Needed - A new conservative apologetics

a reply to: daskakik

Your have stayed right on topic, your approach is reason based and you are detailed in your explanations, I like that, a lot.

If I'm understanding you correctly, it is that there is a need to get down to core principles and fundamentals of conservatism, the ones shared by all conservatives, as a starting point for apologetics. Otherwise it begins to become exclusive to one faction or another and is useless for convincing someone of the merits of conservatism.

Am I close? Do you have any suggestions on how to proceed?

a reply to: ketsuko
Tell me how the left embracing the individual's right to express their sexuality or the right of the individual to have an abortion fit into your definition? They don't.

But, my point and the topic of the thread isn't about liberals, it is about conservatives organizing and increasing membership and I merely pointed out that the author of that article is aiming for a conservative stance that seems extreme to moderate conservatives.

Along with the above mentioned concerns, the goals of conservative apologetics should be established.

The main goals might be . . .

1) Defend against propaganda demonizing conservatism.
2) Instill doubt in the minds of progressive liberals.
3) Convince fence sitting moderates of the benefits of conservatism.
4) Unify current conservative factions.
5) Convert liberals over to conservatism.

The order could be shifted around. Likely a few more to come.

a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck
2, 3, and 5 are basically the same thing.

To answer your question on how to proceed in your previous post, aim for right of center and not extreme right, but that is exactly what that article is shunning and it is what makes number 4 really difficult.

a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck

Im not so sure that "liberalism" is what conservatives are up against, but I do like the overall premise here.

It does seem that conservatives in general, as well as many on the "right," have absolutely no idea how to fight in this modern war. The vast majority tend to just react, and are therefore easily controlled.

Ive always seen conservatives as a counterbalance to progressive thought. Ideally creating a very important tug-of-war to keep rampant negative change in check.

For this dynamic to truly be effective, there needs to be something of a common consensus on a basic framework though. The founding fathers of the US did a pretty bang up job of that. Though, I do think we should expand the founding documents to explicitly include "any organization or group that can exert power or influence on the level of a government."

Anyway, that basic framework is what is being fought over at this point. So, its not really a typical manifestation of the political spectrum, particularly when we include massive information control in the mix.

Its more "liberals, progressives, conservatives, etc" against an absolute corporate-political take over. The only real commonality in either group is trust/distrust of Monolithic information channels (news, MSM, "big tech").

Might be good to prioritize how to organize along similar lines for a variety of reasons. Not only because of being a better reflection of the situation, but because truly embracing the dynamic tug-of-war (done in good faith with diversity of thought) yields immense benefits. Might be why so many aspects of the founding of the US are what they are.. Then, start focusing on things like strong conservative apologetics.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck

if "the right" gets together and talks about anything, the FBI would arrest everyone for terroristic thoughts. So it's best we just sit back and behave while the big kids talk.

I'm a bit confused that a lot of what I believe as a conservative is the same thing a lot of democrats used to believe.
Strong borders, personal responsibility, less government, less taxes, patriotism, Pride in our nation. When did all that turn into a bad thing?

This century... Twenty-Nine years ago, Bill Clinton could damn near win with todays Conservatives. His fellow democrats, however, would filet him for his racist platform. The only thing that has changed in platforms is the pendulum has swung so far to the left that the democrats who supported '92 Clinton but never changed their beliefs, now fall in line with Conservatives. The left have gone so far left, in fact, that there are even people who voted for '12 Obama and are now considered right wing. The left keeps moving left, shedding off all who don't follow.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: slatesteam

originally posted by: Annee
I’d say there are Traditionalists and Non-Traditionalists.

There is same thought & cohesiveness in Traditionalism. The Right mostly aligns with Traditionalism.

Non-Traditionalists are everyone else. The “Catch-All-Bucket”. The “Color-Outside the Lines” people. The “New Thought” people. Up and coming generations will probably fit better in this group.

The Right may be fracturing, but they still have Traditions (boring as they may be).

The Left, because they’re everyone else, will have cohesion only if they choose it.

Only the Right lumps “other” as a whole.

“Only the Right lumps “other” as a whole”

Quoted for hysterical troll lvl irony

I was Republican for 40 years.

I’m very aware of how they think.

Hmm. What year were you turned off from the republican party?

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: ketsuko
Tell me how the left embracing the individual's right to express their sexuality or the right of the individual to have an abortion fit into your definition? They don't.

But, my point and the topic of the thread isn't about liberals, it is about conservatives organizing and increasing membership and I merely pointed out that the author of that article is aiming for a conservative stance that seems extreme to moderate conservatives.

What about the right of an individual to their life?

The fundamental problem with abortion, particularly abortion when used simply because it's inconvenient for a woman to be pregnant, is that the unborn child is a living human with a right to its life. The COTUS expressly guarantees all individuals with their right to life, even those you prefer not to recognize as human.

Slip the DNA of an unborn in with the DNA of born individuals an no scientist in the world could tell you which one it is. They can tell you every single one is a human being.

a reply to: ketsuko
This isn't the thread for that but it is a good example of a stance that even moderate conservatives might not share.

Since part of the goal is to lure moderate liberals over the center line, this is the type of issue that works against that.

originally posted by: Lumenari

... Statism is their religion which the press, our Education system, Hollywood and our social media openly promote.

...

At times of national crisis and international tension governments step up programs that are designed to rally the support of the populace. Patriotic ceremonies are urged in the public schools, and the national anthem is frequently played. Yet it is at such a time, when nations are ready to fight to maintain their freedom, that they are most prone to trample underfoot within their own borders the liberties that they seek to preserve. It is a dangerous time. “One of the reasons why our times are dangerous,” as pointed out by historian Arnold Toynbee, “is that we have all been taught to worship our nation, our flag, our own past history.”

Anyone who does not join in giving expression to such veneration of the nation, regardless of his reason, is viewed with suspicion. Patriots may denounce his conduct as disrespectful, even dangerous to the welfare of the State. Such was the lot of the early Christians. Far from being a menace to the State, they were outstandingly law-abiding. Yet they could not conscientiously participate in the patriotic rites of the Roman Empire. In commenting on the matter, The Book of Culture says: “The Christians, however, strong in their faith, would take no such oath of loyalty. And because they did not swear allegiance to what we would to-day consider as analogous to the Flag, they were considered politically dangerous.”

One should also probably keep in mind that saluting the flag or standing at attention when the national anthem is played does not in itself prove one’s loyalty to or love for the nation. Those who seek to subvert the interests of the State are often the first to disguise their aims by a display of patriotism.

In a letter to the editor of Bombay’s “Indian Express” newspaper, an Indian man stated: “I do not believe in patriotism. It is an opium innovated by the politicians to serve their ugly ends. It is for their prosperity. It is for their betterment. It is for their aggrandizement. It is never for the country. It is never for the nation. It is never never for common men and women like you and I. . . . This sinister politician-invented wall shall divide man from man​—and brother from brother; till one day it shall bring about man’s doom by man. Patriotism or nationalism, to my mind, is an idiotic exercise in artificial loyalty. . . . I take no hypocritical pride in being petty this or that. I belong to mankind.”

The peoples of all nations are flooded with nationalistic propaganda through their own newspapers, magazines, radio and television. Hemmed in by boundaries and censorship, the peoples’ thinking is confined to their own nation, to worshiping it, to idolizing it. This controlled thinking affects almost everyone’s mind.

The Encyclopedia Americana says: “Nationalism is a state of mind which can be, and often is, induced by governmental and private propaganda. It can be the creature of ambitious leaders who wish to form certain patterns of opinion which they expect to use, for their own purposes perhaps, or for ends they consider to be in the public interest.” (Volume 19, page 755, 1956 edition.) Under the heading “Irrationality” it states: “The ability of governmental and civic leaders to spread the ferment of nationalism among the masses is greatly facilitated by its highly irrational character. The extreme patriot is largely impervious to rational argument. Even in free countries, he may never hear the truth, especially if he reads only tendentious newspapers or tunes in his radio to biased, chauvinistic [blind, enthusiastic] commentators. Moreover, it is difficult to see how adults can consider the international problems facing their nation with any degree of objectivity if as young children their minds were formed by history books that were one-sided and biased.” (Ibid., page 756.)

Patriotic fervor often causes persons to manifest an ardor and zeal that resembles religious devotion. This influences them not only to give to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s but at times even to give Caesar that which belongs exclusively to God. Such persons might be said to confuse religion with politics. A common example of such patriotic fervor is the devotion that many tender to the flag of their nation.

Note, for example, what the Encyclopedia Americana, Vol. 11, page 316, has to say about human attitude toward such flags: “The flag, like the cross, is sacred. Many people employ the words or term ‘Etiquette of the Flag.’ This expression is too weak, too superficial and smacks of drawing-room politeness. The rules and regulations relative to human attitude toward national standards use strong, expressive words, as, ‘Service to the Flag,’ ‘Respect for the Flag,’ ‘Reverence for the Flag,’ ‘Devotion to the Flag.’”

And as regards saluting the flag, this authority, among other things, has the following to say: “In the United States the salute with the right hand, while the person stands at attention, is the common and accepted method. The uncovering of the head is also recognized as a salute. Placing hat above the heart or hand on left breast is also esteemed reverential.”

That such devotion to the flag should be customary is not at all surprising in view of the fact that “early flags were almost purely of religious character,” according to The Encyclopædia Britannica. That authority and others show the development of flags. In the hope of assuring victory pagan soldiers at first carried their idols and carved images with them into battle. Then they made miniatures of their carved idols, which they placed on the end of staffs. Later they painted representations of their idols on cloth and fastened these to the staffs. Thus is seen the evolution from carved idols to modern flags.

It was because of this fact, no doubt, that the Jews of the time of Christ had such an antipathy to national emblems. To them such emblems were a violation of God’s command regarding idolatry at Exodus 20;4, 5.

Early Christians were likewise extremely careful to avoid even the suspicion of compromise with the state or secular rule as regards their devotion. Regarding the Christians of the first three centuries Neander, foremost authority on that period, states: “While they showed the most conscientious obedience to the government in everything which was not against the law of God,” thus willing to give to Caesar the things belonging to Caesar, they refused “to pay any of those species of veneration to the emperors” that were in vogue then, such as offering incense to the busts of the emperors.

“Do not put your trust in nobles, nor in the son of earthling man, to whom no salvation belongs.”​—PSALM 146:3.

Why Did Jesus Not Get Involved in Politics? (2010)

Jesus Respected Governmental Authority

While Jesus was teaching in the temple, opposers tried to put him in an impossible situation by asking whether people should pay taxes. If Jesus said no, his answer would have been deemed seditious and might even have fueled a spirit of revolt among downtrodden people eager to throw off the yoke of Roman oppression. But if Jesus said yes, many would have felt that he condoned the injustices they faced. Jesus’ answer was a masterpiece of balance. He said: “Pay back Caesar’s things to Caesar, but God’s things to God.” (Luke 20:21-25) So his followers have obligations to God and to Caesar​—that is, the secular government.

...

How Jesus Gave “God’s Things to God”

...

a reply to: daskakik

So true, look what has happened in a thread where the mere suggestion of a conservative apologetic has caused such division among people here. Having even brought this up from the referenced article, in regards to divisive rhetoric, this apparent conflict in conservative factions spontaneous erupted.

Altogether a very instructive and useful example of of your point Daskakik.

Thanks.

a reply to: daskakik

But I did give you the stance that is not based on the religious view, and so very often the immediate leftist dismissal is that the only possible objection to abortion is religious based.

But it's not.

If you believe in the intrinsic value of human life and you know that it begins before a human exits the womb, then you have a problem with the idea of abortion, especially when it's used for convenience. After all, at that point, you're more or less agreeing that a human life can be ended for the mere convenience of another person and at that person's whim.

To be clear, we haven't even begun to tackle thorny issues like life of the mother, rape or incest. We're just simply talking about the central premise and disagreement where right and left differ.

a reply to: whereislogic

With patriotism and nationalism being creatures of the state, is there some connection between state propaganda and conservative values I need to consider? Perhaps the need to filter out the state's influence in conservatism to help find the most common ground?

It may be constructive to ask people of varied backgrounds what they believe the definition of a conservative or conservatism is. The same question should be asked about what a liberal is or what liberalism means to them. Regardless of what the actual definition is, what people believe it is will be more important when trying to influence their opinion about what you want them to believe.

originally posted by: whereislogic
...
One should also probably keep in mind that saluting the flag or standing at attention when the national anthem is played does not in itself prove one’s loyalty to or love for the nation. Those who seek to subvert the interests of the State are often the first to disguise their aims by a display of patriotism.

So one should not be surprised at this observation:

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck

I'm a bit confused that a lot of what I believe as a conservative is the same thing a lot of democrats used to believe.
Strong borders, personal responsibility, less government, less taxes, patriotism, Pride in our nation. When did all that turn into a bad thing?

As mentioned in my previous comment:

In a letter to the editor of Bombay’s “Indian Express” newspaper, an Indian man stated: “I do not believe in patriotism. It is an opium innovated by the politicians to serve their ugly ends. It is for their prosperity. It is for their betterment. It is for their aggrandizement. It is never for the country. It is never for the nation. It is never never for common men and women like you and I. . . . This sinister politician-invented wall shall divide man from man​—and brother from brother; till one day it shall bring about man’s doom by man. Patriotism or nationalism, to my mind, is an idiotic exercise in artificial loyalty. . . . I take no hypocritical pride in being petty this or that. I belong to mankind.”

The peoples of all nations are flooded with nationalistic propaganda through their own newspapers, magazines, radio and television. Hemmed in by boundaries and censorship, the peoples’ thinking is confined to their own nation, to worshiping it, to idolizing it. This controlled thinking affects almost everyone’s mind.

The Encyclopedia Americana says: “Nationalism is a state of mind which can be, and often is, induced by governmental and private propaganda. It can be the creature of ambitious leaders who wish to form certain patterns of opinion which they expect to use, for their own purposes perhaps, or for ends they consider to be in the public interest.” (Volume 19, page 755, 1956 edition.) Under the heading “Irrationality” it states: “The ability of governmental and civic leaders to spread the ferment of nationalism among the masses is greatly facilitated by its highly irrational character. The extreme patriot is largely impervious to rational argument. Even in free countries, he may never hear the truth, especially if he reads only tendentious newspapers or tunes in his radio to biased, chauvinistic [blind, enthusiastic] commentators. Moreover, it is difficult to see how adults can consider the international problems facing their nation with any degree of objectivity if as young children their minds were formed by history books that were one-sided and biased.” (Ibid., page 756.)

Patriotic fervor often causes persons to manifest an ardor and zeal that resembles religious devotion. ...

Etc. (not gonna copy the whole comment again, this was just to show that network dude's comment was on my mind when making the previous response to Lumenari, but my previous comment was full so I couldn't make that more obvious other than with another comment).

There is nothing wrong with liberalism.
It died a while back though.
The Left are not liberals, they are just insane.
Magical thinking is a classic definition of it.

a reply to: ketsuko
It doesn't matter what the stance is based on. Some people will agree with the premise you gave, some will not.

Then the issue of when in the pregnancy the abortion is performed divides people even more. So, if the apologists set the line at conception, like the people over at The Conservative Party, they won't be winning anyone over who doesn't already "have a problem with the idea of abortion".

originally posted by: MichiganSwampBuck
a reply to: whereislogic

With patriotism and nationalism being creatures of the state, is there some connection between state propaganda and conservative values I need to consider?

I think that connection should already be fairly obvious from what was already quoted in my previous comment, but as pointed out by my latest comment incorporating network dude's comment, liberal Democrats often push the same buttons regarding patriotism and nationalism. Even while they preach against nationalism and pretend patriotism is harmless. And unlike the impression one may get from network dude's comment, they still push these buttons quite regularly (skip to 1:44):

Perhaps the need to filter out the state's influence in conservatism to help find the most common ground?

If you think it'll help. Personally, I think following Jesus' example of political neutrality and thus, in that manner, staying out of politics is the best approach to protect yourself from the types of people that the Bible calls “profitless talkers” and “deceivers of the mind”. (Titus 1:10) As the article in my signature puts it. The early first-century Christians did likewise.

Neutrality in this context is the position of those who do not take sides with or give support to either of two or more contending parties. It is a fact of ancient and modern-day history that in every nation and under all circumstances true Christians have endeavored to maintain complete neutrality as to conflicts between factions of the world. They do not interfere with what others do about sharing in patriotic ceremonies, serving in the armed forces, joining a political party, running for a political office, or voting. But they themselves worship only the God of the Bible.

“They refused to take any active part in the civil administration or the military defence of the empire. . . . it was impossible that the Christians, without renouncing a more sacred duty, could assume the character of soldiers, of magistrates, or of princes.”—History of Christianity (New York, 1891), Edward Gibbon, pp. 162, 163.

What scriptures have always had a bearing on the attitude of true Christians toward involvement in political issues and activities?

John 17:16: “They are no part of the world, just as I [Jesus] am no part of the world.”

John 6:15: “Jesus, knowing they [the Jews] were about to come and seize him to make him king, withdrew again into the mountain all alone.” Later, he told the Roman governor: “My kingdom is no part of this world. If my kingdom were part of this world, my attendants would have fought that I should not be delivered up to the Jews. But, as it is, my kingdom is not from this source.”—John 18:36.

Jas. 4:4: “Adulteresses, do you not know that the friendship with the world is enmity with God? Whoever, therefore, wants to be a friend of the world is constituting himself an enemy of God.” (Why is the matter so serious? Because, as 1 John 5:19 says, “the whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one.” At John 14:30, Jesus referred to Satan as being “the ruler of the world.” So, no matter what worldly faction a person might support, under whose control would he really come?)

Regarding political involvement, what do secular historians report as being the attitude of those known as early Christians?

“Early Christianity was little understood and was regarded with little favor by those who ruled the pagan world. . . . Christians refused to share certain duties of Roman citizens. . . . They would not hold political office.”—On the Road to Civilization, A World History (Philadelphia, 1937), A. Heckel and J. Sigman, pp. 237, 238.

“The Christians stood aloof and distinct from the state, as a priestly and spiritual race, and Christianity seemed able to influence civil life only in that manner which, it must be confessed, is the purest, by practically endeavouring to instil more and more of holy feeling into the citizens of the state.”—The History of the Christian Religion and Church, During the Three First Centuries (New York, 1848), Augustus Neander, translated from German by H. J. Rose, p. 168.

I quoted Neander in my first comment as well.

a reply to: daskakik

We're not talking about where any line is set.

We are talking about the fundamental difference between left and right.

Leftists see humans as members of a group, not individuals first. Abortion is the clearest indicator of this stance and mindset. It is the basic denial of humanity for the perceived greater good of the group.

I feel like I'm having that SIlence of the Lambs discussion. First principles.

originally posted by: ketsuko
We are talking about the fundamental difference between left and right.

No, we are talking about conservatives organizing themselves, trying to unite and maybe even winning over some liberals.