arts said:
Now that depends. You see it is possible for their to be a state religion that is serious and it does have favoritism but it still tolerates and allows other faiths to be worshipped. In fact that is historically how most multi cultural/ethnic empires did things. That way allows minority religious groups to follow their own rules as long as they don't cause trouble to the government and pay their taxes. So it is possible for Christianity to become a state religion and then offer tolerance to Muslims, Buddhists, Jews, Mormons, and Sikhs, and other religions that aren't satanic or blaspheming Christianity.
Click to expand...
There is a very good reason the Founders did not put a state church provision into the Constitution.

It doesn't matter what other countries have done with state churches, the US was purposely designed not to have a state church.
King Arts said:
I mean yes and no. Early America did discriminate against Catholics, and Mormons and non protestants. Also early Americans said all men were equal, they did not always keep to it faithfully. But now in the modern day if a super conservative decided to take away a right from women people would say that they are violating the constitution even though the constitution itself, or the framers ever said anything about women or all humans. They used the term men. People who don't interpret the constitution strictly and give us our rights, don't deserve to be protected by it. You can interpret freedom of religion the same way Europe does with freedom of speech. Many people say that our allies in western Europe our free countries with freedom of speech, and religion. So why can't conservatives use an interpretation that is favorable to us but not favorable to the left? After all the left will tear apart the constitution to hurt us.
Click to expand...
If they want to use America's flawed past to justify removing rights and freedoms we have now, they do not deserve to call themselves patriots or say they have the best interest of America in mind.

They also then have no ground to complain or bitch about the Left's cancel culture or actions at all.

They can also kiss moderate support goodbye, they can kiss political power goodbye forever, and would be giving the Left a fucking gift they never dreamed would happen.

This is my problem with some many religious groups and their fundies; they are so focused on trying to recreate the past that they cannot adapt to the modern times or the reality of what we need to have a future off this single ball of rock.

We need more Carl Sagans, and fewer scripture driven fundies, making policy or engaging in activism on the Right.
 
Bacle said:
There is a very good reason the Founders did not put a state church provision into the Constitution.

It doesn't matter what other countries have done with state churches, the US was purposely designed not to have a state church.
Click to expand...
In early America it was forbidden for there to be a FEDERAL Church. The states were allowed to have a state Church if they wanted. They did not but there was not too much stopping them, except the other states making fun of them for being too serious and straight laced, it's only non protestant religions that were oppressed like the Mormons who basically did have a state Church in Utah unofficially of course, and they did not get to become a state till they were forced to abandon polygamy. But the point is whenever religious laws are put in place in an area in recent times it was done with overwhelming public support. Tell me why we should interpret the constitution to ban courts in rural Georgia from having 10 commandment statues? Because some atheist in New York or San Francisco thousands of miles away wants to ban that and mock the local people by putting satanist statues up instead? How is that the moderate position?

Bacle said:
If they want to use America's flawed past to justify removing rights and freedoms we have now, they do not deserve to call themselves patriots or say they have the best interest of America in mind.

They also then have no ground to complain or bitch about the Left's cancel culture or actions at all.

They can also kiss moderate support goodbye, they can kiss political power goodbye forever, and would be giving the Left a fucking gift they never dreamed would happen.

This is my problem with some many religious groups and their fundies; they are so focused on trying to recreate the past that they cannot adapt to the modern times or the reality of what we need to have a future off this single ball of rock.

We need more Carl Sagans, and fewer scripture driven fundies, making policy or engaging in activism on the Right.
Click to expand...
What exact rights do you see conservative Christians that aren't evangelicals are trying to remove? Religion is the bed rock of patriot support. The church only lost political power because the moderates were too blind and naievely trusted the liberals to not be oppressive. Instead we get communists killing priests in the Soviet Union, while in modern America they try to destroy historical monuments and insult the past. Also religious primacy is not against space exploration. It's the SJW who I've seen post articles complaining about mars expeditions and they want to give that money to help fight intersectional heteronormative racist patriarchy or whatever.
 
Urabrask Revealed said:
Carl Sagan was an agnostic and not religious. Not a good example.
Click to expand...
No, he's a great example of what the Right needs, going into the future.

The Right must start looking beyond our single ball of rock when they think about the future.

To understand our small, tiny part in a much larger universe and that their holy books do not have all the answers for the future issues our country and humanity will face.

To realize that wasting time and energy going after shit like same-sex marriage, or trying to force a state church on a secular nation, is only hurting everything else they care about and everything else that matters to people who don't want the Far-Left to control the nation in perpetuity.
King Arts said:
In early America it was forbidden for there to be a FEDERAL Church. The states were allowed to have a state Church if they wanted. They did not but there was not too much stopping them, except the other states making fun of them for being too serious and straight laced, it's only non protestant religions that were oppressed like the Mormons who basically did have a state Church in Utah unofficially of course, and they did not get to become a state till they were forced to abandon polygamy. But the point is whenever religious laws are put in place in an area in recent times it was done with overwhelming public support. Tell me why we should interpret the constitution to ban courts in rural Georgia from having 10 commandment statues? Because some atheist in New York or San Francisco thousands of miles away wants to ban that and mock the local people by putting satanist statues up instead? How is that the moderate position?


What exact rights do you see conservative Christians that aren't evangelicals are trying to remove? Religion is the bed rock of patriot support. The church only lost political power because the moderates were too blind and naievely trusted the liberals to not be oppressive. Instead we get communists killing priests in the Soviet Union, while in modern America they try to destroy historical monuments and insult the past. Also religious primacy is not against space exploration. It's the SJW who I've seen post articles complaining about mars expeditions and they want to give that money to help fight intersectional heteronormative racist patriarchy or whatever.
Click to expand...
Notice you had to exclude the evangelicals in your qualifications.

You had to do that because you know damn well the evangelicals DO want to strip rights away, and you know they are not shy about saying so now, as they seem to think doubling down on this stuff will somehow fix the actual election problems that happened.

And if they care about helping the US get off this rock in a real way, and spread the Constitution to the stars, they are going to have to learn they cannot have their cake and eat it too.

They also need to remember; LGBs can shoot just as well as heteros, and the evangelicals will not strip them of their rights without violence ensuing.
 
ParadiseLost said:
Bacle, what exactly makes you Right-wing or conservative?

(Genuine question, and don't feel called out, because I'm honestly confused about why most of the people on The Sietch consider themselves Right-wing or conservative, at least in the American sense of those terms.)
Click to expand...
Fair enough.

I am NOT a...conventional conservative; I am a new breed, a South Park Conservative. It is an ignored part of the political spectrum, but the term was coined all the way back in 2001, and there is even a book about it.

South Park Republican - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org

South Park Conservatives - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

Urban Dictionary: south park conservative

A conservative who usually is usually conservative on the matters of tax reduction, international policy and gun rights, but can often times be liberal on such issues as drug prohibition, abortion and adult material. They see liberal establishments like Moveon.org and College Liberals to be...
www.urbandictionary.com www.urbandictionary.com

This is a breed of conservative that breaks the traditional mold of what it means to be 'conservative'. We are more socially liberal, and tend to not be religiously motivated or religious at all, but still are hardcore for the 2nd Amendment, protecting the Constitution and the rights/liberties/freedoms therein.

A lot of the neo-cons elites and paleo-con fundies in the GOP like to pretend we don't exist, because they usually don't have much respect for the freedom and irreverence in the show, despite being braver in it's content than 90% of the Right's media wing and taking on libs like the media on the Right only wish they could.
 
Bacle said:
Fair enough.

I am NOT a...conventional conservative; I am a new breed, a South Park Conservative. It is an ignored part of the political spectrum, but the term was coined all the way back in 2001, and there is even a book about it.

South Park Republican - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org

South Park Conservatives - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

Urban Dictionary: south park conservative

A conservative who usually is usually conservative on the matters of tax reduction, international policy and gun rights, but can often times be liberal on such issues as drug prohibition, abortion and adult material. They see liberal establishments like Moveon.org and College Liberals to be...
www.urbandictionary.com www.urbandictionary.com

This is a breed of conservative that breaks the traditional mold of what it means to be 'conservative'. We are more socially liberal, and tend to not be religiously motivated or religious at all, but still are hardcore for the 2nd Amendment, protecting the Constitution and the rights/liberties/freedoms therein.

A lot of the neo-cons elites and paleo-con fundies in the GOP like to pretend we don't exist, because they usually don't have much respect for the freedom and irreverence in the show, despite being braver in it's content than 90% of the Right's media wing and taking on libs like the media on the Right only wish they could.
Click to expand...
So basically Libertarian?
 
Bacle said:
Fair enough.

I am NOT a...conventional conservative; I am a new breed, a South Park Conservative. It is an ignored part of the political spectrum, but the term was coined all the way back in 2001, and there is even a book about it.

A lot of the neo-cons elites and paleo-con fundies in the GOP like to pretend we don't exist, because they usually don't have much respect for the freedom and irreverence in the show, despite being braver in it's content than 90% of the Right's media wing and taking on libs like the media on the Right only wish they could.
Click to expand...

Then you have to understand that most conservatives aren't going to see you as a conservative at all.

To most conservatives, the ideas of political freedom and the 2nd Amendment are important primarily because of how they serve religious and traditional values.

In other words, to most classic conservatives, the hierarchy of ideologies is something like this:

1) Religious values
2) Traditional values
3) Constitutional values

Whereas you are more ordering things like:

1) Social values
2) Libertarian values
3) Right-wing values

The only reason you're stuck on the 'same side' ideology is because you're thinking in a false dichotomy of "a person is either a left winger or a right winger."

And in this case, to most classic conservatives, the enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend.
 
ParadiseLost said:
Then you have to understand that most conservatives aren't going to see you as a conservative at all.

To most conservatives, the ideas of political freedom and the 2nd Amendment are important primarily because of how they serve religious and traditional values.

In other words, to most classic conservatives, the hierarchy of ideologies is something like this:

1) Religious values
2) Traditional values
3) Constitutional values

Whereas you are more ordering things like:

1) Social values
2) Libertarian values
3) Right-wing values

The only reason you're stuck on the 'same side' ideology is because you're thinking in a false dichotomy of "a person is either a left winger or a right winger."

And in this case, to most classic conservatives, the enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend.
Click to expand...
I agree with you on the first part, religious values come first they decide what is right and wrong. God is the one who made morality, then tradition and constitution come together, it's hard for me to pick one or the other, I think tradition would edge out a little, but the constitution is hundreds of years old so it counts as tradition.
As for the last part, I disagree the right at this time can't be kicking people out based on purity tests, the enemy of my enemy is my friend for now. After victory we divide the spoils and then we will see. But until then we should be allies.
 
King Arts said:
As for the last part, I disagree the right at this time can't be kicking people out based on purity tests, the enemy of my enemy is my friend for now. After victory we divide the spoils and then we will see. But until then we should be allies.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that's how I think things should be; I'm saying that's how I think things are.
 
King Arts said:
So basically Libertarian?
Click to expand...
Partly, but without the NAP shit and without nearly as much free market worship.

I mean I did vote Lib/Johnson in 2016, because I was not convinced Trump was genuine at that point, hated what the Dems had/have become, and hated Hillary as a person for a multitude of reasons.
ParadiseLost said:
Then you have to understand that most conservatives aren't going to see you as a conservative at all.

To most conservatives, the ideas of political freedom and the 2nd Amendment are important primarily because of how they serve religious and traditional values.

In other words, to most classic conservatives, the hierarchy of ideologies is something like this:

1) Religious values
2) Traditional values
3) Constitutional values

Whereas you are more ordering things like:

1) Social values
2) Libertarian values
3) Right-wing values

The only reason you're stuck on the 'same side' ideology is because you're thinking in a false dichotomy of "a person is either a left winger or a right winger."

And in this case, to most classic conservatives, the enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend.
Click to expand...
That's fair, though I think the value priorities would be more like:

1) Liberty minded (not Libertarian) values
2) Socioeconomic values
3) 'Right Leaning' values

And I do understand a lot of other conservative subfactions have no desire to even admit South Park Conservatives are a thing, much less deal with us politically as a faction in the party. We aren't truly organized like the other factions, and are far more individualist/far less religious than the 'standard' GOP voter.

However, we are adaptable in areas where the other subfactions are not, and can peel off skeptical Dems easier than the neo-cons or paleo-cons.
 
I've got a longer response to some of the things that have been said that I'm writing, but just to get this out there first

The term "fundies" is as far as I'm concerned a 2a Civility Rules Violation. Cut that shit out.

Edit: You think my side of this isn't watching our language in this thread too? If we've got to be civil, so do you.
 
Last edited:
ParadiseLost said:
Then you have to understand that most conservatives aren't going to see you as a conservative at all.

To most conservatives, the ideas of political freedom and the 2nd Amendment are important primarily because of how they serve religious and traditional values.

In other words, to most classic conservatives, the hierarchy of ideologies is something like this:

1) Religious values
2) Traditional values
3) Constitutional values
Click to expand...

I disagree on the staging of values for Conservatives here, because I, and large swathes of conservatism as exampled by Thomas Sowell, Victor Davis Hanson, and Rush Limbaugh, see Constitutional Values as flowing directly out of religious values.

The legal and philosophical framework of America is built on a Biblical Christian foundation. The two are inextricable.

'Tradition' is also a very nebulous word, that can mean a wide variety of different things.
 
LordsFire said:
I disagree on the staging of values for Conservatives here, because I, and large swathes of conservatism as exampled by Thomas Sowell, Victor Davis Hanson, and Rush Limbaugh, see Constitutional Values as flowing directly out of religious values.

The legal and philosophical framework of America is built on a Biblical Christian foundation. The two are inextricable.

'Tradition' is also a very nebulous word, that can mean a wide variety of different things.
Click to expand...

And this kind of stuff is why I told Bacle I wonder why most people here on The Sietch even call themselves Conservative.
 
ParadiseLost said:
And this is why I told Bacle I wonder why most people here on The Sietch even call themselves Conservative.
Click to expand...
Because it's a purity spiral issue; letting neo-cons and paleo-cons define what it means to be 'conservative' is a thing of the past.

Even Trump in his speech today admitted the GOP would likely need to become something new, to reinvent itself in a way, if it wants to keep the MAGA movement going into the future.
 
Bacle said:
Because it's a purity spiral issue; letting neo-cons and paleo-cons define what it means to be 'conservative' is a thing of the past.

Even Trump in his speech today admitted the GOP would likely need to become something new, to reinvent itself in a way, if it wants to keep the MAGA movement going into the future.
Click to expand...

In that case you aren't really 'conservative' as the people here understand it.

You're just advocating a movement to kill 'conservativism' (as people here understand it) off so that your ideology can take its name in order to claim its legitimacy in the eyes of the population.

Trump is not a conservative, and his Presidency was a sign of the death of conservativism in America.


Note that neither of this is meant to be a criticism of you or Trump in any way, as strange as that sounds; I see myself as a bystander in this.
 
Bacle said:
Because it's a purity spiral issue; letting neo-cons and paleo-cons define what it means to be 'conservative' is a thing of the past.

Even Trump in his speech today admitted the GOP would likely need to become something new, to reinvent itself in a way, if it wants to keep the MAGA movement going into the future.
Click to expand...
Now I agree with you purity tests should be avoided towards the regular members of our side. However higher ranked people should definitely have tests, because if we don't have tests then liberals will infiltrate those areas and use the power to enforce things. Just look at two other sci fi forums that shall not be named. Another real life example was at West Point a communist was trying to infiltrate it, and posted on twitter about the long march through the institutions. Thankfully Spencer Rapone was caught and kicked out of the military. But it just goes to show that the left WILL try to send people in.

Also Trump while he did do some good things and avoided bringing us into more wars. We have to acknowledge he was not that bright, I mean there were opportunities for him to do so much more. Also, I believe he kind of saw it coming, this election is what I mean. Early last year he tweeted no mail in voting, and if there was no mail in voting he could have won, he should have used executive authority to ban any voting that is not in person.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top