Is there any evidence (let alone proof) that religions mellow after 1900 years. - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

An atheist-free area for those of religious belief to discuss religious topics.

Moderator: PoFo Agora Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. Religious topics may be discussed here or in The Agora. However, this forum is intended specifically as an area for those with religious belief to discuss religion without threads being derailed by atheist arguments. Please respect that. Political topics regarding religion belong in the Religion forum in the Political Issues section.
#14900186
‘Conservativism’ is not really an ideology. The term is applied to anyone who opposes the current trend. Anyone who feels their country is headed in the wrong direction and needs to ‘retreat’ and reconsider is a conservative.
#14900547
One Degree wrote:‘Conservativism’ is not really an ideology. The term is applied to anyone who opposes the current trend. Anyone who feels their country is headed in the wrong direction and needs to ‘retreat’ and reconsider is a conservative.


No. There are many people who oppose progress.

Conservatives are merely one of them, and frankly, they are one of the least objectionable groups. Reactionaries are another group, as are fascists.
#14900553
Pants-of-dog wrote:No. There are many people who oppose progress.

Conservatives are merely one of them, and frankly, they are one of the least objectionable groups. Reactionaries are another group, as are fascists.


You can ‘progress’ down the wrong road as easily as the right road. Opposing progress can be either good or bad.
#14900570
One Degree wrote:You can ‘progress’ down the wrong road as easily as the right road. Opposing progress can be either good or bad.


Yes, but since that has nothing to do with what I said, I assume you concede that you were wrong when you claimed that a conservative is anyone who does not like progress.
#14900581
Pants-of-dog wrote:Yes, but since that has nothing to do with what I said, I assume you concede that you were wrong when you claimed that a conservative is anyone who does not like progress.

I did not say conservatives do not like progress. They have nothing against progress. I said a conservative is someone who objects to ‘the current progress’. Big difference.
#14900942
One Degree wrote:I did not say conservatives do not like progress. They have nothing against progress. I said a conservative is someone who objects to ‘the current progress’. Big difference.

By that logic, any socialist or communist must be a 'conservative', since they object to the current way in which capitalist society is progressing. After all, things like globalisation or the decline of industry and the rise of finance capitalism is a form of 'progress', which the left objects to. No, a 'conservative' is someone who supports the existing status quo. This implies, of course, that they must also support the way the current status quo is evolving, since all social and economic systems change over time, and must change over time. If they approve of free markets (as most conservatives do), they must also approve of globalisation, since that is an inevitable consequence of the spread of free markets across national borders. All of this presupposes, of course, that conservatives actually have a functioning brain, which is not always the case.
#14900949
Potemkin wrote:By that logic, any socialist or communist must be a 'conservative', since they object to the current way in which capitalist society is progressing. After all, things like globalisation or the decline of industry and the rise of finance capitalism is a form of 'progress', which the left objects to. No, a 'conservative' is someone who supports the existing status quo. This implies, of course, that they must also support the way the current status quo is evolving, since all social and economic systems change over time, and must change over time. If they approve of free markets (as most conservatives do), they must also approve of globalisation, since that is an inevitable consequence of the spread of free markets across national borders. All of this presupposes, of course, that conservatives actually have a functioning brain, which is not always the case.
Pote you are playing to much with definitions to win your argument.
#14900951
Albert wrote:Pote you are playing to much with definitions to win your argument.

How so? By One Degree's definitions, even a Communist could be described as a 'conservative'. I was merely pointing out that the most reasonable definition of a 'conservative' is that they are somebody who supports the existing status quo. This definition has certain implications, given that the status quo is dynamic rather than static over historical time, and I pointed out some of those implications.
#14900955
Potemkin wrote:I was merely pointing out that the most reasonable definition of a 'conservative' is that they are somebody who supports the existing status quo.


This is true.
Most (neo-)conservatives these days, at least in the Netherlands, are not as conservative as they think they are.
Or they are just opportunistic to gain votes and are hiding their true intentions.
The following recent doctoral thesis got a lot of attention in the press: The conservative embrace of progressive values
#14900959
Conservative by the root of the word does mean to conserve but in practice it does not work out like that. So is the definition of progress. People like myself when I use the word progress, I mean specifically social progress; regarding changes in sexuality, relationship between men and women and so on. I do not mean the technological and economic evolution since 19th century.

I also use the word "Progressivism" to define not a historical evolution of society, but rather a devised vision by ideologically driven people.

Also what it means to be a conservative changes over time and also depends a lot on individual. To illustrate if we take Godstud; he considers himself a conservative. Yet he is incredibly progressive in his outlook, to a point where essentially there is no difference in Canada between him, and an average Liberal or NDP party voter in this regard.

Yet I've met voters who are conservative and are extremely anti-progressive. They tend to be Christian as well.
#14900962
Albert wrote:Conservative by the root of the word does mean to conserve but in practice it does not work out like that. So is the definition of progress. People like myself when I use the word progress I mean social progress; regarding changes in sexuality, relationship between men and women and so on. I do not mean the technological and economic evolution since 19th century when I use that word for example.

Also what it means to be a conservative changes over time and also depends a lot on individual. To illustrate if we take Godstud; he considers himself a conservative. Yet he is incredibly progressive in his outlook, to a point where essentially there is no difference in Canada between him, and an average Liberal or NDP party voter in this regard.

Yet I've met voter who are conservative and are extremely anti-progressive. They tend to be Christian as well.

All of this is true. And the reason anti-progressive conservatives tend to be Christian (or Muslim or Buddhist or whatever) is that religious truths claim to be both universal and eternal. What was true two thousand years ago is still true today, and for all time. This means, in practice, that what they are trying to 'conserve' has never actually existed in its pure form - no society throughout history has ever managed to live by Christian virtues, or Islamic virtues, or Buddhist virtues, or whatever. They aren't trying to 'return' us to Christian virtue, they are trying to change society so that it better conforms to such virtues. Religious conservatism therefore tends naturally to morph into fundamentalism, which is a radical doctrine rather than a conservative one. It's no accident that Godstud is a very vocal atheist. He's also possibly the least radical person on PoFo. Lol.
#14900965
Well, western societies were build on Christian values. These days most western societies have moved away from those values. So in today's world there is no more Christian conservatism, the position a Christian holds today is that of change rather then conservation.

In the way conservatives today are the the "Progressives", who would be traditionally voters of western Liberal and Socialist parties.
#14900966
Potemkin wrote:How so? By One Degree's definitions, even a Communist could be described as a 'conservative'. I was merely pointing out that the most reasonable definition of a 'conservative' is that they are somebody who supports the existing status quo. This definition has certain implications, given that the status quo is dynamic rather than static over historical time, and I pointed out some of those implications.

Yes, I would consider communists conservatives for the most part. Like most political labels today, the reality does not match the textbook definition. Does communism want to return to the religious values of community?
I also don’t see much difference in our definitions. If you retreat from the current progressive movement then you are returning to traditional values. I don’t believe you can place a time limit on what values when.
#14900968
One Degree wrote:Yes, I would consider communists conservatives for the most part. Like most political labels today, the reality does not match the textbook definition. Does communism want to return to the religious values of community?
I also don’t see much difference in our definitions. If you retreat from the current progressive movement then you are returning to traditional values. I don’t believe you can place a time limit on what values when.

Edit: The status quo depends on how institutionalized the progressive movement has become. It would have to be the status quo rather than a progressive movement for there to be much difference in our definitions.
#14900971
Albert wrote:Well, western societies were build on Christian values. These days most western societies have moved away from those values. So in today's world there is no more Christian conservatism, the position a Christian holds today is that of change rather then conservation.

I would agree with that, with the proviso that although Western societies were built on Christian values, these values were honoured more in the breach than in the observance. As Machiavelli pointed out, being a good Christian is incompatible with being a good prince.

In the way conservatives today are the the "Progressives", who would be traditionally voters of western Liberal and Socialist parties.

Again, I would agree with that. What is called 'Conservatism' today is unrecognisable from what it was even thirty or forty years ago. In terms of social and 'moral' progress, conservatives now endorse positions which not even the most frothing-at-the-mouth Trotskyist would have endorsed thirty years ago. But an important point to remember is that this is not true for economic issues. Even so-called 'left-wing' parties now endorse free markets, deregulation, globalisation and the like. This tells you what issues the ruling elite actually care about.
#14900976
The way I see it. There are two distinct categories in modern politics.

I) Social progress: This is envisioned progress which mainly comes from desire to resolve injustices regarding human personal immaterial interactions. This included feminism, racial relations and homosexuality as such (Civil Rights). Hence if you are on the left of the scale you are anti-racist if you are on the right you are a racist and so on.

II) Economic progress: This is actually a real field in my opinion, where humanity is trying to resolve social ills regarding material conditions. That arose since industrialization. Here as well you have a scale, on the left you have things like state run economy while on the right you have free market one.
#14900978
Potemkin wrote:I would agree with that, with the proviso that although Western societies were built on Christian values, these values were honoured more in the breach than in the observance. As Machiavelli pointed out, being a good Christian is incompatible with being a good prince.


Again, I would agree with that. What is called 'Conservatism' today is unrecognisable from what it was even thirty or forty years ago. In terms of social and 'moral' progress, conservatives now endorse positions which not even the most frothing-at-the-mouth Trotskyist would have endorsed thirty years ago. But an important point to remember is that this is not true for economic issues. Even so-called 'left-wing' parties now endorse free markets, deregulation, globalisation and the like. This tells you what issues the ruling elite actually care about.
It appears there are changes happening in traditional definitions of the parties and things have become meddled and conflicting in modern politics. For example the Blarites of Labour.
Last edited by Albert on 29 Mar 2018 17:42, edited 1 time in total.
#14900979
Albert wrote:The way I see it. There are two distinct categories in modern politics.

I) Social progress: This is envisioned progress which mainly comes from desire to resolve injustices regarding human personal immaterial interactions. This included feminism, racial relations and homosexuality as such (Civil Rights). Hence if you are on the left of the scale you are anti-racist if you are on the right you are a racist and so on.

II) Economic progress: This is actually a real field in my opinion, where humanity is trying to resolve social ills regarding material conditions. That arose since industrialization. Here as well you have a scale, on the left you have things like state run economy while on the right you have free market one.

Yup, you got it. Guess which of those categories I care most about. ;)
What is Fascism

Fascism is a right wing, corporatist, nationalist[…]

They concocted a 30 + year old rape hoax and natio[…]

Which assistance programs are you talking about e[…]

I have a good job. :lol: I guess all the for[…]