Things are getting heated out there, folks. You cannot have a conversation about anything resembling politics, anymore. Everything you hold dear has been polluted in some way, down to the point that your viewpoint is bastardized into a single word or sound-bite.
Think about those inadequate terms, pro-choice and right-to-life. These terms have trivialized the debate, and that was done to limit the discussion to the liberal’s advantage. In my opinion you cannot be an absolutist on either side of the abortion debate.
Similarly, economics takes a hit from socialists describing capitalism as corporatism, or as some sort of greed machine that is totally insensitive to individuals. None of these are true, of course. All of man’s endeavors, I believe, are built on greed. But, wait!
Greed is defined as an excessive desire for wealth or possessions.
How do you define excessive? If you are a critical person, you will stay away from restrictive definitions. All of this stuff will be different from person to person. That’s where advocacy groups try to confuse you.
We are so involved in social and economic issues that we get hooked into the sound-bite world. Once you let yourself get into the sound-bite world, you are compromised, and have no freedom to debate. You will have let someone else define your position.
We have got to stop penalizing our debates with black and white, go/no-go positions. The real world is rarely that way.
With that in mind, I will step up to the plate and give you my conservative position on some of the critical issues of the day.
1. Abortion – Abortion by its definition is the ending of a life. Period. We all understand that sometimes abortions will be necessary, but I believe that a woman who depends on abortions to underpin a promiscuous sex life is just an unforgivable murderer. Nobody can choose freely what to do with themselves. If you do drugs, you will be jailed. If you unsuccessfully try to commit suicide, you will be institutionalized for your own protection. The term, pro-choice, is empty of meaning.
2. Gay marriage – This is one of those things where, as a conservative, I do not understand the prevalent conservative view. Who cares of a couple of men marry? Why would anybody care if lesbians marry? Gay people are no threat to the institution of marriage. They are not even in the gene pool, and constitute such a small proportion of the world’s population that any sociological effects will be trivial!
Married people are the biggest threat to marriage. If we can get married people to stay married, the institution of marriage would not be in trouble. Any challenge to the institution of marriage is not by gay people,but by liberal ideologies that minimize the social importance of the institution. These ideas are promulgated by the same people who believe the only difference between men and women is attributed to environmental conditions, i.e., how people are raised.
I think people who make a major issue of gay marriage have something else as their agenda, and that is anti-gay people in general. The gay marriage issue is just a smoke screen for a more sinister attitude about gays.
People are so sensitive about homosexuality, they will many times not discuss it, at all, if they disagree with you. I suppose this is one of those issues that genuinely scare people.
3. Prayer in school – As a Christian and political conservative, I am against organized prayer in public schools. I know this is not what mainstream conservatives advocate, but it took about five seconds (thirty years ago) for me to realize that if we allow this to happen, somebody we don’t know, and probably don’t respect, will be teaching our children how to pray. This is so obvious that I cannot believe thinking people would advocate organized prayer in a public setting.
Even having a quite period for prayer is not necessary. If you want to pray, do it on your own time and don’t make a spectacle out of it. That is what we as Christians are taught.
4. Stem cell research – There is no inherent moral problem with stem cell research. The problem comes from using stem cells from embryos whose purpose was to bring life into this world. When you destroy an embryo, you destroy a potential person. Notice my use of the word, potential. I don’t know when an embryo becomes a person, but we do know embryos were alive at some point. George W Bush was right.
However, he did not cut off government spending for embryonic stem cell research. He approved such spending, as it had not been done before. The liberals’ problem was that President Bush didn’t approve all embryonic research. Instead, he did the right thing.
Now, we get into weird. Are frozen embryos alive or dead? They must be alive, somehow, because they can become people. So, how do we take into account that a frozen embryo is alive, but not yet a person. If an embryo is not a person, is it a human? Until I can figure out all this stuff, I say, “Hands off the embryos!”.
There are undoubtedly other positions I can talk about. Remember, I really am a conservative, but I take my conservatism with a dose of critical thinking. How do you see these things?