Liberals are Foolish & Conservatives are Evil

[prisonchaplain]

The title is not truth, but rather common belief among some. So, the breakdown is that conservatives traditionally view liberals as naive, idealistic, and in need of some real world experience.  In contrast, liberals see conservatives as rapers of the earth, controllers of women, haters of minorities--especially immigrants--and mean towards those who are different (read: LBGT...). So, back in the 1970s through early 20-teens liberals pushed the "tolerance" button.  Conservatives mocked this, but subconsciously responded.  After all, if liberals are foolish, they can learn better.  They are not ill-intended.  Then, SCOTUS handed liberals a tremendous victory, and mainstream society quickly turned.  Now, conservatives are saying, "How about tolerating us?": (Read: religious liberty).  Liberals quickly respond by saying they have no obligation to tolerate evil.

Have I got this right, or am I missing something?

[anatess2]

Meh.  From my perspective, Americans have no idea what it means to be liberal or conservative.  Nobody can define what it is besides Republican = conservative, Democrat = liberal.

In a country with a Constitution designed to protect Liberty, being a Liberal becomes anti-Liberty... which doesn't make much sense.

Edited May 16, 2016 by anatess2

[NeuroTypical]

I disagree PC.  I believe it's the exact opposite.  There are various "Would you rather your kid smoke or cheat on a test" / "Would you rather your kid be an idiot or a criminal" quizzes out there.  When forced to choose, "stupid and smoke" find more votes from the right, and "criminal cheaters" find more votes from the left.

[prisonchaplain]

NeuroTypical, I believe you are answering the question of whether liberals actually are foolish vs.evil...and likewise for conservatives.  While that is interesting, my history studies tell me that PERCEPTION is more important than reality.  If liberals perceive that conservatives are evil then there will be no mercy for those who conscientiously object from baking cakes for gay weddings, for example.  If these bakers are evil, their refusal is based in hateful bigotry, not 'sincerely held religious motivation.'

Edited May 16, 2016 by prisonchaplain
typo

[anatess2]

1 minute ago, prisonchaplain said:

NeuroTypical, I believe you are answering the question of whether liberals actually are foolish vs. naïve...and likewise for conservatives.  While that is interesting, my history studies tell me that PERCEPTION is more important than reality.  If liberals perceive that conservatives are evil then there will be no mercy for those who conscientiously object from baking cakes for gay weddings, for example.  If these bakers are evil, their refusal is based in hateful bigotry, not 'sincerely held religious motivation.'

Okay, pop quiz... explain the liberal versus conservative position of baking cakes at gay weddings... explain how they are liberal and how they are conservative.

[prisonchaplain]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

Okay, pop quiz... explain the liberal versus conservative position of baking cakes at gay weddings... explain how they are liberal and how they are conservative.

Liberals in theology have taken holy writings and interpreted them as broad recommendations that can be refashioned given cultural and generational contexts.  To be over-simple, then, the commands against same-sex engagements in the OT/NT would be deemed forbidden due to Pagan rituals, temple prostitution, and even the inherent rape and molestation slave cultures engaged in. Today, given our enlightened sociological and psychological understanding, romance-based love should be embraced in all its varying forms.

So, a loving couple are preparing to enter holy matrimony, with the full-blessings of their faith community. They go to a baker to order a cake, and are told that they are inhuman, unworthy, abominations, whom God deems unworthy of their cake. They feel psychologically raped and violated, and humiliated.  So, the liberal says that since scripture holds love as the highest value, it is obvious that the bakers are engaging in hatred and bigotry.  Their simplistic and rejected interpretations of ancient scriptures are merely a shield to hide the true meanness in their hearts.

Conservatives believe scriptures say what the mean and mean what they say, and are 100% reliable. Cultural context does not change God or his words.  So, the bakers are sincere in their beliefs, and their objections should be honored. They should be allowed to conscientiously object from baking a cake that will be part of a ceremony they found sacrilegious.

[anatess2]

11 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

Liberals in theology have taken holy writings and interpreted them as broad recommendations that can be refashioned given cultural and generational contexts.  To be over-simple, then, the commands against same-sex engagements in the OT/NT would be deemed forbidden due to Pagan rituals, temple prostitution, and even the inherent rape and molestation slave cultures engaged in. Today, given our enlightened sociological and psychological understanding, romance-based love should be embraced in all its varying forms.

So, a loving couple are preparing to enter holy matrimony, with the full-blessings of their faith community. They go to a baker to order a cake, and are told that they are inhuman, unworthy, abominations, whom God deems unworthy of their cake. They feel psychologically raped and violated, and humiliated.  So, the liberal says that since scripture holds love as the highest value, it is obvious that the bakers are engaging in hatred and bigotry.  Their simplistic and rejected interpretations of ancient scriptures are merely a shield to hide the true meanness in their hearts.

Conservatives believe scriptures say what the mean and mean what they say, and are 100% reliable. Cultural context does not change God or his words.  So, the bakers are sincere in their beliefs, and their objections should be honored. They should be allowed to conscientiously object from baking a cake that will be part of a ceremony they found sacrilegious.

Okay see... this doesn't make sense.

How does Conservative equate to "say what it means and mean what it says"... as a matter of fact, how does Conservative apply to scripture at all?  What is the State in this context?

How does Liberal equate to "broad recommendations"... What are they seeking Liberty from?

The reason I'm pushing these questions is because a lot of people accuse Liberals/Conservatives of stuff that Liberals/Conservatives aren't.. they just assumed they are because that's what they thought being Liberal/Conservative means... or more accurately, it's the color of their jerseys.  So when "conservatives" see Catholic nuns wearing full habits holding up a Pro-Choice sign they feel betrayed because they're supposed to be wearing the conservative color jersey... so they end up calling the nuns fools.

 

Edited May 16, 2016 by anatess2

[prisonchaplain]

2 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

The reason I'm pushing these questions is because a lot of people accuse Liberals/Conservatives of stuff that Liberals/Conservatives aren't.. they just assumed they are because that's what they thought being Liberal/Conservative means... or more accurately, it's the color of their jerseys.

You may be looking for classic, textbook definitions. They will lead you woefully astray, when engaging in internet reading and discussion.  Conservatives, by definition, are actually classic liberals.  Liberals are more "conservative," because they are prone to use state force.

HOWEVER, perception is more important than reality.  People do perceive the Conservative means:  Pro-gun, Pro-life, anti-LBGT marriage, anti-immigration, anti-affirmative action, etc.  Name the issue, I can tell you how the conservative is perceived to believe.  Same for liberal--opposite sides of each issue.

Are these views really liberal/conservative, by textbook definition? Probably not. Historically, the GOP and Democrats have flipped sides in free trade, quite often. It was Republicans who emancipated slaves.

Another way of understanding conservative and liberal by textbook definition would definitely flip the ideologies.  If "conservative" means reluctance to change, then today that means legalized abortion, LBGT marriages, near open borders, etc.  It may not be long before it is "conservatives" who want to use the judiciary to "legislate" changes. Of course, we'll say we are correcting past activism...

Yes, Anatess2, it is a fine mess you live in.  :-)

[Guest MormonGator]

8 minutes ago, zomarah said:

Both the Conservatives and Liberals use the State as their weapon of choice in forcing others to accept their views.

Exactly. Conservatives do it "for the children" and "for the families. While liberals do it out of snobbishness and superiority complexes. 

Edited May 17, 2016 by MormonGator

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

8 hours ago, MormonGator said:

Exactly. Conservatives do it "for the children" and "for the families. While liberals do it out of snobbishness and superiority complexes. 

Ah, c'mon Gator.is that really what you think of me?   As you know, I am Liberal on some issues and Conservative on others.  (I see no reason to align myself 100% with either side.) 

8 hours ago, zomarah said:

Yes Liberal and Conservative are just labels for certain agendas. They don't represent the two ends of some sort of continuum.

Something I posted on Facebook the other day:"I promote tolerance by being intolerant of those who disagree with me. I also promote diversity by requiring everyone to do things my way."

Bothe the Conservatives and Liberals use the State as their weapon of choice in forcing others to accept their views.

I agree with you in the essence that both sides are partially right and both are wrong.  I think it is like the poem about The Three Men and the Elephant, it ends with this:

 And so these men of Indostan

Disputed loud and long,

Each in his own opinion

 exceeding stiff and strong,

Though each was partly in the right,

And all were in the wrong.

Pres. Uchtdorf quoted this poem and then said, "We look at this story from a distance and smile. After all, we know what an elephant looks like. We have read about them and watched them on film, and many of us have even seen one with our own eyes. We believe we know the truth of what an elephant is. That someone could make a judgment based on one aspect of truth and apply it to the whole seems absurd or even unbelievable. On the other hand, can’t we recognize ourselves in these [three] blind men? Have we ever been guilty of the same pattern of thought?"  What is Truth, Pres. Dieter F. Uctdorf, CES Devotional. 

This is the way I look at politics.  Sometimes I stand back and watch the battles and smile, but I'm painfully aware of my own ignorance, which keeps me from becoming arrogant and snobbish.  In the end, I mostly just feel sad that both sides won't take the time to try to understand one another's position.  To be fair, I'm not certain that as humans that is entirely possible.  There have been times when I tried to understand someone whose views are opposite of mine, and I just don't get it.  I'm sure others have felt the same way about me.  But still I think there is something to be gained from the effort, if for no other reason than to avoid becoming like  the Nephites and Lamanites...Pres. Uchtdorf talked about that.  He said:

"In the Book of Mormon, both the Nephites as well as the Lamanites created their own “truths” about each other. The Nephites’ “truth” about the Lamanites was that they“were a wild, and ferocious, and a blood-thirsty people,” never able to accept the gospel. The Lamanites’ “truth” about the Nephites was that Nephi had stolen his brother’s birthright and that Nephi’s descendants were liars who continued to rob the Lamanites of what was rightfully theirs. These “truths” fed their hatred for one another until it finally consumed them all." 

The whole talk is great, BTW.  It's one of my favorites.  You can find it on YouTube

 

 

 

[anatess2]

17 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

You may be looking for classic, textbook definitions. They will lead you woefully astray, when engaging in internet reading and discussion.  Conservatives, by definition, are actually classic liberals.  Liberals are more "conservative," because they are prone to use state force.

HOWEVER, perception is more important than reality.  People do perceive the Conservative means:  Pro-gun, Pro-life, anti-LBGT marriage, anti-immigration, anti-affirmative action, etc.  Name the issue, I can tell you how the conservative is perceived to believe.  Same for liberal--opposite sides of each issue.

Are these views really liberal/conservative, by textbook definition? Probably not. Historically, the GOP and Democrats have flipped sides in free trade, quite often. It was Republicans who emancipated slaves.

Another way of understanding conservative and liberal by textbook definition would definitely flip the ideologies.  If "conservative" means reluctance to change, then today that means legalized abortion, LBGT marriages, near open borders, etc.  It may not be long before it is "conservatives" who want to use the judiciary to "legislate" changes. Of course, we'll say we are correcting past activism...

Yes, Anatess2, it is a fine mess you live in.  :-)

No, I'm not meaning the classic, textbook definitions.  I'm looking for the American Definition.  How is Pro-Gun, Pro-Life anti-LGBT marriage, etc. Conservative... WHAT MAKES them Conservative other than the Republican Party holds these positions?  Same for liberal positions of issues.  It would have made more sense if instead of saying Conservative/Liberal, you say Republican/Democrat.  That's easy - you just look up their stated party platforms and you got a definition.  This is very evident in this election cycle when even candidates running for Presidency have no consistent definition of what it is - you have 7 Presidential Candidates spouting on stage 7 different definitions of Conservatism and on the other side, a socialist Presidential Candidate accusing a long-acknowledged Liberal of being Conservative.

 

Edited May 17, 2016 by anatess2

[Guest MormonGator]

6 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

Ah, c'mon Gator.is that really what you think of me?   As you know, I am Liberal on some issues and Conservative on others.  (I see no reason to align myself 100% with either side.) 

 

 

 Totally different type of liberal Lit. You know I have nothing but love for you. 

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

1 hour ago, MormonGator said:

 Totally different type of liberal Lit. You know I have nothing but love for you. 

I  know, but I have to keep you on your toes!

[prisonchaplain]

Liberalism and conservatism are not just party labels. There are conservative Democrats (Bill Clinton was kind of one), and there are liberal Republicans (McCain).  Perhaps referring to recognized public policy/politician influencers will help.

What's a liberal?  http://thinkprogress.org/

What's a conservative?  http://conservative.org/foundations-of-conservatism/

[tesuji]

9 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

Ah, c'mon Gator.is that really what you think of me?   As you know, I am Liberal on some issues and Conservative on others.  (I see no reason to align myself 100% with either side.) 

I agree with you in the essence that both sides are partially right and both are wrong.  I think it is like the poem about The Three Men and the Elephant, it ends with this:

 And so these men of Indostan

Disputed loud and long,

Each in his own opinion

 exceeding stiff and strong,

Though each was partly in the right,

And all were in the wrong.

Pres. Uchtdorf quoted this poem and then said, "We look at this story from a distance and smile. After all, we know what an elephant looks like. We have read about them and watched them on film, and many of us have even seen one with our own eyes. We believe we know the truth of what an elephant is. That someone could make a judgment based on one aspect of truth and apply it to the whole seems absurd or even unbelievable. On the other hand, can’t we recognize ourselves in these [three] blind men? Have we ever been guilty of the same pattern of thought?"  What is Truth, Pres. Dieter F. Uctdorf, CES Devotional. 

This is the way I look at politics.  Sometimes I stand back and watch the battles and smile, but I'm painfully aware of my own ignorance, which keeps me from becoming arrogant and snobbish.  In the end, I mostly just feel sad that both sides won't take the time to try to understand one another's position.  To be fair, I'm not certain that as humans that is entirely possible.  There have been times when I tried to understand someone whose views are opposite of mine, and I just don't get it.  I'm sure others have felt the same way about me.  But still I think there is something to be gained from the effort, if for no other reason than to avoid becoming like  the Nephites and Lamanites...Pres. Uchtdorf talked about that.  He said:

"In the Book of Mormon, both the Nephites as well as the Lamanites created their own “truths” about each other. The Nephites’ “truth” about the Lamanites was that they“were a wild, and ferocious, and a blood-thirsty people,” never able to accept the gospel. The Lamanites’ “truth” about the Nephites was that Nephi had stolen his brother’s birthright and that Nephi’s descendants were liars who continued to rob the Lamanites of what was rightfully theirs. These “truths” fed their hatred for one another until it finally consumed them all." 

The whole talk is great, BTW.  It's one of my favorites.  You can find it on YouTube

 

 

 

LiterateParakeet,

You are rare bird indeed: A thoughful moderate. Don't let the world ever change you

[Guest MormonGator]

5 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

I  know, but I have to keep you on your toes!

 Lol. Darn right! 

 

2 hours ago, tesuji said:

LiterateParakeet,

You are rare bird indeed: A thoughful moderate. Don't let the world ever change you

I second this. We love our resident LitPar! 

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

Thanks @tesuji and @MormonGator !!!