@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:I don't have any problem including a link to Wiki's original definition though if anybody thinks that is important to do.
Yes, please do. It makes it easier to check if the quotes have changed between the version in the source and the version you posted.
My definition has and probably will continue to be modified as we discuss the principles behind Modern American Conservatism and reach agreement on those issues on which we all can mostly agree. I started this thread to discuss those issues. Why should that be an issue for you? At least we are willing to be up front and clear about truths that we hold to be evident and we are willing to defend them--such defense does not have to trash or denigrate or even mention anybody else. As previously said, despite several challenges now, not one liberal has so far been willing to write any kind of similar definition for Modern American Liberalism nor discuss or defend any liberal principle which they profess.
Quote:Foxfyre wrote:I do not and have never seen abortion or gay marriage as either a conservative or liberal issue. MACs believe these matters are best left to the states
True enough so far, and consistent enough with classical liberalism so far. What you don't say is what happens in the states: Modern American Conservatives organize huge campaigns to amend the state constitutions to make gay marriage impossible. On abortion, Modern American Conservatives are the driving force behind the closing of abortion clinics. They are determined to close them even faster once the Supreme Court lets them. This is the part on which American conservatives and classical liberals couldn't agree less.
How do you know that it is Modern American Conservatives who are organizing 'huge campaigns to amend state constitutions'? Both liberals and conservatives are clearly indicated in polls that the majority of Americans do not want the definition of marriage changed. Do you think it was only conservatives in California who voted to retain the traditional definition of marriage as an institution that has served America well and has proved to be a positive force within our culture?
Had the gay activists been willing to compromise on that point and had been willing to work with the states to come up with civil unions that would accomplish what the gays have lobbied for, there would have been no movement to protect marriage and probably we would probably have a national law in place by now that would universally recognize civil unions just as there is to recognize marriage.
The efforts to protect the definition of marriage are a good example of people who are not violating the Constitutional, legal, civil, or unalienable rights of anybody else but who are fighting for their right to structure their society in a manner beneficial to all and not yield their traditions, customs, values, and/or preferences to a small group of activists who demand what they want no matter who gets hurt or what the negative consequences might be.
MACs also believe that a community that holds religious views or otherwise values the sanctity of life, who believes that the child in the womb is a human being deserving of respect and who do not want an abortion clinic in their midst should be able to zone such out just as they would bars or adult bookstores or gambling casinos or houses of prostitution if they don't want such in their community. Those communities/states in which the majority want such should also be able to have them. The Federal government should not be involved.
Most MACs do not believe that all abortion should be outlawed, and they do believe that a medical decision for abortion should be between a woman, her conscience or God, and her doctor. Most MACs would object to all the principles of Roe v Wade being scrapped. But probably most MACs also believe the lower courts should also hold to ALL of the principles of Roe v Wade which would allow the state to forbid a mid to late term abortion of a healthy baby just because the mother decided she didn't want it. MACs are not religious fanatics presuming to require that others accept their beliefs, but believe there is room to debate the ethics of taking of human life and to debate what the definition of that is.
So long as the Constitutional, civil, legal, and unalienable rights of others are not violated, freedom allows people to believe and hold firm to matters of their own conviction and conscience.
Quote:Foxfyre wrote:Again this is not a conservative or liberal issue as our elected leaders, both conservative and liberal, have continued to retain the basic provisions of the Patriot Act and have continued to fund it with very little quibbling.
You are confusing "Democratic" with "liberal". Democratic politicians don't always behave like liberals, just as Republican politicians don't always behave like conservatives -- as you have pointed out several times yourself. In particular, the Democrats' votes for the PATRIOT Act, their votes for extending it when the first version expired, and their reluctance to reform it now, are plainly illiberal. They are the decisions of opportunists, you might even say cowards, sucking up to the tough-on-terrorism
Zeitgeist they sense among their voters. Kudos to Russ Feingold for being the only liberal Senator with a spine and voting against this thing.
I disagree. I think the Congress, as corrupt and self serving as it is, did have sufficient integrity to look at what the Patriot Act does, what it doesn't do, and decide whether the people are safer with or without it. So far they have not been willing to make the people substantially more unsafe by scrapping it. Perhaps that too is self serving as they are unwilling to take the criticism if they dismantle a substantial part of our national security and something terrible happened as a result. But that's okay so long as they understand why the Act is necessary.
MACs don't care WHY somebody comes up with a good idea or who comes up with it. They only care whether it is or is not a good idea. I think most MACs believe the Patriot Act delivers as advertised and is not an infringement on Constitutional, civil, legal, or unalienable rights, personal liberties, or freedom.
