Why do conservatives come across as angry and brittle?

As a Christian, you should be angry with a system that promotes the murder of human fetuses and the promiscuity and fornication of children as young as junior high students.

 

Because they are?

 

Another point worth mentioning is evident in the limited text of this thread already: We all know it's true, but isn't still baffling that 'conservative' is now equated with a more domineering, jingoistic government when originally they were the 'stay out of my business' party. Now, it appears, that philosophy only applies to business, ( ie stay out of my wallet).

 

Christ encouraged anger?

Christ had a take on foetuses?

 

Not only on fetuses, but he had a take on Hanoi Kerry, he said:

"Go forth, and rant ye on the internet, for he who is from Massachusetts is not fit to rule in my kingdom despite his stars of silver and bronze."

 

Anger is part of human nature. There is nothing wrong with being angry. Christians are not Buddhists in which they depress their anger. As long as you don't act wrongly about the issues which anger you, there is nothing wrong with being angry. Yes, God has a take on fetuses. Thou shalt not kill.

 

I agree with those sentiments, but I would go on to say that leveling anger at your fellow humans or acting in anger is not a constructive enterprise in most cases. Just my take, and for what it's worth, Uncle_Tim, I don't really see you as that angry (maybe more so some days than others). Nowhere near as angry as bama or some of the more rabid elements of either extreme, be they hating Bush or all_things_criticizing_Bush.

By the way, nice scripture find, Sam. I had forgotten that one.

 

Agreed B-Bob. By no means do I condone violence that has sprung from anger, i.e. abortion clinic bombings and rioting, but I do believe that proper, civilized actions should be taken in accordance with the anger. I don't think bama and T_J are really haters, but I do believe they are angry at the excessive mud slinging from the liberal side of the government and support.

 

Why is self-control a conservative priciple and power of choice and freedom a liberal principle?

If anything power of choice and freedom should be conservative principles because they are the underpinnings of a capitalistic system and a limited government.

What has happened is that the traditional free market socially tolerent conservative movement has been hijacked by the religious right. Instead of conservative of preaching free market and limited government this group wants to impose a moral / religious view on the market and use government to enforce that view on society. These aren't conservative values but if anything liberal values that seek to use the state as instrument for imposing what is believed to be "best" interest of the people.

While conservatives once blasted the "nanny state" they seek to impose one of their own where government decides to protect you from all of the harmful media and cultural influences out there.
Even more dangerous through the Faith Based Initiatives program they want to impose a nanny state where aid also comes with a healthy dose of state approved religion.

 

You don't know many Buddhists or understand Buddhism.

Buddhist don't depress anger they learn to incorporate it into a balanced life or use it. Remember the Samurai were Buddhists and so were the fighting Shaolin Monks.

To the extent that Buddhism depresses anger so does Christianity. Afterall Christ said "when struck turn the other cheek."

 

Perhaps I should start a thread entitled "Why do Liberals Come Across as Arrogant and Self-Righteous."?

 

I only used the Buddhist thing as an example. I've known a few hippies who were self proclaimed Buddhists. Buddhism today is regarded as very peaceful, or at least that's what I get about it. Christ said to turn the other cheek. He didn't say to not be angry. He just said turn the other cheek. If someone calls me a moron, I should let it roll off like water. It doesn't mean I shouldn't be angry or get upset about it.

 

Ref, the roll-eyes make you sound kind of brittle.

Uncle-Tim, I hear you. The amount of "anti-Bush-administration" material on the board is pretty overwhelming. (I'm not anything about the merits, mind you, because a lot of it springs from factual sources and careful thinking). But anyway, I understand how irritating it can get because I lived through 1992-2000 as someone who didn't like Clinton very much but could not fathom the hatred he received. I ended up defending him a lot even though he wasn't my favorite dude. I'm sure the same principle is in play for some people now.

 

Yeah! Damn their eyes! I'm with you, my brother!


BTW, in that the poster of this thread doesn't consider himself a liberal, nor do I, and B-Bob, who I believe does, has of bent over backwards to be phlegmatically non-eventfull in a way that would make Jeff jealous, to whom were you referring? Woofer for the one liner, or Sam for the Bible parody? You think those more arrogant and self-righteous than, say, " As a Christian, you should be angry with a system that promotes the murder of human fetuses and the promiscuity and fornication of children as young as junior high students."?

 

MacB,

How did you know that I am full of phlegm today? That's kind of weird. ... But don't worry -- my cold is on the mend, and I'm even going to play some poker tonight!

 

Lol...Skipped the word late, as in " of late has bent over...etc."

Don't take this Gandhi Without a Goal persona to the poker table, though, you'll get killed.

Well, yes, those three jacks do look awful nice sitting together, but you've got to admit that Tom's all red had has it's own esthetic merit. And no, Andy, I didn;t forget about you. The very thought of two two's has it's own poetic symetry...

 

Look no further for evidence of MacBeth's wisdom.

Yeah, I've gotta ditch the peace love and understanding tonight. Must be the sudafed.

 

Originally posted by B-Bob
Christ encouraged anger?

<b>There's one story where HE got really pissed with the money-changers. I believe he even got rowdy on them.</b>

Christ had a take on foetuses?

<b>This is conjecture, but if he could have imagined that a society would have been killing babies still in their mother's wombs, he probably would have inclulded it in his Sermon on the Mount...</b>

 

On the surface these "demands" seem to be protective of young people. How is that arrogant and self-righteous?</b>