NationStates Jolt Archive

Can someone please give me a logical reason for being socially conservative without bringing religion into the equation? Not everyone has the same belief system. I am honestly wondering (seriously dying to know), as a libertarian, where that is coming from.

Usually its to do with tradition and status quo or just a general fear of disorder and debauchery.

Can someone please give me a logical reason for being socially conservative without bringing religion into the equation? Not everyone has the same belief system. I am honestly wondering (seriously dying to know), as a libertarian, where that is coming from.

some people are dicks, I don't think religion has much to do with Social conservatism at all to be honest

yes don't you see there are dicks everywhere?

Can someone please give me a logical reason for being socially conservative without bringing religion into the equation? Not everyone has the same belief system. I am honestly wondering (seriously dying to know), as a libertarian, where that is coming from.

i think the most plausible argument runs along the lines of "new things are different and possibly bad, whereas we know the old ways have worked well enough in the past for us to have made it this far".

Usually its to do with tradition and status quo or just a general fear of disorder and debauchery.

But do they honestly believe that tradition should override civil liberties?

Influence from family?

Watching what happens to non-conservatives in horror movies?

Watching what social non-conservatives that you know act like?

I bet you can think of a few more.

i reallly really really hate conservatives.
neocons, theocons corporate cons.....i hate 'em all!


LONG LIVE THE LEFT!

*FAR RIGHT*:mp5:

But do they honestly believe that tradition should override civil liberties?

Well depends what civil liberties are being overridden. Suppression of free speech is usually for pragmatic or religious reasons, banning of prostitution and drugs etc.. is to "ensure their society does not become degenerate" or whatever.

Because teh gays and teh harlots and teh commies and teh druggies and teh abortionists will destroy America!

duh

Conceivable reasons:

They believe drugs are not good for society, and lower production.

They believe that it would be better to keep marriage the way it's been for 6000 years, rather then change the possible partners.

They believe nudity would be unsanitary, or would cause a distraction.

They believe more guns will cause more deaths among criminals, which could be considered a good thing.

They believe prostitution harms women's psyche.

They believe abortion is watered-down form of murder, and is not acceptable.

There's loads of possible reasons. I don't necessarily agree with them, just hypothesizing here.

i reallly really really hate conservatives.
neocons, theocons corporate cons.....i hate 'em all!


LONG LIVE THE LEFT!

*FAR RIGHT*:mp5:

Does this post have any purpose? I'm a liberal, and far as I can see this is a pointless thing to say.

Religious right?

No, that's an oxymoron: they're wrong.

I've always wanted to say that.

I honestly don't think there is any reason.....:confused:

Does this post have any purpose? I'm a liberal, and far as I can see this is a pointless thing to say.

I'm just glad he can't get his size tag to work. Honestly that ought be disabled.

i think the most plausible argument runs along the lines of "new things are different and possibly bad, whereas we know the old ways have worked well enough in the past for us to have made it this far".

of course, this sorta necessitates being religious. and probably not the religion typically found on the religious right. damn protestant upstarts, helping to bring about the disintegration of the old order...

Personally...I think the whole conflict between the Religious Conservative Right and the Liberal Left can be greatly simplified by this simple phrase: It is the continiuous fight between old fashioned and the new age.{i.e. Parents fighting with their teenage children.}

But do they honestly believe that tradition should override civil liberties?
Yes. That's all there is to it.

To clarify the issue further, you seem to be operating under the assumption that we should give people as many civil liberties as possible, and those liberties should only be restricted if and when there is a good reason to do so.

Social conservatives hold no such assumption and see no particular value in civil liberties. Instead, they believe that we should follow tradition as much as possible, and only deviate from tradition if and when there is a good reason to do so.

Personally...I think the whole conflict between the Religious Conservative Right and the Liberal Left can be greatly simplified by this simple phrase: It is the continiuous fight between old fashioned and the new age.{i.e. Parents fighting with their teenage children.}
Wrong, because both conservatives and liberals [in the United States, which I assume is the country you're talking about] include large numbers of both parents and children. There are nearly as many liberal parents as conservative parents.

Wrong, because both conservatives and liberals [in the United States, which I assume is the country you're talking about] include large numbers of both parents and children. There are nearly as many liberal parents as conservative parents.

Your missing the point. The whole parent/child thing was just an example. The old fashioned vs the new age was the main point of the post. Some people are just afraid of seeing things change. To some, its like their world is just slipping out from underneath their feet and what was once sacred no longer is.

Yes. That's all there is to it.

To clarify the issue further, you seem to be operating under the assumption that we should give people as many civil liberties as possible, and those liberties should only be restricted if and when there is a good reason to do so.

Social conservatives hold no such assumption and see no particular value in civil liberties. Instead, they believe that we should follow tradition as much as possible, and only deviate from tradition if and when there is a good reason to do so.

My problem with it is the case study of the 50's. People then stuck to tradition, and everyone simply appeared to be happy when in fact depression, alcoholism and suicides were rampant. The social right seems to want to return to a state like that one, when it clearly wasn't functional.

My problem with it is the case study of the 50's. People then stuck to tradition, and everyone simply appeared to be happy when in fact depression, alcoholism and suicides were rampant. The social right seems to want to return to a state like that one, when it clearly wasn't functional.

Well you see, you can quote those facts all you want, but a major part of conservatism is that facts don't matter.

Can someone please give me a logical reason for being socially conservative without bringing religion into the equation? Not everyone has the same belief system. I am honestly wondering (seriously dying to know), as a libertarian, where that is coming from.

In today's age I cannot. But after a little bit of understanding of our past (and by past I mean the dawn of civilization), the religious views which many people still believe are the best were once very logical for the success of civilization. Actually, in many cases it has been proposed that religion itself was created due to the concepts that you call "socially conservative." However, many of those ideas are no longer needed, so I cannot defend those who use religion as a reason. However, get over it. People like to believe what they want to believe. Just like yourself and myself.

Wrong, because both conservatives and liberals [in the United States, which I assume is the country you're talking about] include large numbers of both parents and children. There are nearly as many liberal parents as conservative parents.

But that has nothing to do with it. "old views" and "new views" are not age dependent. One prime examples.

Salem Witch Hunts. Many scholars believe that this was simply a clash of old views and new views. Many of the assailants were young also.

The Moral Majority and the Religious Right are neither.

I was actually asked today if there was such a thing as a christian liberal...and then i promptly raised my hand and said I am living proof.

I don't think that religion has to follow the right, at all. I think it borders both sides of many issues. But political conservatives have stretched it to embrace "christians" and liberals have let it happen by bringing up only the issues of Abortion and Homosexuality, where politics has so much more to do with people and living then those two issues.

(the person who asked me the original question only listens to her christian conservative parents.)

Conservatives tend to focus on here and now, while the liberals realize that we must make sacrifices now to protect the future.

On a side note, the proper term is "religious wrong", and what people describe as "moral decency" is usually both immoral and indecent.

and what people describe as "moral decency" is usually both immoral and indecent.

examples? Also, you need to keep in mind that morals are simply ethics that pertain to religious views. If you wish to use unethical, I may be more willing to hear you out.

Usually its to do with tradition and status quo or just a general fear of disorder and debauchery.

(While attempting to hide their own brands of disorder and debauchery until someone outs them publicly....)

i reallly really really hate conservatives.
neocons, theocons corporate cons.....i hate 'em all!


LONG LIVE THE LEFT!

*FAR RIGHT*:mp5:

Some kind of help is the kind of help we all can do without. Appreciate the passion, kid, but exercise some thought on the message.

Because teh gays and teh harlots and teh commies and teh druggies and teh abortionists will destroy America!

duh

Destroy America? They BUILT America.

THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION
Yes, it is possible for someone to be socially conservative and either non-christian, non-religious, or atheist. Not all people embrace the transcendentalist principles that underwrite the modern American liberal movement, the belief that everyone is allowed to do whatever they want whenever they want, with no consideration to either the rest of society or to standard social norms. There is also a strong emphasis on non-conformity. Some people believe that it is very difficult, if not impossible for society to hold itself together if everyone is off doing their own thing. Pre-marital sex, for instance, isn't just a stupid rule, an irrelevant holdover from the bible to these people. Having a society that discourages pre-marital sex reduces the AIDS rates, reduces the teen pregnancy rate, and also encourages stronger families. It has been proven in numerous psychological studies that kids who come out of single- parent, or unstable families generally tend to either be more delinquient, or bums, therefore unproductive to society. It has also been proven that the more sex one has, the more one wants more, adding to the stress on the family, and therefore society. One doesn't have to be a Christian to frown upon pre-marital sex, or any socially liberal policies for that matter. A wide diversity of ideas, while enriching society, also tend to make it more unstable, according to this viewpoint. This is why some people support socially conservative policies.


I apologize for my ungodly long post.

I apologize for my ungodly long post.

it was only a paragraph or two. typing in a bigger font doesn't actually make things longer.

so, about this empirical evidence showing that conservative beliefs actually are more societally desirable (whatever that means)...

i reallly really really hate conservatives.
neocons, theocons corporate cons.....i hate 'em all!


LONG LIVE THE LEFT!

*FAR RIGHT*:mp5:

So I wa right when I said that liberqals want all conservatives dead and yearn to use violence against them.

All you lefties are hypocritical bigots. Liberal nazism? Conservative nazism? Whats the diff, moderates with their moderate thinking are the only ones who are supposed to have any kind of power. Extremists whether it be left or right are just phychos who are addicted to conflict and confrontation, they usually don't give a shit about their ideology, they only use it as an excuse for their sick and belligerent behaviors, they just want to fight and argue all the time and cause hell for everyone else. It seems the battlehungriness gene from the medieval ages lives on today through these meddling assholes.

Define conservative.

To the average NSGer, I'm conservative. To my average countryman, I'm a liberal.

To you I might appear as a social conservative. I am a (nonpracticing) Catholic, but I don't use religion to justify my "socially conservative" stances, and I don't believe using them would be right.

So I wa right when I said that liberqals want all conservatives dead and yearn to use violence against them.

All you lefties are hypocritical bigots. Liberal nazism? Conservative nazism? Whats the diff, moderates with their moderate thinking are the only ones who are supposed to have any kind of power. Extremists whether it be left or right are just phychos who are addicted to conflict and confrontation, they usually don't give a shit about their ideology, they only use it as an excuse for their sick and belligerent behaviors, they just want to fight and argue all the time and cause hell for everyone else. It seems the battlehungriness gene from the medieval ages lives on today through these meddling assholes.

As much as I agree with you, your belligerance towards leftie belligerance puts you on the same level as them and completely kills your argument. But yes, all forms of idealism (racism, sexism, communism, extreme liberalism, etc.) are generally bad because of their hostility towards ideologies different from their own and the fact that their own hardliner views rarely correspond with reality.

I don’t think I can even discuss this till people stop misusing the terms ‘liberal’, ‘conservative’, ‘left’ and ‘right’.

One can be a left or right-wing liberal, a left or right wing conservative, and a conservative liberal. These are quite clearly defined terms in political philosophy; confusing them only leads to muddled thinking and even more muddled arguments.

These are quite clearly defined terms in political philosophy

What's the clear definition of "conservative" in political philosophy?

Can someone please give me a logical reason for being socially conservative without bringing religion into the equation? Not everyone has the same belief system. I am honestly wondering (seriously dying to know), as a libertarian, where that is coming from.

Kind of a weird thread title, if you don't want to bring religion into the equation. Social conservatives aren't radically different from social liberals, they're just farther right on the spectrum. Even the craziest liberal does not want to live in a society where people are all doped up sociopaths, like the folks of Clockwork Orange. It would be a disaster. Well, social conservatives are the same, just...more conservative. They think more regulations are necessary for the dystopia created by Burgess than liberals do.

As much as I agree with you, your belligerance towards leftie belligerance puts you on the same level as them and completely kills your argument. But yes, all forms of idealism (racism, sexism, communism, extreme liberalism, etc.) are generally bad because of their hostility towards ideologies different from their own and the fact that their own hardliner views rarely correspond with reality.

My belligerence towards such people is only a defensive reaction, they push and make me uneasy (beacuse they hate me for not being with them) I shove in order to defend my self and others.

What’s the clear definition of “conservative” in political philosophy?
A political philosophy that emphasises tradition and the reverence of the status quo.

A political philosophy that emphasises tradition and the reverence of the status quo.

Say I am a politician in a socialist country that throughout its decades of existence has ardently promoted confrontation with and revolution in the capitalist nations.

Now, a reformer has come to power, who seeks to end the confrontation and instead promote world peace. I loudly denounce her for betraying the ideals of the Revolution and abandoning the oppressed workers still under capitalist domination.

Am I a conservative, because I support the traditional policy and the status quo? Or am I anti-conservative, because I advance that policy because I support violent revolutionary change in much of the world?

Does the conservative support tradition and the status quo on principle, or merely because she likes one particular variety?

If it's the former, I find it hard to accept or understand such a political philosophy... would it really jump to defend the traditions of Stalinist Russia as eagerly as it would the traditions of the United States? What about the traditions of the pre-1776 British Empire? Doesn't such a muddle involve contradiction?

If it's merely because she likes one particular variety, shouldn't we either (a) define it by that particular variety or (b), if we want to preserve the broader usage, stop using "conservative" to designate political positions in any absolute sense? (But isn't that a distortion of the meaning of "conservative"? We know what "conservative social policy" is; is that really society-specific?)

To sum up: I submit that "conservative", at least, does not have as clear-cut a definition as you indicate. "Liberal" might have such a thing, though one much broader than some would enjoy making it.

One can be socially conservative without being religious. Cases in point include the U.S.S.R., Viet Nam, and other Communist (note the capital "c") countries.

My belligerence towards such people is only a defensive reaction, they push and make me uneasy (beacuse they hate me for not being with them) I shove in order to defend my self and others.
Well done showing us who you really are.

Can someone please give me a logical reason for being socially conservative without bringing religion into the equation? Not everyone has the same belief system. I am honestly wondering (seriously dying to know), as a libertarian, where that is coming from.

Depends what you mean; whether you'll allow explanation of it through religous terminology, or whether explanation equals justification in your view.

You cannot really understand or explain social conservatism practically without reference to religion. Social conservatism in theory is more or less a disposition towards government that 1) we cannot understand citizens as radically isolated individuals, but in the context of the cultural frameworks that makes their choice of governments and governmental policies sensible, married to a belief that 2) given a choice between change in the culture and possible resultant changes in the type of government, status quo is usually preferable. While I didn't reference religion in the definition of social conservatism, in practice since religion is one of the biggest influence on culture it's usually almost impossible to seperate the two.

Social conservatives in America, then, are focused on preserving status quo in the culture largely because they fear resulting changes in how the government works. Which is also why arguments about the seperation of church and state tend to fall on willingly deaf ears: social conservatives do not make the sharp distinction between culture and government that pure classical liberals do. It's also why social conservatives are hugely concerned by such issues as immigration; changes in the racial makeup of the nation, or perhaps better put by the mass influx of people with different social values, might encourage changes in government function as well.

So I wa right when I said that liberqals want all conservatives dead and yearn to use violence against them.

All you lefties are hypocritical bigots. Liberal nazism? Conservative nazism? Whats the diff, moderates with their moderate thinking are the only ones who are supposed to have any kind of power. Extremists whether it be left or right are just phychos who are addicted to conflict and confrontation, they usually don't give a shit about their ideology, they only use it as an excuse for their sick and belligerent behaviors, they just want to fight and argue all the time and cause hell for everyone else. It seems the battlehungriness gene from the medieval ages lives on today through these meddling assholes.

Before you post put some thought into it.

A simple thought train would be:

1.) The aforementioned poster does not represent the left or liberalism
2.) The aforementioned poster did not threaten to kill or yearn for dead conservatives
3.) Making sweeping, vast generalizations don't make a good argument, especially when they have an extremely flimsy premise to base them on
4.) Therefore, I should probably respond to this post with disregard instead of making some rant about "lefties" being hypocritical bigots and "liberal nazism."

kthxbai

But do they honestly believe that tradition should override civil liberties?

Yes. Civil liberties, by their nature, allow a person more capacity for personal expression and personal responsibility, whereas conservative enforcement is intended conformity to an assumed ideal that you may or may not have come to of your own conclusion or even to your own benefit.
How many people have good, sensible answers to why something is "tradition", anyway?
It does appear that religious mindset is strong in similarity and persuasion to conservative mindset.

I am an Atheist and a conservative.

My positions:

Government is fundamentally a bad thing, and we should have as little of it as we can. The only areas of legitimate concern to the government are law enforcement, public infrastructure and the common defence, though emergency relief should also be considered.

Government should have no position on social convention, allowing people to live as they see fit.

People are responsible for their own well-being, wealth, and continuation of same.

Economics works best when unhindered by government control. Some control is necessary to prevent abuses of the system.

The rights enumerated among the people include with them the responsibility for wise use therof.

In all, and entirely non-religious conservative position that I'm perfectly comfortable with.

I am an Atheist and a conservative.

My positions:

Government is fundamentally a bad thing, and we should have as little of it as we can. The only areas of legitimate concern to the government are law enforcement, public infrastructure and the common defence, though emergency relief should also be considered.

Government should have no position on social convention, allowing people to live as they see fit.

People are responsible for their own well-being, wealth, and continuation of same.

Economics works best when unhindered by government control. Some control is necessary to prevent abuses of the system.

The rights enumerated among the people include with them the responsibility for wise use therof.

In all, and entirely non-religious conservative position that I'm perfectly comfortable with.

That's really more libertarian than socially conservative. Actually, that's not really socially conservative at all

My problem with it is the case study of the 50's. People then stuck to tradition, and everyone simply appeared to be happy when in fact depression, alcoholism and suicides were rampant. The social right seems to want to return to a state like that one, when it clearly wasn't functional.

It's called nostalgia. That feeling that some time in the past, things were better than they are now, and the resulting urge to return to said past.
I remember a discussion I had with a friend years back, when she was complaining that these days, there doesn't seem to be a family that didn't have a divorce somewhere any more, and weren't things so much better in our grandparents' generation when families stuck together. I replied that I well remember my grandmother telling me about how the whole village new that one of her neighbours was abusing his children and regularly beat his wife half to death, sometimes in the middle of the street. Nobody intervened, they were HIS wife and kids after all, and the woman eventually went and hang herself. My grandmother said that in those days, a number of women "went to the woods" (to hang themselves), since they had no other way out of a desperate situation. I asked my friend if she honestly believed a society and time when such instances could occur would be better than today is. I also made the claim that today is the best time that has been so far in human society (at least in the Western world), a statement that she, for some reason, found horribly depressing...

Can someone please give me a logical reason for being socially conservative without bringing religion into the equation? Not everyone has the same belief system. I am honestly wondering (seriously dying to know), as a libertarian, where that is coming from.
(From the perspective of American social conservativism...)

If you are a wealthy white male, social conservativism is great for you. It will ensure that you continue to enjoy unearned perks at the expense of anybody unlucky enough to have been born brown, non-male, and non-rich.

If you are a wealthy white woman, social conservativism is also pretty nice, because it will continue to tell you that even though you're still a subhuman (because of that vagina of yours), you're a fundamentally more valuable subhuman than all brown, poor subhumans. Social conservativism will tell you that if you're prepared to play by the rules (I.e. be a good little Stepford wife) then society will give a shit if you are kidnapped, raped, or murdered. This is more than you can expect if you are brown, poor, or noncompliant.

If you're any other group of people, social conservativism will tell you that if you just bow down and kiss enough ass then maybe they'll let you join the country club. Which they will, but only because they need a new dishwasher.

I am an Atheist and a conservative.

My positions:

Government is fundamentally a bad thing, and we should have as little of it as we can. The only areas of legitimate concern to the government are law enforcement, public infrastructure and the common defence, though emergency relief should also be considered.

Government should have no position on social convention, allowing people to live as they see fit.

People are responsible for their own well-being, wealth, and continuation of same.

Economics works best when unhindered by government control. Some control is necessary to prevent abuses of the system.

The rights enumerated among the people include with them the responsibility for wise use therof.

In all, and entirely non-religious conservative position that I'm perfectly comfortable with.

Indeed, you seem economically conservative; not socially conservative; more in line with libertarianism... Social Conservatism is a position where morality is held above civil liberty... Example would be limiting consensual sexual activities between adults, like fellatio or sodomy; or defining what type of adults were allowed to cohabitate...