Conservative or Conservationist?
by Joseph C. PhillipsA little bit of wisdom that was shared with me not too long ago. “God gave us a Powerful gift – your mind. As you look around at any object, it began as an idea in some one’s mind. Any change of situation begins as a thought.” Indeed there is infinite power in an idea.

Russell Kirk wrote, “Conservatism is not a political system, but a way of looking at the civil order.” Put more plainly, it is a world view. People often confuse being a conservative with being a Republican. However, Republican is a political party not a way of thinking. All republicans are not conservatives. In fact as we have seen over the years there are even some republicans that are not republicans. Being a conservative is really about the embrace of an idea.
There is a film I recommend everyone rent and watch. It is called “Amazing Grace.” It is the story of William Wilberforce and his struggle to end the slave trade in the British Empire.
During an especially poignant moment, the former slave and abolitionist, Olaudah Equiano, opens his shirt displaying the brand burned into his chest when he reached the West Indies from Africa. In his words it was a mark that let him know that he no longer belonged to God, but to men. This moment in the film is striking not because it affirms the cruelty of slavery. Slavery was/is not evil because of its cruelty, but because it violates the natural state of man by reducing the divine to the profane.
For me this moment eloquently illustrates the seed idea of conservatism-that all men belong to God! Thomas Jefferson was equally eloquent when he said that “some men were not born with saddles on their back and others with boots and spurs to ride them by the grace of God.” Jefferson of course codified this idea into the Keystone document of our Republic.
It is the assertion of divine ownership that is the basis upon which we claim our liberty. The natural rights of man emanate from this simple truth: God made man free and independent. As free men, we must own our bodies, our ideas, and the fruits produced by same. No man or no government can morally lay claim to that which God has made ours through his grace and mercy. It is upon this concept that rights are properly defined; upon this rock that America was founded and this idea that is the bedrock of conservatism.
Not too long ago I was in my hometown of Denver, Colorado. I was speaking at a luncheon sponsored by the Claremont Institute of which I am a Lincoln fellow. I was on the phone with a very old and dear friend of mine trying to make plans to meet following the event. “The Claremont Institute?” She asked, “What is that?”
I responded, “It’s a think tank devoted to restoring the founding principles to our national life.”
“Oh,” she said. “Ultra right wing.”
“Uhm exactly which of the founding principles do you disagree with?” I responded.
I have made it my habit to never admit to being a conservative unless I am allowed to define what that means. It is routinely and wrongly asserted that the conservative objects to change. Frankly it is a fallacious argument the new left routinely makes and one conservatives far too frequently – and to our detriment – neglect to refute. The fact is that to conserve has never meant simply arguing for the status quo. Conservatives might be more properly understood if we referred to ourselves as conservationists.
Like conservationists conservatives are not content with current conditions. Rather they are both seeking to prevent the depletion of some treasured resource. Both Conservatives and conservationists act to defend and protect; to restore, to supervise and nurture those things essential for the survival of a society or culture. Preservation is achieved through education and prudent management or husbandry.
For many citizens stepping forward and demanding that we conserve trees or some rare species of bird is looked upon as a noble undertaking. It is a pity that some of those same eyes view the act of conserving, defending, restoring and supervising the prudent management of the principles upon which this nation was founded as a whacky or evil endeavor.
Equiano was correct and the power of that small idea – to quote a young Muhammad Ali – “Shook up the world!” I would submit that conserving that idea and the principles which grew from it are as important as conserving our natural resources. Better yet I contend that idea and those principles are our greatest natural resource.






Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
130 Comments
I am glad to see this point being written about. People I've spoken to in the past get a little insight into what you're talking about when I tell them I'm a conservative because I agree with conserving all the good things we've done as a nation of free people, and we should tackle and eliminate the things that hinder true growth. And that I don't want to change things just to say that we've "made changes" – for better or worse. Change can be good, but it has to be done with care. Change for the sake of change is not conducive to growth.
"Amazing Grace" is superb entertainment and a historically enlightening film…
…rather than Conservative or 'conservationist', may I suggest we consider ourselves "American Realists".
Joseph, great article and a great way to put your point… thumbs up…. and yes, and being a conservative should be about your values…
As usual, Joseph, very insightful. You've given me some food for thought regarding expressing Conservatism. I too find myself reluctant to reveal that I am a Conservative unless pointedly asked. It makes for some interesting and often comical encounters. Being an actor and black most people just assume I am a lefty-liberal and feel free to jabber away at me regarding Bush, or Iraq or Rush Limbaugh or Obama. Although I never say "I am a Conservative", when given the obligatory "Don't you agree?" nod I will usually counter with information that disputes their view, and I LOVE to see the looks on faces when they slowly realize I am not of the same ilk. It usually takes a few minutes. Last year I was in an audition (just before elections) and the talk turned to Obama and conservatives. One girl also in the room said she was a Republican but felt most of the party, like herself, considered themselves more centrist and therefore were fine with the idea of Obama as President. She then turned to me and said (as I had identified myself as a Republican already, another story all together about how that even comes UP in an AUDITION!) "Wouldn't you agree?" I said, "No, I consider myself pretty conservative", to which the woman running the audition replied "Really? I find that completely surprising! How odd!" Yeah, odd. Racist much?
"Both Conservatives and conservationists act to defend and protect; to restore, to supervise and nurture those things essential for the survival of a society or culture"
…So do liberals, but conservatives and liberals disagree on those things that are "essential for the survival of a society or culture." While I'm not too sure that the words "liberal" or "conservative" perfectly connect with their respective philosophies, I've always thought of it like those warning labels on ointments. Liberals look at society and culture, and they "apply (government) liberally." Myself, I'll save my money on a more conservative approach.
Seems odd to me that it is illegal to ask a person's AGE in a job interview, (which is basically what an audition is, right?) but it is perfectly okay to discuss an applicant's political views? Isn't one's personal philosophy of life more "personal", and, in Hollyweird, at least, more likely to cause "discrimination" than how old you are?
*claps hard and long* YES YES YES! Thank you for this article!!
"It is routinely and wrongly asserted that the conservative objects to change. Frankly it is a fallacious argument the new left routinely makes and one conservatives far too frequently – and to our detriment – neglect to refute. The fact is that to conserve has never meant simply arguing for the status quo. Conservatives might be more properly understood if we referred to ourselves as conservationists."
I tried to make this point frequently on another board I frequented oh not so long ago, but even that got drowned out by fellow 'conservatives' who were single issue proponents and had an agenda to define conservativism this way…getting sidetracked by the "how many angels dance on the head of a pin" arguments, never allowing for a WHOLE definition "you're not conservative unless you support this [insert agenda/bill/stance/whatever]"
perfect point…. it is soooo true….
Russell Kirk wrote, “Conservatism is not a political system, but a way of looking at the civil order.
Conservative: One who believes in putting warning signs and safety fences at the top of a dangerous cliff.
Liberal: One who believes that the only thing needed is to provide a parked ambulance at the bottom of a dangerous cliff.
You tell me which philosophy better supports the Preamble to the Constitution.
Wonderful article, Mr. Phillips. You made some excellent points and gave me some things to consider.
I just have one question: What did your friend say when you asked her which of the founding principles she disagreed with?
Wonderful article, outstanding premise, I only wish you had taken the comparison of Conservative as Conservationist a bit further as I've been trying to articulate that concept for a very long time with none of the success that you were able to put in a few short lines.
Come on back to Denver on April 15! We'll throw you a party, a tea party. Capitol steps at noon. This year's theme: Why Nancy Pelosi suddenly likes us.
I don't know: I have always happily fessed up to the charge of being a conservative and generally hostile to change, because I am. I don't think we should change aspects of our society unless we have a good reason to. Not that I'm always and universally opposed to change, because it is sometimes necessary. I think it was Burke himself who said, "In order to have mechanisms with which to preserve society, it is necessary that we have mechanisms with which to change it." (Or something like that.) But we shouldn't change for change's sake, and I don't see any reason to deny that.
And to think I had a 180 message post on this very topic in one of the Tom Hanks articles! I wanted to "Atheist Cosnervative" to tell me if he believed in the U.S. Constitution, that which believes in God. Well half a dozen Atheists and Big Tent Conservatives attacked me for being rude, a troll, and questioned my grammar or the concept that a piece of paper believes.
Even within our own ranks, we have shout-out Atheist Conservatives. Well I want to ask them the meaning then of Conservativism to them. Who endows them with Liberty & Justice?
THANKS FOR THE ARTICLE, this one I'm going to archive… EVERYTIME ANOTHER bighollywood Atheist Conservative pops up.
You can be an Atheist… but Conservatism is Conservatism is Conservatism.
And don't forget the God part!
Well its happening on these boards too, apparently, as Conservatives we have to accept Atheism, Gay Marriage.
And I mean… that Blessing of Liberty must come from… reason & science for some?
And that our children must never know the difference between a dad/dad, a mom/mom or a dad/mom. NEVER.
The Liberal might also deem it necessary to prohibit EVERYONE from going to the edge of the cliff to look at the scenery – for the safety of all.
OH YAH, I got this bad boy article BOOKMARKED. Gonna use it for years to come on this board to remind posters and posers and imposters what Conservatism is all about.
Sorry, I was once a brainwashed commie-liberal-atheist drunken painter bukowski writer who thought he had freewill so now, that I'm family man loving what i do and feel so free, I'm so agro!
Greate article. Very powerful.
Thought some might appreciate this vid that quotes some of the founders on those conservative principles:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzYl48V0HTM
Excellent commentary. Spot on. I once explained to a co-worker what it means to be a Conservative when he asked me why I would subscribe to such a "radical, racist organization" (which included some of the points you hit on here). He said, "Is that what being a Conservative is?" I asked him what he thought it meant and he answered that his understanding is we all wanted to see a return to the days of slavery, subjugation of women and "lawlessness like they had in the wild west." I was taken aback by his definition, needless to say.
I get your point, but MINE was to say that conserving what had already been established is what defines Conservativism and that is to CONSERVE the Constitution – simple as that. This is a definition that has been hi-jacked by the Left and by those with a European understanding of American government. This argument goes back to the debate between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists, goes back to what kind of role the government is going to have. Do I want the government telling me how to view atheism or gay marriage? NO. But do I think that is the essence of Conservativism? The answer is no again. I am Pro Life and consider Roe v Wade abhorrent to the way our government has been subverted by the activists…but do I consider it the be all and end all of being a conservative? NO. As someone who wishes to Conserve the Constitution, I advocate kicking the abortion question to the individual states, AS IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE THROUGH THE CONSTITUTION, and let the chips fall where they may. Im also against Roe v Wade being used to keep adoptees from accessing their Original Birth Certificates, but that does not define me as a Liberal nor anti-adoption – that is me saying that all citizens should be able exercise the same freedoms.
[...] the article here: Conservative or Conservationist? This entry is filed under America – Blogs, Big Hollywood. You can follow any responses to this [...]
Good stuff Mr. Phillips. You sure don't leave any holes to fill do ya! Nice.
Wait, are we talking about Govt or Conservatism?
It's Conservatism that is being challenged as either Big Tent, which many advocate, just like they did for "Moderate Republicans" only a few years ago. OR is it about a belief, that either you follow or don't.
I'm pushing for others to either except the tenents of conservativism or get out! Seriously, get out. If the belief in God is a game changer, than where does our Liberty come from, as a Conservative, mind you. Because only those who believe or understand that belief (believing it or not) will understand why we want limited Govt. Atheism, in its core, has no siding on which way, bigger or smaller govt. Some will reason bigger, some will reason smaller. Though I do find Ayn Randers Objectionists & Individualists to some degree okay, I'd still want to know their stance on what is at the core of Conservatism.
And I agree with 'at the state level' for abortion and even gay marriage. That is if they'll accept and/or let Americans vote on it. Oh wait… THEY DID. Of course as Conservatives, all we have to do now… is take back the schools, take back our own children.
Thanks Joseph for another excellent piece. Great food for thought.
Also, I need to put "Amazing Grace" on my list of films to see, in the near future. Appreciate the tip.
One family man to another,
Nothin' wrong with painter/Bukowski/writer forms of creativity, now and then. As long as a person is grounded and not spinning out of control…no harm/no foul. The freedom we experience in our work and lives today, I believe, is enhanced from having traversed the terrain of turmoil and insanity of our past experiences.
Grateful to be here.
The Founding Principles as a natural resource. Try explaining THAT to one of Rachel Carson's cronies!!
Thank you for another wonderful article, and keep them coming.
well i dont think it was a requirement in audition, it just came up as banter. but not to ignore the statiscal fact that liberalism is controlling Hollywood.
Thank you so much for this!
In what respect? Maybe it's because I'm not reading the post again, but I'm not following you.
Great article. With the picture of Jefferson I was reminded of a series of article I just read that are now in pamphlet form. The article as about Hamiltonian ideas vs Jeffersonian. Hope you enjoy it.
http://www.thesocialleader.com/wp-content/uploads...
In conserving all the good things, a nation of free people, our growth… starts with God.
Look I'm not some fundemental door knocker, but I am agro, cuz for years I was fed the 'we don't need God' mantra. As in, God, the belief that no man can take away our liberty. Thusly, as a Conservative, I want to start with God, then expand on all the great things. If other 'conservatives' don't want to start with God, I want to know, and I want to know why, and where do they think our concept of unalienable rights comes from. Not the faith, not the belief, necessarily, but the understanding of conservative principles. I don't believe it's a pick n choose belief, especially when it comes to the core essence of what makes us question the power of a stronger man over the weaker.
Hear, hear Hwoodron. Conservatives should know where their rights come from. And if they don't believe that those rights come from God, well then, where do they come from? I can understand someone who's a Conservative maybe not believing in the concept or dominion of God, but the question still needs to be answered; How do we get these unanlienable rights? Does some person in government give them to us? (Regardless of what the Dems think, they don't vote to allow us our rights.) So this calls for a blunt discussion, but anyone, Conservative, Liberal, Dem, Repub, … needs to acknowledge that a large percentage of Conservatives believe our rights in this Republic do come from God. It's not THE center of conservative thought, but it is a very strong influence.
I had that same question!
Or upon what are their ideas based upon? Their own reasoning? Ah, well, tell me how one's own reasoning is better than the next guys? Me? I place my thinking upon objective truth! My Creator's truth!
" . . . which of the founding principles do you disagree with?"
I'll bet his friend was speechless. Uh…..
This response is going into my mental hip pocket.
I believe it is the central point of conservativism. the concept of Liberty, is in essence what all other conservative values come from, and that, is based off of God. Whom so loving us, that we deserve freedom. NO other religion or political movement has at its core, the concept of us being able to choose God or not, being able to choose freedom or addictions or slavery. Not Islam, not Atheist Science, not Paganism, not Hindu, not Mayan, not Zoastriasm or Buddhist…
But again, that isn't the test, you certainly believe it, if not as much as I do, I do question so called Atheist Conservatives, or anyone that is affronted when I bring up God as a core tenant of Conservativism.
WHOOOH HOOH!!!
I mean… Amen…
Would it be uncouth to mention that Jefferson owned lots of slaves, only a few of which he freed when he died? Or that it was his administration which refused to recognize or aid the new nation of Haiti out of fear that American slaves would follow their example and revolt against their masters?
Good thing it turned out the ideas were bigger than the man.
I understand that the majority of this world does not comprehend their own history. This is shameful. We can only see ourselves by knowing our past. I am almost brought to tears when I see someone showing-off a branding. Why would anyone think this mark of ownership for cattle and slaves is something to be admired?
"I am not a number. I am a free man! "
oh my god! what was your response do tell! of course… i would be too so taken aback… oh so wait… you probably had no response…. i too… would have been so stunned & dumbfounded….
Ah yes. You asked questions when you'd already decided what the "correct" answer was and whined when people refuse to play your game and pointed out what your behavior was like.
Actually, I think one of the people who spent the most time trying to reason with you was Christian himself. Though he was wrong about one thing: your antics don't make Christians look bad, just you. There are plenty of Christians who don't use their faith as an excuse to be a tool. Even the ones trying to convert others to their faith.
Long Live Free Will!
We are endowed by our creator, & I reserve the right to be my creator. God given rights are non-inclusive. I live by infinite & natural law, our U.S. Constitution, & life, infinite & unyielding law of infinite, universal life. & our civil society is now so far from it's founding document, & governing document, that it can no longer define those infinite laws accurately. We have been dumbed down by statist rule in our schools, media, & 'entertainment industry'. We no longer hold any sacred honor as we once did, which was what was needed to win the first Revolutionary War.
Sacred honor needs definition, as do many other things, if we are to take up this battle before us. The Second Revolutionary War. We are being 'helped' to death by our statist saturated society. We need about one one hundredth of what they are 'helping' us with now. & it's a downward spiral. & America is now in a severe state of decay. Define your sacred honor, & understand that we must offer it up, if we are ever to win.
Well done Joseph! Loved your response: " . . . which of the founding principles do you disagree with?" Our struggle is to preserve liberty, and our fight is against a number of world views that threaten that liberty. Centralized control of the economy and means of production, enormous federal power to the injury of the states and the destruction of the individual, the use of the government to confiscate property from one citizen so as to give to another, and efforts to eradicate the notion we are "endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights," all these are direct threats to liberty. Thank you for stating the case so well and for being a great leader in the fight.
Jefferson wanted to free his slaves but was too deeply in debt to do so. He ended up only being able to free his most trusted slaves. (4 or so if I recall correctly.)
I guess I keep assuming this is common knowledge. When I first came to this country I read furiously about the founding fathers.
& as far as 'global warming', if it is for the gain of a few statist elite, & to the detriment of most, I say we re-think our priorities. I happen to be old enough to remember when cars actually did pollute, & I can tell you, this is a big beautiful world, we are little teeny ants walking around down here. We can keep it clean as best we can, & that's all we will ever be able to do. Sure, conserve, but the statist method, really only has our control as it's objective. Let's learn to live with the love of nature, & planet, & with the reverence of the infinite law, life.
[...] Conservative. [...]
[...] Conservative. [...]
That individual's intensedebate ID's main website was Liberal website… that "spied" on the Right Wing and called out any Religious attempt at bringing God back into the schools, as radicals. The first page was masked in patriotic & tea party like activism. So…..
He also linked arguments from "PositiveAtheism", BBC, all the articles were Liberal brainwashings against Christianity. As if his articles were FACTS and my putting them in context were lies.
The correct answer is that God is part of the U.S. Constitution, the founding of this nation. Right? Or do you not believe that? Please reread this article then. & don't take it from me! Or read the 912 projects core beliefs. Or Heritage Foundations core beliefs. Or… well you tell me.
Tom Selleck didn't get many roles after his position on the NRA became well known.
John Voidt isn't the hot property he once was, not after his views became widely known.
It's the worst kept secret in Hollywood that the in crowd hires the people they agree with politically. It's only banter until it hits your pay check.
The issue you talk about, is because not enough realize what conservatism is.
Once you can get past that, then the other things become a lot more simple.
He's just label it risky let the tort lawyers make a fortune off of it first, then let the media have expose's for a while to help with the ratings, then in the limelight let it become an issue for reform. And in the end we would be forced into a one size fits all solution with heavy fines and mandates.
I read and posted on that article. The person said he was a conservative based on his desire for limited government. While I disagree with his position, he did come to a right conclusion. That each person should have the freedom to make that choice for themselves, and without government interfering with his freedoms.
Conservatism isn't about what church you attend. It's about the relationship between government and the governed. We rule it, not the other way around.
Reading the Bible helps us understand who is at the top of the food chain, but it's not the only way to recognize that yearning for freedom God put into each of us.
The website has a song about Americans pulling together. Why is that liberal?
I was able to find facts on any number of places, and used the liberal sites so avoid arguments with liberals, who are often trolls. I also provided a link with vatican sources.
You provided nothing but your chants and mantra, the same tactics trolls use.
God is meantioned in declaration of independence. But if you were truly familiar with the constitution you would realize it protects us from being forced into any choices on religion. That's what Christianity is about, free choice. Of course the smart choice is God, but it's a choice that has to be made willingly, not because a troll tried to force it on anyone.
See, you're a poster that free will can turn a person around.
When you learned and grew, when you began to chose the right things… was it forced on you?
He also provided his slaves with free universal healthcare. He also gave them retirement benefits.
He gave them the same benevolent oversight that Obama wants to give us. Why is that all so bad?
I am a republican that is against slavery, the same party that fought to end slavery and am against slavery in any form even in unfunded mandates and regulations. Don't try saying that Jefferson was for any of that.
Roger's website's main link to reveal what his site is.
http://www.pfaw.org/
Roger's website's main link to reveal what his site is.
http://www.pfaw.org/
Roger's website's main link to reveal what his site is.
http://www.pfaw.org/
Roger's website's main link to reveal what his site is.
http://www.pfaw.org/
Roger's website's main link to reveal what his site is.
http://www.pfaw.org/
AND…its creepy that you are attacking me on EVERY post… That's creepy dude.
Roger's website's main link to reveal what his site is.
http://www.pfaw.org/
Oh look here you are again… creepy.
Actually, I linked to a song. You only got it half right, as usual.
I realize cut and paste is the easiest way to do things. And trolls usually resort to it, since coming up with original ideas is so hard for them.
And you are still only half right.
Actually, I linked to a song. You only got it half right, as usual.
They can find it on my profile.
So, once more when you are presented with evidence that disagrees with you, you don't respond to the comment. You attack the source.
Isn't that the way trolls behave? I think so… something about the politics of personal destruction?
Oh, and I linked to the song I liked. That must make your eyes bulge and ears smoke, doesn't it? Knowing you are only half right still.
Cut and paste.
And you do it so well. At least they taught you something during your time in your leftist roots.
If they go to the song I have linked on my profile they'll draw their own conclusions.
And it seems to me that in that song they link being a 'born again American'. You ought to love that idea….
But, was it dogmatic enough? Did it force anyone into agreeing to anything? Did it put anyone down? No, I guess you won't like it.
I attack the ideas you espouse every time I see them. You? I don't care about.
But forced religion? I have a problem with that. Reduced choices in religion? I have a problem with that. Dehumanizing anyone because of their theological beliefs? I have a problem with that.
That's what the extremist muslims do. And that's the final result of your position. Hitler used it too, just taking a few reasonable things from Jews… it was so harmless. And by the time anyone realized the place it ended at, it was too late.
I don't get you… I mean, this is what's stated in the article above… so by all means, have a discussion, but why with me? Why not with the author of this article?
Joseph C. Phillips:
It is the assertion of divine ownership that is the basis upon which we claim our liberty. The natural rights of man emanate from this simple truth: God made man free and independent. As free men, we must own our bodies, our ideas, and the fruits produced by same. No man or no government can morally lay claim to that which God has made ours through his grace and mercy. It is upon this concept that rights are properly defined; upon this rock that America was founded and this idea that is the bedrock of conservatism.
Yes, and finish that. Because they belong to God they have choices and freedoms that men should not take away. Not even you. And since God owns men it's not your place to define what they can or can't say or believe.
I read the article and agree with it. I am reading and agreeing with the paragraph directly under the photograph.
Conservatism is a world view on the civil order. Do you have a problem with reading comprehension and retention? No where in this piece does it say anything about athiests aren't endowed by the same rights and gifts that God gave to those smart enough to recognize His place in their lives.
Cut and paste is so lame. You use that a lot, don't you?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/14/health...
Don't use religion for something it was never intended. The Bible carefully separates the spiritual realm withe the temporal realm. "Render unto Cease the things that are Ceasar's…." Go ahead and explain where in the Bible that it says we are to throw atheists from a political party?
really… your main website… you linked to a liberal advocacy group run by Norman Lear because you liked the song?
and I'm sorry, but BBC & Positive Atheism are not facts I should argue. As a Big Hollywood member you should know the reason this even exists is to dispel the blame America, take away God, blame Christian dogma taught by those libereal advocacy & media groups.
Anyway, maybe you should read the article and base your arguments from there. ….Or just come after me. You must be paid well, cuz let me tell you, I'm losing money & time everytime I respond to you.
More cut and paste. I'll attack bad ideas and faulty positions anyplace I can.
It's my moral duty to make sure people understand issues where my faith is involved. And since you seem to use Christianity as a battering ram, I will explain my differences with your take. And that is was debate is about.
So, why not explain why I'm wrong? Or is your only response to attack me instead?
Did you read the article?
You had some sort of bizarre story you made up that the inquisition was used against muslims in spain. When in reality it was used by Catholics against protestants and suspected Jews. I used sources that pointed out historical facts.
And you haven't shown where a single one of those facts was wrong.
So, you resort to troll tactics and just make attacks on the source.
Yes, except for the verse on working for change at the plant I liked the song.
I read the article, and agree with the author. We need to define what conservatism is, not let others define it for us. We should understand that conservatism is a world view of the civil order. That view is also that rights don't come from man, but from God. But God has never said in the Bible we have to exclude athiests from our political party. In fact he separates his issues from that sort of thing. Ours are character issues that should win the world over by example. Not by applying pressure in the political realm. And if we live our Christianity that won't be a problem.
Yes, once as a quick overview, then a second time to study and think through the more detailed parts to see what his thoughts matched up to the things I believe.
Then I stopped to think about who was probably right where we had differences and why? Then I adjusted my world view to match what I thought was right.
Isn't that why you're here?
RESPONDING TO YOUR REPLY FROM BELOW POSTS.
And no where did I say Atheists dont have these rights. I merely want to know if the Atheist understood the core essence of Conservativism.
Since you believe in the statements made in this article, so do I, and thusly I wanted to know if Atheist Conservatives believe in it or not. Thats such an affront to you, then how dare Joseph C. Phillips write this article in BigHollywood right?
And that was why you think it was possible for athiests to be true conservatives?
And I explained that anyone that fights against men who think they have the power to remove rights and freedoms, that government should be our servant, not the other way around, that government should not step in and control personal decisions…. those people could very well be conservatives regardless of their religious beliefs or lack thereof.
God may not be done with them yet. You grew past it, and if someone had come along with your view and tried to push you into things the way you are, you may not have been willing to change.
When did I say, throw out an Atheist? YOu are accusing me of something I never did. YOu are a freak. I wanted to know an Atheist's view of where Conservativism comes from. I keep telling you my answer, you keep accusing me of avoiding you.
I don't get it, I answer, you seeth and froth with accusations.
The only thing I cut n paste was YOUR WEBSITE, YOUR LINK to a liberal advocacy group.
And your tone had nothing to do with his backing off and going away?
That really puts us 'loving and forgiving' Christians in a good light, and really in keeping with the way Christ did things.
Their rights do not come from men. And they instinctively know that. They may not be to the point where they will admit God, at least not yet. And your job is to make sure they aren't backed into a corner that they won't be able to come out of later.
So a person that is Against God is conservative to you?
Well in case you didn't know…. CONSERVATISM is not a govt institution, nor a political party. I can not kick Atheists out of belief they do not believe. And never did I say atheists should not be in the Govt or in the REPUBLICAN PARTY… that which is a Political Party.
Conservatism is so simple, why do you try to make it so hard?
Why do you twist and squeeze every word and thought to make it into something that doesn't need to be there?
Believing that rights do not come from man is only a step away from saying they come from our Creator. And my job is to make it so simple, so tempting, so easy for them to consider and pray with an open mind that The Holy Spirit can convert them. My job is not to stand idly by while someone uses religion for something that it was not intended for.
Conservatism is possible for an athiest, even if they approach it from a slightly different angle than you. And it's not your place to say they can't.
Why is your main website a liberal advocacy group? That watchdogs Right Wings and Christian Conservatives?
Why is your main website a liberal advocacy group? That watchdogs Right Wings and Christian Conservatives?
Please don't say, because you like the song!
The site I linked to was a song.
Once more you take things that are so simple you can't stand it. And you dive right in to make it into something it isn't.
What part of that song (the song is a song) that you don't like?
I love music, I love music that encourages ethical behavior like not expecting a hand out, just a chance for someone to provide for themselves. To join together with other believers in the same things… those are things I can enjoy with a good tune and nice beat.
Why do you like music?
Come on troll, you can do better than this.
OMG!!! You are for OBAMA!!!!
BHAAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAA!!!!
and you accuse me of being a Liberal!!!
OMG!!!! YOUR LIES KNOW NO BOUNDS!!!
my head is rolling, my neck muscles are stunned in shock…. OMG!
ROGER SAID in post below:
(Jefferson) He also provided his slaves with free universal healthcare. He also gave them retirement benefits.
He gave them the same benevolent oversight that Obama wants to give us. Why is that all so bad?
PHEW!!!!!!!!!!!!
So ROGER IS liberal advocacy website, multi-cultural conservatism, no judging someone's policies or beliefs, & nationalized Healthcare, pro-Obama, anti-Christian inquistion, pro-Positive Atheism, BBC…
PHEW!!!!…. liberal plant? anyone?
Clink on my link and see what comes up.
A song? Yes, and you know why? Because I like the song.
Oh, that must really burn you up.
In case you were not able to pick up on the subtle inferences, liberals have always liked slavery and it's a bit two faced to attack anyone for it.
Wrong again. Was universal healthcare for slaves a positive thing? Was any benefit to the slaves worth the price they paid for it? Of course not.
So, I pointed out that anything coming from a government that acts like it owns us is never worth the price we pay for it.
Are these words small enough for you to understand it?
Conservatism is not a political party, its a belief.
For Spanish Inquisition, you used a link to a BBC article & a Vatican document. But I gave you the historical source of the Inquisition, the reason it even existed, was the Moors occupation of spain from 700 to 1400AD, the Reconquesta & Inquisition came from that. You approach Christian crimes as a vacuum to use to blame anyone who dares ask an Atheist what he believes is the source OF A BELIEF… CONSERVATISM.
A song… written by a Liberal Advocacy Group…
Do you not know the intent of that song?
You support Obama, you blame Christians, you think Conservativism is a big tent, no judgeing or conviction….
Yes, it really burns me up that you speak with a forked tongue.
You mean, like the Obama song the kids are singing, in the other BigHollywood article?
I mean, you support Obama & nationalized healthcare.
No, you didn't give any historical source other than you. Just as you keep repeating it again now. The fact you say so doesn't make it true. And the vatican source I gave you admitted to the facts as I laid them out.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08026a.htm
Why is using a vatican source wrong?
Don't they have the documentation to know history? Is going to the source of the issue a bad thing?
Trolls don't just live under the liberal bridge, we have some of our own too.
And your face is next to the word in the dictionary.
The song that words that were contrary to Obama's agenda.
Or is listening to the song so threatening to you you just can't force yourself to actually do that. Is it as corrupt as the vatican web site I used as a source?
I might supoprt it, if it had any healthcare, or reform in it.
I prefer to call it the 'healthcare takeover bill'.
And the song I link to is not like the singing children worshiping at the feet of the dear leader. You wouldn't understand the big words, and since you won't listen to the song I'm not going to try.
You must be logged in to post a comment.