Needed - A new conservative apologetics

I can see how fundamental differences in liberal and conservative ideology have to be addressed, I see no way around that. I predict a high probability of people on either side of the fence bringing up points like the ones made by Ketsuko.

Neutrality, as good as that is for Christianity, can only go so far when you are attempting to sway someone's beliefs over to one side or the other. By definition, as an apologist you cannot be neutral in regard to one ideology or the other.

These issues will come up and have to be addressed in order to get your ideas into some one's head when they bring these things up.

a reply to: whereislogic


My post . . .

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

Your reply . . .

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.

I take it you are proposing that patriotism and nationalism can be used as talking points with both liberals and conservatives? You would have to think hard and be really flexible to pull that off, but the idea seems workable and would depend on the audience of course.

After some pondering on this issue of common ground between left and right camps.

It seems to me, after looking over the propaganda on both sides, that they both present the welfare of the country and it's citizens as their prime motivation. They both claim to offer the best course to a better life for all, even in the idea of freedom from oppression, as hard as that might be to believe.

Look toward the prime motivations of both groups and try to work from that angle seems a good way to start.

originally posted by: MichiganSwampBuck
It seems to me, after looking over the propaganda on both sides, that they both present the welfare of the country and it's citizens as their prime motivation.

The devil is in the details.

What that means and how to get there is where the wedge(s) is/are driven.

I don't know if anyone noticed but I mentioned two stances where the left champions the individual over the group. Ketsuko quickly jumped on one but skirted the other, for obvious reasons.

While their point that an argument can be made against abortion without basing it on religion was solid, many do base it on religion and do set the line at conception.

If the line is set there, you will not be getting many liberals crossing the center line. If you set it anywhere else you will be driving a wedge between conservatives. That was my point, and the topic of the thread, and it isn't mutually exclusive with ketsuko's.

I have been thinking that apopogetics is not only a rather exclusive term in relation to defending religious ideas, but particularly Christian ones. I know that the term isn't exclusive to defending religious ideas and I don't think that defending ideas is it's main purpose. IMO it is more about gaining acceptance for an idea.

Let's go all the way down to the word and it's meaning and explore that for a minute.

Webster Definition:

Definition of apologetics
1 : systematic argumentative discourse (see discourse entry 1 sense 2a) in defense (as of a doctrine)
2 : a branch of theology devoted to the defense of the divine origin and authority of Christianity

LINK

Wikipedia is full on Christian religion with it's definition . . .

Apologetics (from Greek ἀπολογία, "speaking in defense") is the religious discipline of defending religious doctrines through systematic argumentation and discourse.[1][2][3] Early Christian writers (c. 120–220) who defended their beliefs against critics and recommended their faith to outsiders were called Christian apologists.[4] In 21st-century usage, apologetics is often identified with debates over religion and theology.

Link

Same with Britannica . . .

Apologetics has traditionally been positive in its direct argument for Christianity and negative in its criticism of opposing beliefs. Its function is both to fortify the believer against personal doubts and to remove the intellectual stumbling blocks that inhibit the conversion of unbelievers. Apologetics has steered a difficult course between dogmatism, which fails to take seriously the objections of non-Christians, and the temptation to undermine the strength of defense by granting too much to the skeptic.

Link

So, by these definitions,

Conservative apologetics is a system of arguments and discourse that defends against criticism from liberals and doubt from conservatives, as it attempts to convert both liberals and moderates over to the cause. Dogmatism and polemics are out of the question and should never be used. Any arguments used should never weaken a conservative position nor alienate liberals or any individual conservative factions. Criticism against the opposing view points should be introduced by posing questions that lead to a conclusion in support of the criticism.

These are the brass tacks so to speak and should make a good starting point to continue to develop this system of conservative discourse.

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?

My research suggests that 180 you describe occurred when our nation stopped being something we are proud of. So I guess the next questions are, why were we proud of our nation last century and what changed? And everybody will have a different answer.

Looking over my last posts and with the excellent comments by Daskakik and Ketsuko, I believe I can start working up the idea of conservative apologetics. My last post defining conservative apologetics will be my outline proceeding forward with this project.

I will continue to post here while I work this up. My plans will be fleshed out somewhere else, but I will look for input on specifics here and else where as I go along.

I'm open for all comments that may come along and thank you all for participating.

ETA: I was very impressed with some of the passionate but drama free debate on this subject. That is a worthy goal in all this and an important aspect in this endeavor.

a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck

Good luck with that.

This is truer than it has ever been,

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."

John Kenneth Galbraith

originally posted by: richapau
a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck

Good luck with that.

This is truer than it has ever been,

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."

John Kenneth Galbraith

That statement characterizes political conservatism as a form self-centered righteousness, a misconception IMO.

Webster's definition: See 2a and b.

Definition of conservatism
1 a : the principles and policies of a Conservative party b : the Conservative party

2 a : disposition in politics to preserve what is established
b : a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change specifically : such a philosophy calling for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs (such as retirement income or health-care coverage)

3 : the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to change

Link