Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Sign in to follow this  
FounderChurch

Conservative V. Liberal Historically Considered

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Conservative v. Liberal In History

This topic is not well understood by either Muslims, Christians and/or other groups, yet it is the most defining fundamental affecting everyone's lives, in every nation and religion. The reason it is not well understood is that evil people (Liberals) in all groups want to suppress this sort of understanding. This delineation divides every group, even businesses, because it is endemic to the human nature placed in us by the Creator. In computer terms, it is the software installed in our brain at our inception.

Liberals hate the general understanding of this distinction because it exposes them for what they are. Thus, they want to confuse this issue in order to stay under-cover so to speak. Now that doesn't mean all "Conservatives are good, but it does mean they proceed from a good spot or space, and are generally repentant when they do wrong. Whereas Liberals are conspicuous for not repenting their wrong conduct.

Of course this is speaking generally, and there are shades of gray and exceptions all around. But this general outline is pretty well known once good people are reminded of it.

Conservatives throughout history, in all religions, favor family, structure of authority, faith in God, respect for marriage, respect for the holy books, and a belief all should follow their teachings. They will also tend to be in favor of the male as the head of household having authority over those in the family. They will oppose using all kinds of intoxicants, drugs, alcohol and other such. They will oppose sexual immorality. They will favor lots of children, and thus oppose abortion and birth control. They will be opposed to wars of aggression, and the subjugation of other peoples.

This is only a very partial list, and the way each person interprets these matters will vary, plus we should have a degree of toleration for those who think differently than ourselves. However, every person and every religion and group of any sort has the duty and responsibility to defend itself, even when that means curtailing some of the freedoms of that group to do so.

Islamic Conservatives today are threatened by the same Liberals that threaten Conservatives in the West, and this must be understood by everyone on all sides, especially in this shrinking world where we are a neighbor to everyone on earth in some sense.

We Conservatives need to reach out to those worldwide who share our basic values, just as the Liberals already do. If we fail to universalize our values, and reach out to our natural allies across the globe, we become weak and unable to defend ourselves effectively where we are. Thus Conservatives of all religions must work together in self-defense of their commonly held values, by recognizing that our greatest enemy is the enemy within our own ranks.

As to violence, which is a "burning" issue now: We must oppose it as a general principle, but also realize that ALL groups practice it, and that ALL groups have their bigots and their Liberals bedeviling them. Blowing up building containing innocents is not the best way to find coalition partners for any group. The main problem in Islam, as in the West, is the pervasive constant attack from aggressive Liberals against the values of Conservatives.

Now this understanding is not simple to implement, and there are lots of things not dealt with in this topic post, but it is a beginning of a beginning. In war, it is said, the first casualty is truth, which is why war is to be avoided if possible, because the biggest enemy of every Conservative is inside this own country and his own house of worship. Therefore, going into someone else's country and attacking its people is not the best approach to winning in the long run.

Edited by FounderChurch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks and welcome to the forum; would agree with most of what you've posted.

There are however some important questions, which pertain to definition. How does one define 'liberalism' and 'conservatism' especially across multi-dominations that could differ on specifics.

For instance, issue of permission of abortion and/or sodomy (answer's quite obvious) but what about birth control?

Are they liberal ideals, or conservative?

Or do you choose the commonalities that all agree on and concentrate on those only? (orange section)

overlap.gif

Enjoy your stay.

Peace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks and welcome to the forum; would agree with most of what you've posted.

There are however some important questions, which pertain to definition. How does one define 'liberalism' and 'conservatism' especially across multi-dominations that could differ on specifics.

For instance, issue of permission of abortion and/or sodomy (answer's quite obvious) but what about birth control?

Are they liberal ideals, or conservative?

Or do you choose the commonalities that all agree on and concentrate on those only? (orange section)

overlap.gif

Enjoy your stay.

Peace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the welcome...

You mention Birth Control, and that is significant.

Note: As to Birth Control, it is very significant. Certainly it is contrary to nature, and it is certainly taking lives that would otherwise come into existence, and it is certainly motivated by the killer desire to stop that life from living, and certainly it seems to have no good justification, except perhaps in a few isolated cases like using it to prevent disease. Finally, it is clearly a premeditated attack on a life, and even worse, the very life that is the individual’s own flesh and blood.

Overpopulation is a whole different matter, if there is even such a thing. If any society, religious or not, decides at some point that there are too many people in its area of control, and decides that some life must go, then that is for the larger community to decide, not some "Lone Ranger" individual to decide. Societies of any type can easily control the amount of life that exists within its jurisdiction when, and how, and if, it wishes.

But for some egoistic irresponsible individual to unilaterally decide to kill off all, or some, of his or her children, well that is un-Godly, and must be the ego trip of all ego trips.

The power to take human life is a serious one, with grave consequences. To take the lives of our own children just for our selfish convenience has to be a crime of gigantic proportion.

All believers should study this matter above all others to find the perfect will of God, and do it. Realize that Birth Control comes in dozens of formats, such as, late marriage, abstinence, sterilization, pills, devices and dozens of other methods and tactics, all in order to frustrate and destroy aspiring life.

God is not pleased and killed a man named Onan in Genesis 38 of the Christian Bible, for "casting his seed upon the ground." One of the main reasons God forbids Sodomy is that it, in effect, takes human life.

Edited by FounderChurch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the welcome...

You mention Birth Control, and that is significant.

Note: As to Birth Control, it is very significant. Certainly it is contrary to nature, and it is certainly taking lives that would otherwise come into existence

I disagree with you here.

Birth control is not contrary to nature. Ever heard of puberty and menopause? Do you know that out of millions of sperms, only one or two that is utilized in making a baby.

Are you also aware that the most common male contraceptives is effective at preventing the fertilization of sperm+ovum.

Abortion is unacceptable except to save the life of the mother. But husband and wife has a choice as to when to have a baby.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are a hater FounderChurch. Why all the hate?

You really think so bro? Founder seems genuine. There's been a rejuvenation (however small) in the west by individuals that are seeing social morality spiraling out of control, basically they don't want the US to turn into another Rome (refer to Corruption and the Decline of Rome by MacMullen). They are seeing all the telltale signs, rampant pornography, sodomy, drugs and alcohol, etc. They want to shield their children from it, but don't know how. Many don't want it to be just an intra-religious issue but inter-religious, encompassing all faiths, even atheists, as long as the basic universal understand of morality is kept intact. He seems to be one of those individuals. Even in China (See Link) they've started rolling out Confuscius' teachings to children as a strategy to shield Chinese from the 'degrading morals' of Westernization that's infiltrated Chinese society, even though the CCP attacked it in the early 1900s.

The major challenge though is a common understanding on what constitutes morality, with birth-control being just one example of a possible conflict of understanding. It's similar in nature to the UN and what are the Universal Principals of Human Rights. They were conjured up by the Western Allies post-WWII but China and Russia might have a different perspective on what are Human Rights. Wa Allahu a'lam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree with you here.

Birth control is not contrary to nature. Ever heard of puberty and menopause? Do you know that out of millions of sperms, only one or two that is utilized in making a baby.

Are you also aware that the most common male contraceptives is effective at preventing the fertilization of sperm+ovum.

Abortion is unacceptable except to save the life of the mother. But husband and wife has a choice as to when to have a baby.

Your points are old and customary among those who want to do what they want to do, regardless of consequences either in heaven or on earth.

We are talking here about married believer couples, not pubescent boys and/or girls, nor unmarried people, nor old people past reproduction capabilities.

Yes, millions of sperm and many eggs die for many reasons, both before fertilization and after fertilization. These are part of the generous plenitude of God's creation.

The Holy Book says, "Woe must come unto the world, but woe unto him, (or her) who brings that woe." Motive is everything in dealing with God's commandments.

We are talking here about these married couples, or couples of marriageable age, premeditatedly planning and carrying out the intentional destruction of life by effectually killing their own sperm and egg seconds before they can come together to give life to a child.

To an unbeliever this is simply taking life, but to a believer it is tantamount to murder.

You are a hater FounderChurch. Why all the hate?

You are a hater FounderChurch. Why all the hate?

I love children, and the more of them the better. I attack those who would attack children as our most vulnerable humans. The hardest thing a child ever has to do in its whole life is to just get conceived, and once conceived, to get born. After that it is relatively smooth sailing. I love all humanity, such that I brave the wrath of the real haters to try to protect them.

Islamic Conservatives must have allies in the West to be able to survive and vice versa. This is a worldwide struggle for the very soul of humanity itself in these last days. It is the final battle, and it must be fought on a worldwide scale with every asset possible.

Anyone who is a Conservative should be sought as an ally. Therefore, religious bigotry of any sort works against this grand coalition on the side of God. I only hate the haters.

Edited by FounderChurch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your points are old and customary among those who want to do what they want to do, regardless of consequences either in heaven or on earth.

.

And your views are straight out from the dark ages :rolleyes:

I am not a Christian so I don't really care what your pope or your bible say. Islam has already nullified other religions and scriptures, so have a good day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And your views are straight out from the dark ages :rolleyes:

I am not a Christian so I don't really care what your pope or your bible say. Islam has already nullified other religions and scriptures, so have a good day.

I DO care what Islam has to say, and all the Holy Books belong to all of us whether we like it or not. There is but one God for all of us, not two or three, or four. But, it is the Secular god of these modern times that is the greatest threat to all of us.

Secularism rejects ALL religion, and is a totally godless religion of man's own making. We believers need to stick together against all the heathen Secular unbelievers. Israel is such a threat because it is largely run by Secularists who believe in nothing but money. It is bad enough for some people to be bigoted against just one religion, or one race, Secularists are bigoted toward ALL religions and ALL races , and are the real threat we all face.

Edited by FounderChurch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are a hater FounderChurch. Why all the hate?

Where is the hatred in his statements.?

If you don't agree with him, at least please try and give a good picture of Islam by being polite. You are not presenting a very good picture of what a Muslim's behaviour should be like.

I get the same irrational off-the-script response

Please use polite words to express your point of view.

If you have the ability to debunk his arguments, please go ahead logically rather than with the use of offensive language.

[4:148] Allah does not love the utterance of harsh speech save by one who has been wronged. Allah is ever Hearer, Knower.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What exactly has he said which warrants the hostility in this thread? Are we all reading the same thread here?

I refuse to be drawn into religious or racial bigotry, and try to not overly identify myself with any group when trying to talk to all groups, such that what I say might be of some value to every person. I am selling nothing but the truth, so help me God.

These anti-Muslim bigots would do well to work on their own shortcomings instead looking for scapegoats to blame for their own wrong doing and failures. Typical is the whining Europeans who complain that Muslims are taking over their countries. Well, they need to face the fact that they are so money hungry and selfish that they have literally killed off their own children with various types of birth control to the point they have no one to do their work.

Muslims and others move in to serve as low paid workers for them, and they eagerly accept them in that role, but at the same time they want to bitterly complain if these workers build a Mosque or wear a veil. If they don't want others moving to their country to work for them, they need to produce some of their own children to do their work and there would be no jobs for others to come in to do. This is just one example of the massive hypocrisy behind all bigotry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You really think so bro? Founder seems genuine. There's been a rejuvenation (however small) in the west by individuals that are seeing social morality spiraling out of control, basically they don't want the US to turn into another Rome (refer to Corruption and the Decline of Rome by MacMullen). They are seeing all the telltale signs, rampant pornography, sodomy, drugs and alcohol, etc. They want to shield their children from it, but don't know how. Many don't want it to be just an intra-religious issue but inter-religious, encompassing all faiths, even atheists, as long as the basic universal understand of morality is kept intact. He seems to be one of those individuals. Even in China (See Link) they've started rolling out Confuscius' teachings to children as a strategy to shield Chinese from the 'degrading morals' of Westernization that's infiltrated Chinese society, even though the CCP attacked it in the early 1900s.

The major challenge though is a common understanding on what constitutes morality, with birth-control being just one example of a possible conflict of understanding. It's similar in nature to the UN and what are the Universal Principals of Human Rights. They were conjured up by the Western Allies post-WWII but China and Russia might have a different perspective on what are Human Rights. Wa Allahu a'lam.

Near the top of his opening post he says:

"This topic is not well understood by either Muslims, Christians and/or other groups, yet it is the most defining fundamental affecting everyone's lives, in every nation and religion. The reason it is not well understood is that evil people (Liberals) in all groups want to suppress this sort of understanding. This delineation divides every group, even businesses, because it is endemic to the human nature placed in us by the Creator. In computer terms, it is the software installed in our brain at our inception."

FounderChurch equates evil people with liberals. This sounds like the founding of a hate ideology to me. Liberal and conservative are two sides of the same coin. It is futile for one side to deny the existence of the other side. Doing so leads to crimes like genocide as well as intolerant political environments. What does Confucius say about achieving a balanced society?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

The Holy Book says, "Woe must come unto the world, but woe unto him, (or her) who brings that woe." Motive is everything in dealing with God's commandments.

We are talking here about these married couples, or couples of marriageable age, premeditatedly planning and carrying out the intentional destruction of life by effectually killing their own sperm and egg seconds before they can come together to give life to a child.

To an unbeliever this is simply taking life, but to a believer it is tantamount to murder.

Will the rapist then who impregnates his victim not be held accountable for his crime since, by your logic, he has saved a life as a consequence of his actions, a life that would not have otherwise been had he not raped the girl?

Using reason properly begins by first making the correct assumptions. From either the Islamic or the humanist point of view, your assumptions are flawed.

Edited by Photi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Conservative v. Liberal In History

This topic is not well understood by either Muslims, Christians and/or other groups, yet it is the most defining fundamental affecting everyone's lives, in every nation and religion. The reason it is not well understood is that evil people (Liberals) in all groups want to suppress this sort of understanding. This delineation divides every group, even businesses, because it is endemic to the human nature placed in us by the Creator. In computer terms, it is the software installed in our brain at our inception.

Liberals hate the general understanding of this distinction because it exposes them for what they are. Thus, they want to confuse this issue in order to stay under-cover so to speak. Now that doesn't mean all "Conservatives are good, but it does mean they proceed from a good spot or space, and are generally repentant when they do wrong. Whereas Liberals are conspicuous for not repenting their wrong conduct.

Of course this is speaking generally, and there are shades of gray and exceptions all around. But this general outline is pretty well known once good people are reminded of it.

Conservatives throughout history, in all religions, favor family, structure of authority, faith in God, respect for marriage, respect for the holy books, and a belief all should follow their teachings. They will also tend to be in favor of the male as the head of household having authority over those in the family. They will oppose using all kinds of intoxicants, drugs, alcohol and other such. They will oppose sexual immorality. They will favor lots of children, and thus oppose abortion and birth control. They will be opposed to wars of aggression, and the subjugation of other peoples.

This is only a very partial list, and the way each person interprets these matters will vary, plus we should have a degree of toleration for those who think differently than ourselves. However, every person and every religion and group of any sort has the duty and responsibility to defend itself, even when that means curtailing some of the freedoms of that group to do so.

Islamic Conservatives today are threatened by the same Liberals that threaten Conservatives in the West, and this must be understood by everyone on all sides, especially in this shrinking world where we are a neighbor to everyone on earth in some sense.

We Conservatives need to reach out to those worldwide who share our basic values, just as the Liberals already do. If we fail to universalize our values, and reach out to our natural allies across the globe, we become weak and unable to defend ourselves effectively where we are. Thus Conservatives of all religions must work together in self-defense of their commonly held values, by recognizing that our greatest enemy is the enemy within our own ranks.

As to violence, which is a "burning" issue now: We must oppose it as a general principle, but also realize that ALL groups practice it, and that ALL groups have their bigots and their Liberals bedeviling them. Blowing up building containing innocents is not the best way to find coalition partners for any group. The main problem in Islam, as in the West, is the pervasive constant attack from aggressive Liberals against the values of Conservatives.

Now this understanding is not simple to implement, and there are lots of things not dealt with in this topic post, but it is a beginning of a beginning. In war, it is said, the first casualty is truth, which is why war is to be avoided if possible, because the biggest enemy of every Conservative is inside this own country and his own house of worship. Therefore, going into someone else's country and attacking its people is not the best approach to winning in the long run.

Welcome.

You raise some interesting points, about the fact that there is a liberal international but no such thing for conservatism.

I think the main reason for that is that conservatism is not an ideology. It is merely the belief in the subordination of individual freedom to some sort of limitation. "Conservatism" exists in so many -- often conflicting -- forms that unity between all of them would be impossible.

Just take a look at all the manifestations of "conservatism"...

- The Confucian order ("Hermit kingdom" as it has been called by some) that existed in Korea for centuries, ending with Japanese colonization in 1910

- The very same Imperial rule in Japan that toppled the Korean Confucian order

- The fascist orders that sprouted up in European countries in the 1920s and 1930s

- The socialist order that existed in the Soviet Union, which would be warring with those same fascist countries in the 1940s

I could go on but you get the point.

I mean just look at the crusades. "Conservative" Christian forces vs. "Conservative" Islamic forces

Conservatism is not an ideology.

Liberalism, conversely, is an ideology, and a remarkably centralized one. Liberals are more or less the same everywhere you go. Liberals in Iran are not much different from liberals in the United States.

But conservatives often differ with one another. Christian conservatives differ from Islamic ones, and Islamic ones differ from Confucian ones, etc.

Conservatism only means moral limitations. The nature of these limitations often differ. Birth control, for example, which you brought up. Many Christian conservatives are against it, whereas in Islam, there is no restriction with respect to it. So how can this difference be reconciled?

Liberals have it easy; they believe in a lack of restriction, so it is easy for them to form a global bloc.

But conservatives have different -- and often conflicting -- views on what the moral restriction should be.

So that's why there can never be a conservative international.

In any case I have great respect for people of other religions who are distressed by the absence of moral restriction in their respective societies, and I wish them success.

Ya Ali

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome.

You raise some interesting points, about the fact that there is a liberal international but no such thing for conservatism.

I think the main reason for that is that conservatism is not an ideology. It is merely the belief in the subordination of individual freedom to some sort of limitation. "Conservatism" exists in so many -- often conflicting -- forms that unity between all of them would be impossible.

Just take a look at all the manifestations of "conservatism"...

- The Confucian order ("Hermit kingdom" as it has been called by some) that existed in Korea for centuries, ending with Japanese colonization in 1910

- The very same Imperial rule in Japan that toppled the Korean Confucian order

- The fascist orders that sprouted up in European countries in the 1920s and 1930s

- The socialist order that existed in the Soviet Union, which would be warring with those same fascist countries in the 1940s

I could go on but you get the point.

I mean just look at the crusades. "Conservative" Christian forces vs. "Conservative" Islamic forces

Conservatism is not an ideology.

Liberalism, conversely, is an ideology, and a remarkably centralized one. Liberals are more or less the same everywhere you go. Liberals in Iran are not much different from liberals in the United States.

But conservatives often differ with one another. Christian conservatives differ from Islamic ones, and Islamic ones differ from Confucian ones, etc.

Conservatism only means moral limitations. The nature of these limitations often differ. Birth control, for example, which you brought up. Many Christian conservatives are against it, whereas in Islam, there is no restriction with respect to it. So how can this difference be reconciled?

Liberals have it easy; they believe in a lack of restriction, so it is easy for them to form a global bloc.

But conservatives have different -- and often conflicting -- views on what the moral restriction should be.

So that's why there can never be a conservative international.

In any case I have great respect for people of other religions who are distressed by the absence of moral restriction in their respective societies, and I wish them success.

Ya Ali

Your comments are appreciated, but I feel overblown. Here's why: Yes, evil is the same everywhere, simply because it is owned and operated by the devil who is a dictator. God, by comparison, is a tolerant, freedom loving, and freedom dispensing, God. "Whom God set free is free indeed."

Adam and Eve were given the freedom to do wrong, and that freedom is at the heart of Conservatism. Thus, Conservatives strongly disagree with each other much more than do Liberals.

There are many analogies for this. One is, it takes a lot of hard working carpenters weeks to build a barn, but a Jackass (the emblem of the Democrat party in America) 15 minutes to kick it down.

This does not mean that Conservatives cannot, or should not, organize internationally, it just means that it will be difficult to do this, but, not impossible. Of course, Conservatism is not a mindless ideology, it is real people, who care, and who therefore disagree about how they care. Thus they have created many denominations and religions, while Secularism is totally unified, and has no denominations or sects.

Yes, you have a point, but your point just shows the very reason we must do this. If something is not hard it is not worth doing. If not us, who? If not now, when?

Will the rapist then who impregnates his victim not be held accountable for his crime since, by your logic, he has saved a life as a consequence of his actions, a life that would not have otherwise been had he not raped the girl?

Using reason properly begins by first making the correct assumptions. From either the Islamic or the humanist point of view, your assumptions are flawed.

No one is talking here about rapists, except you. You totally mis-characterize my words.

Edited by FounderChurch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The opening post here is a bit of an incoherent mess. There's first of all no real effort to define terms. What is a conservative? What a liberal? Second, this dichotomy is artificial and unproductive. In reality there is a spectrum rather than two poles.

Third, this presentation of two options, with one good and the other evil hides a third way, the synthesis of the best of each perspective. There is a time to guard and there are things to guard. At the same time, there are some old practices that made sense once, but are now just pointless or even harmful, tradition simply for the sake of tradition, without regard to whether it is still useful. The liberal will say to set aside the old that no longer works, and would be right in this. We need both modes, and in fact each checks the excesses of the other. Liberals help conservatives stay fresh and relevant, while conservatives remind liberals not to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

As for the list of issues, that is an issue for another post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one is talking here about rapists, except you. You totally mis-characterize my words.

i was using your logic to show the absurdity of your logic. your basic assumptions on birth control are flawed. this was just one example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i was using your logic to show the absurdity of your logic. your basic assumptions on birth control are flawed. this was just one example.

I just feel you exhibit NO logic whatsoever and are just argumentative for the sake of being argumentative. I don't respond to such unsubstantiated attacks. Sorry!

The opening post here is a bit of an incoherent mess. There's first of all no real effort to define terms. What is a conservative? What a liberal? Second, this dichotomy is artificial and unproductive. In reality there is a spectrum rather than two poles.

Third, this presentation of two options, with one good and the other evil hides a third way, the synthesis of the best of each perspective. There is a time to guard and there are things to guard. At the same time, there are some old practices that made sense once, but are now just pointless or even harmful, tradition simply for the sake of tradition, without regard to whether it is still useful. The liberal will say to set aside the old that no longer works, and would be right in this. We need both modes, and in fact each checks the excesses of the other. Liberals help conservatives stay fresh and relevant, while conservatives remind liberals not to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

As for the list of issues, that is an issue for another post.

I'm just honestly declaring what side I am on and that I oppose the other side. I'm not ashamed of my side, but am proud of it.

I don't pretend a fake objectivity, or a fake impartiality, or a fake even-handedness,

I'll leave all that to the Liberals who love such subterfuges in order to try to defend themselves by hiding their true identity, much the way you are doing here.

I'm aware that there are shades of gray to be found, and that there are no absolutes, but I'm also aware of the value of generalizations, and the value of sharply defined differences, and the value of understanding the world is composed of good and evil, even if we have trouble sometimes in completely and accurately identifying it.

Edited by FounderChurch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just feel you exhibit NO logic whatsoever and are just argumentative for the sake of being argumentative. I don't respond to such unsubstantiated attacks. Sorry!

I'm just honestly declaring what side I am on and that I oppose the other side. I'm not ashamed of my side, but am proud of it.

I don't pretend a fake objectivity, or a fake impartiality, or a fake even-handedness,

I'll leave all that to the Liberals who love such subterfuges in order to try to defend themselves by hiding their true identity, much the way you are doing here.

I'm aware that there are shades of gray to be found, and that there are no absolutes, but I'm also aware of the value of generalizations, and the value of sharply defined differences, and the value of understanding the world is composed of good and evil, even if we have trouble sometimes in completely and accurately identifying it.

The problem is that your generalizations are neither accurate nor pedagogically useful.

You've still failed to properly define your terms, hiding instead in ambiguity.

The problem with this "conservatives are good, liberals are bad" line is that tradition in itself is not of value, but rather, good, healthy, life and well-being sustaining tradition is. Some tradition should be kept, but other traditions are poison and deserve to be pitched out the window. I see no acknowledgement of this reality above.

The great religious leaders / prophets / messengers did not emphasize "conservative" blind and total adherance to received tradition. They challenged poisonous traditions, overthrowing them and replacing them with traditions that were more life sustaining. Jesus rebuked the "conservative" Pharisees and drove the money changers from the temple. Muhammad rebuked the elders of the Quraish and condemned such "conservative" traditions as burying girls alive and idolatry in the holy sanctuary.

The term conservative is pointless in itself without clarifying what it is that is meant to be conserved.

Liberal is not a dirty word if there is a genuine liberation being promoted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is that your generalizations are neither accurate nor pedagogically useful.

You've still failed to properly define your terms, hiding instead in ambiguity.

The problem with this "conservatives are good, liberals are bad" line is that tradition in itself is not of value, but rather, good, healthy, life and well-being sustaining tradition is. Some tradition should be kept, but other traditions are poison and deserve to be pitched out the window. I see no acknowledgement of this reality above.

The great religious leaders / prophets / messengers did not emphasize "conservative" blind and total adherance to received tradition. They challenged poisonous traditions, overthrowing them and replacing them with traditions that were more life sustaining. Jesus rebuked the "conservative" Pharisees and drove the money changers from the temple. Muhammad rebuked the elders of the Quraish and condemned such "conservative" traditions as burying girls alive and idolatry in the holy sanctuary.

The term conservative is pointless in itself without clarifying what it is that is meant to be conserved.

Liberal is not a dirty word if there is a genuine liberation being promoted.

I presume you read: REREAD THIS I JUST WROTE: "I'm aware that there are shades of gray to be found, and that there are no absolutes, but I'm also aware of the value of generalizations, and the value of sharply defined differences, and the value of understanding the world is composed of good and evil, even if we have trouble sometimes in completely and accurately identifying it." I just posted this above.

It states just what you are complaining I do not state. A broken clock is right twice a day, and Liberals for all kinds of reason are right in what they say from time to time, but it is always for the wrong reasons, as they have hearts that do not love anything or anyone.

You clearly are a Liberal that is ashamed to say that is what you are, and are using all these sly rhetorical devices to try to attack Conservative thinking. Just admit who you are, make your case, and move on, and stop it with all the "I'm Above the Fray" BS.

You are NOT above the fray, but an advocate for a point of view, make it, justify it, and move on, and let others do the same thing. BTW what are your beliefs? Put them out there and let us all take a crack at them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are not meaningfully responding to my criticism; you're just repeating yourself. Nor is your previous post relevant as a response to my critique. Answer the questions; clarify the terminology you're using. What is a "conservative?" What is a "liberal?" Where is an acknowledgement of a difference between good tradition that should be kept at all costs and tradition that should be s[Edited Out]ped? "Conservative preservation of tradition" can be and has been invoked to defend such evils as human slavery and the denial of female suffrage. Demonstrate that you actually understand what you are talking about rather than simply parroting slogans.

Your attempt to try to flip this around to an interrogation of me in order to avoid explaining yourself is rather sad.

Edited by kadhim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just feel you exhibit NO logic whatsoever and are just argumentative for the sake of being argumentative. I don't respond to such unsubstantiated attacks. Sorry!

You said that birth control (not abortion mind you, but birth control methods that prevent pregnancy in the first place) is akin to murder. So according to your logic that means the rapist who impregnates his victim has prevented a murder from happening. If that is the case, shouldn't the court overlook his rape?

You also said liberals are evil. First, please answer Kadhim's criticisms of your usage of the words 'liberal' and 'conservative.' These are indeed relative terms and you have made no effort to give us your operational definitions. But let's just say liberal and conservative are being used in the American context. I personally think George Bushes are evil men, i think Cheney is an evil man, Wolfowitz, Perle, and many others. These named men are conservatives and have been directly responsible for over a million deaths. Do you think they are evil or good?

You are espousing an anti-intellectual hate-filled ideology. You are the one who appears to be aspiring to evil you self-righteous simpleton.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are not meaningfully responding to my criticism; you're just repeating yourself. Nor is your previous post relevant as a response to my critique. Answer the questions; clarify the terminology you're using. What is a "conservative?" What is a "liberal?" Where is an acknowledgement of a difference between good tradition that should be kept at all costs and tradition that should be s[Edited Out]ped? "Conservative preservation of tradition" can be and has been invoked to defend such evils as human slavery and the denial of female suffrage. Demonstrate that you actually understand what you are talking about rather than simply parroting slogans.

Your attempt to try to flip this around to an interrogation of me in order to avoid explaining yourself is rather sad.

My conversation with either of you Liberals is at an end. I will discuss nothing further with either of you as you are just making pointless attacks, pettifogging in fact. Bye, Bye.

Go back to your Liberal friends, I have nothing further to say to either of you, ever, or to anyone who talks like you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My conversation with either of you Liberals is at an end. I will discuss nothing further with either of you as you are just making pointless attacks, pettifogging in fact. Bye, Bye.

Go back to your Liberal friends, I have nothing further to say to either of you, ever, or to anyone who talks like you.

That's nice. I don't like to associate with Ku Klux Klan members anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Conservative v. Liberal In History

This topic is not well understood by either Muslims, Christians and/or other groups, yet it is the most defining fundamental affecting everyone's lives, in every nation and religion. The reason it is not well understood is that evil people (Liberals) in all groups want to suppress this sort of understanding. This delineation divides every group, even businesses, because it is endemic to the human nature placed in us by the Creator. In computer terms, it is the software installed in our brain at our inception.

Liberals hate the general understanding of this distinction because it exposes them for what they are. Thus, they want to confuse this issue in order to stay under-cover so to speak. Now that doesn't mean all "Conservatives are good, but it does mean they proceed from a good spot or space, and are generally repentant when they do wrong. Whereas Liberals are conspicuous for not repenting their wrong conduct.

Of course this is speaking generally, and there are shades of gray and exceptions all around. But this general outline is pretty well known once good people are reminded of it.

Conservatives throughout history, in all religions, favor family, structure of authority, faith in God, respect for marriage, respect for the holy books, and a belief all should follow their teachings. They will also tend to be in favor of the male as the head of household having authority over those in the family. They will oppose using all kinds of intoxicants, drugs, alcohol and other such. They will oppose sexual immorality. They will favor lots of children, and thus oppose abortion and birth control. They will be opposed to wars of aggression, and the subjugation of other peoples.

This is only a very partial list, and the way each person interprets these matters will vary, plus we should have a degree of toleration for those who think differently than ourselves. However, every person and every religion and group of any sort has the duty and responsibility to defend itself, even when that means curtailing some of the freedoms of that group to do so.

Islamic Conservatives today are threatened by the same Liberals that threaten Conservatives in the West, and this must be understood by everyone on all sides, especially in this shrinking world where we are a neighbor to everyone on earth in some sense.

We Conservatives need to reach out to those worldwide who share our basic values, just as the Liberals already do. If we fail to universalize our values, and reach out to our natural allies across the globe, we become weak and unable to defend ourselves effectively where we are. Thus Conservatives of all religions must work together in self-defense of their commonly held values, by recognizing that our greatest enemy is the enemy within our own ranks.

As to violence, which is a "burning" issue now: We must oppose it as a general principle, but also realize that ALL groups practice it, and that ALL groups have their bigots and their Liberals bedeviling them. Blowing up building containing innocents is not the best way to find coalition partners for any group. The main problem in Islam, as in the West, is the pervasive constant attack from aggressive Liberals against the values of Conservatives.

Now this understanding is not simple to implement, and there are lots of things not dealt with in this topic post, but it is a beginning of a beginning. In war, it is said, the first casualty is truth, which is why war is to be avoided if possible, because the biggest enemy of every Conservative is inside this own country and his own house of worship. Therefore, going into someone else's country and attacking its people is not the best approach to winning in the long run.

Nothing is more important than Conservative Muslims becoming active in politics in every nation on earth, including especially, Israel, Europe and the USA.

To do this Conservative Muslims must come to understand the political situation in all these countries. This is not a simple project, and what needs to be done will not be easy. Plus each Muslim must come to his, and her, own understanding of this very most important matter.

There is, in effect a battle for the heart and soul of Islam going on, where on the one hand Liberals are pretending to be every Muslims best friend, and on the other the Conservatives are not so hypocritical in this regard.

Just as Liberals, who enslaved Blacks for hundreds, if not thousands, of years, have worked night and day to convince Blacks that their former enslavers are their best and most loving friends, these same Liberals (Democrats) today are starting up the same con game with regard to Muslims.

No way have Liberals ever been the friend of any Conservative Values person, and thus their hypocrisy must be exposed over and over. Muslims must not be fooled, as many Blacks have been, into supporting their worst enemies.

This is an extensive argument, and it will take much discussion to bring out all the facts, but it must be started and carried on.

I will post new details as this thread goes along, and I ask every Conservative to help add to this.

Edited by FounderChurch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will post new details as this thread goes along

Can you kindly elaborate on a proposed feasible and workable framework from which all dominations (Muslims, Christians, Jews, HIndus, Athiest and all in between) can to a large extent, agree upon and find practical in order that they may implement through preaching (like you are doing here) and practice (e.g. government lobbying and media exposure i'm guessing?).

If there is no such paradigm, there is no point of reference to work with, and the squabbling will continue due to misunderstanding, misinterpretation and subjective conclusions reached in respect to each other's intentions. As you've already witnessed here, it's not going to be easy convincing everyone and gaining support to the cause.

Maybe we can start off with an approach to music, e.g. Venga Boys singing BOOM BOOM BOOM, I WANT YOU IN MY ROOM for which 10 year old children are dancing to; or how to get rid of that GaaGaa lady, she REALLY has to go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the biggest obstacles to this proposed allegiance - at least in the U.S - is the fact that the conservative movement in the U.S is closely aligned with the evangelical movement, which, by in large, has the tendency to be overwhelmingly xenophobic and bigoted toward Islam.

To many, being antagonist toward Islam, is in fact an unstated - yet widely accepted - belief.

The fact is that the conservative trend in the U.S has a tendency to be hawkish and xenophobic in it's thinking. This issue needs to be resolved before any realistic discussion of alliances can be had.

It's unfortunate, but the the conservative movement presents one of the greater challenges to Muslims in the U.S. Certainly, so do liberals, but as it presently stands, we have more to gain from alliances with them than with conservatives. A community under siege - such as ours - can stand to benefit greatly from liberals that are open to accept communities that aren't in the mainstream. Look at the media; which media talking heads come to the defense of American Muslims and which of them are usually taking an aggressive, hostile approach toward us? The liberal bloc has an overwhelmingly more empathetic approach toward Muslims than conservatives, who - generally speaking - usually take a more hostile approach to outsiders.

Am i generalizing a bit here? Sure, but no one can deny that at least some of what is said is true.

Edited by Fiasco

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you kindly elaborate on a proposed feasible and workable framework from which all dominations (Muslims, Christians, Jews, HIndus, Athiest and all in between) can to a large extent, agree upon and find practical in order that they may implement through preaching (like you are doing here) and practice (e.g. government lobbying and media exposure i'm guessing?).

If there is no such paradigm, there is no point of reference to work with, and the squabbling will continue due to misunderstanding, misinterpretation and subjective conclusions reached in respect to each other's intentions. As you've already witnessed here, it's not going to be easy convincing everyone and gaining support to the cause.

Maybe we can start off with an approach to music, e.g. Venga Boys singing BOOM BOOM BOOM, I WANT YOU IN MY ROOM for which 10 year old children are dancing to; or how to get rid of that GaaGaa lady, she REALLY has to go.

Good and intelligent questions. I will do my best to answer:

I come at this subject with a World View, And this is the best start I can make in addressing what you have raised. I might add that everyone on earth has their own World View, which is the basic framework they bring to any discussion of every topic, and the basis for the acts they engage every day.

Many people's WV may not be as elaborate as others, but they all still have a WV. Hitler, Stalin, Saddam, Ghadafi, and Obama all have a WV for sure. Though everyone has one, most people, including many in high places, are very reticent about stating what it is publicly. I am not, for I have spent many, many years deciding exactly what mine is. I started out with no more knowledge than anyone else, but after thousands and thousands of hours studying and researching, this is what I have come up with:

There is such a thing as Good and Evil, and the world is divided between those who pursue evil and those who pursue good. All of the Holy Books of the entire world state this categorically, and repeatedly. They don't stutter and stammer about it, they forcefully take sides. Now, evil people hate this situation, and deny there is even such a thing as good and evil. It is their greatest fear that they will be evaluated and found to be evil. They walk in constant fear of this.

When I looked at history, where all this is put on display, I found it pretty easy to fish out the good from the evil, and found the Holy Books to be spot-on in diagnosing good and evil. Thus, everything I have found to be true, I have found to be echoed in the Holy Books. I was surprised that they all agreed with me. This made it easy for me to be a Believer in God. In short I found no error in the Holy Books.

Using that focus, when I looked at the most evil persons, and the most evil regimes, I found them to be very alike. There was little difference between Pharaoh, Herod, Nero, Lenin, Hitler and Stalin. I found them all to be Leftists for one thing.

I found that practically all of America's problem in her history were traceable to the influence, ideology and actions of her Democrat Party, composed of what I call, the Liberals. I took a long list of good things, and a long list of bad things, and I found that they neatly fit the two parties of the Right and Left .

In short, I found that every nation on earth throughout human history has had essentially these two parties who have fought for control of the nation. These parties are called by different names in different times and climes, but their public policies are remarkably the same across the spectrum. Slavery of all types was always, and is today, a feature of the Left, as well as immorality of every imaginable type. Central Government control is another constant, as well as a hostility to the family, and the authority of the family, and a constant bribery of the people through welfare of one sort and another. The Left has always been hostile to God, and has been consistently hostile to human life at every stage, before conception, after conception, after birth ,and continuing on to old age.

Now, this is just a beginning of an examination of what you have raised. I know that. And I have not begun to answer all you might want me to, but it is a beginning. Later...

Edited by FounderChurch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the biggest obstacles to this proposed allegiance - at least in the U.S - is the fact that the conservative movement in the U.S is closely aligned with the evangelical movement, which, by in large, has the tendency to be overwhelmingly xenophobic and bigoted toward Islam.

To many, being antagonist toward Islam, is in fact an unstated - yet widely accepted - belief.

The fact is that the conservative trend in the U.S has a tendency to be hawkish and xenophobic in it's thinking. This issue needs to be resolved before any realistic discussion of alliances can be had.

It's unfortunate, but the the conservative movement presents one of the greater challenges to Muslims in the U.S. Certainly, so do liberals, but as it presently stands, we have more to gain from alliances with them than with conservatives. A community under siege - such as ours - can stand to benefit greatly from liberals that are open to accept communities that aren't in the mainstream. Look at the media; which media talking heads come to the defense of American Muslims and which of them are usually taking an aggressive, hostile approach toward us? The liberal bloc has an overwhelmingly more empathetic approach toward Muslims than conservatives, who - generally speaking - usually take a more hostile approach to outsiders.

Am i generalizing a bit here? Sure, but no one can deny that at least some of what is said is true.

You are absolutely right. And this is why this discussion is so important. While it may seem in the short run that the Left is more friendly to Muslims, in the long run this will not be found to be true. Here is why.

Conservatives want to conserve, and conserve their faith and their country. This makes them superficially, more hostile to others unlike themselves.

But, let's look at the record. In the beginning in America, Catholics were despised in a bigoted way, and could not even vote or hold office, same for Jews and so forth, but as time has worn on, both groups have come to see that the quick gain is not always the most beneficial in the long run. Thus, Catholics are now the backbone of the Conservative causes, and more than 50 percent of Catholics vote Republican. Jews are now likewise much more conservative every day. Other groups have had similar experiences. Now even Blacks are beginning to tread that same path.

This thing is not a slam dunk, and Conservatives do not need everyone to support them, but they do need, and deserve, to have their fair share of any, and every, group. Conservatives do not want Liberal Catholics, or Liberal Jews, or Liberal Muslims to support them. They only want those who are Conservative to support them.

Agreed that this is a daunting challenge, but it must be done and I feel will be done. And I believe it is critically necessary. Presently, the situation is so volatile in regard to Islam, that it is imperative that this be put into high gear for a whole host of reasons, mostly as a protection for Islam, but also as a protection for the very ideas of Conservatism.

We can discuss all the reasons this path must be followed at the highest level of Islamic authority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Stefan

Where is the hatred in his statements.?

If you don't agree with him, at least please try and give a good picture of Islam by being polite. You are not presenting a very good picture of what a Muslim's behaviour should be like.

Please use polite words to express your point of view.

If you have the ability to debunk his arguments, please go ahead logically rather than with the use of offensive language.

[4:148] Allah does not love the utterance of harsh speech save by one who has been wronged. Allah is ever Hearer, Knower.

:wub: :wub: :wub:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Stefan

Where is the hatred in his statements.?

If you don't agree with him, at least please try and give a good picture of Islam by being polite. You are not presenting a very good picture of what a Muslim's behaviour should be like.

Please use polite words to express your point of view.

If you have the ability to debunk his arguments, please go ahead logically rather than with the use of offensive language.

[4:148] Allah does not love the utterance of harsh speech save by one who has been wronged. Allah is ever Hearer, Knower.

:wub: :wub: :wub:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem that faces Conservatives of all religions, is that we're too narrow-minded. Unfortunately, Conservative people of all religions are taught up to dislike the people of other faiths, if not openly, then covertly, by their religious parents, schools, etc, which is why Conservatives have a problem accepting people of other religions. Liberals, on the other hand, are brought up to be accepting of differences, so they have zero problems allying with Liberals of other backgrounds.

Conservatives have a big weakness -- they always tend to be in favour of keeping the status quo, which unfortunately sometimes mean having supported slavery (in America), and being against women's education (in Saudi Arabia), However, the problem is that Conservatives see these indefensible, evil things, as good, so defend them. In the end it often occurs that Conservatives manage to keep their society from accepting economic and social innovations that keep them backwards in relation to other, more open societies.

If Conservatives are to unite in any manner, they must first swear off the xenophobia, anti-US/anti-Muslim feelings (on both sides), and learn to tolerate other religions. But unfortunately, Conservatives often are so convinced that they, and only they, represent the Forces of Good , and that accepting other religions is like signing a deal with the devil. As long as this feeling persists, they cannot unite.

I don't much care about Liberalism posing a threat to Muslim countries, because I live in a "secular", democratic Muslim-majority country, and of course, all Muslims refrain from acts forbidden by Islam, even if it is totally legal. For that reason the negative effects of liberalism don't seem to affect us much. I don't think secularism/Liberalism will ever pose a threat to Muslim countries, like it has corrupted the West.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...