Conservatism to me means to conserve this world instead of destroying G-D’s creation and to uphold the principles of justice, meaning fair and speedy trials with due process and the assumption of innocence until proven guilty. It means to call out and confront injustice when we see it without moral selectivism; to work together as a unified country towards a common good. It means to go out and help your fellow man get back onto his feet when he is in need. That and religious values. Regardless, we all live in this universe and destroying it with pollutants, destroying ecosystems, smashing justice as if it means nothing at all, and being morally selectice against bad is intolerable. We already have caused unfathomable damage through deforestation, throwing mercury in the water that poisons the fish, and hunting entire species to extinction en masse. I am just one type of conservative though… there are many other types! I will list them later.
Now tell me, what do you think conservatism is? Let me know down below! Good faith answers only.
‘G-D’ refers to the Jewish One. Not the Christian ones. Of course a religious person will have a great deal of (although not all) of their values based around their religion. Polytheist Conservatives believes in many gods and Civic Conservatives/Non-Theist Conservatives believes in no god, although their reasons may differ. I was simply saying what it means TO ME. Not what it is universally. I made that pretty clear when I said I am just one type of conservative and there are many other.
Not particularly. It is what it says. For example, people in the right often accuses Governor Newsome of crimes when it has not been proven. Innocence until proven guilty is very simple: Innocent until proven guilty. This is a universal principle. It should be on the state to prove guilt instead of on the defendant to prove they are not guilty. Many countries do not have this principle and assumes guilty until proven innocent. There is nothing deeper there and it is supposed to be taken at face-value.
That is a lot of extrapolation and reaching for something that said to stop and confront injustice. And I never combined good and bad. In-fact, I explicitly said to work towards a common good. It is not about ‘sides’ at all. Ignoring the differences of people is not a good thing as people have deeply engrained convictions that will not budge easily; working together likewise is not about helping evil ideologies. In-fact, as I already said multiple times, Fascism and Nazism is banned in this community. Nazis do not deserve help. Why would I help someone who wants to exterminate multiple groups of people? That makes no sense. It is about whether you work towards a better world or not because, at the end of the day, we all live together anyways and it is better to discuss and work together than to not. If we infinitely say ‘so and so is bad and believes X, Y, and Z’ without asking, that is how polarisation happens and is what things such as Nazis exploit.
Okay? That is your judgement-call to make. I will not force anyone to stay if they do not want to stay. I respect your decision.
The whole “G-d” thing stems from a wacky misunderstanding.
Quite a few evangelist churches started it because they misread the Commandment:
“Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.” (Exodus 20:7)
First, God is not God’s name, it’s God’s job title. 😉
Second, taking the name in vain doesn’t mean typing “God” or even utterances of “goddamn”. It’s making the claim that you, personally, are speaking for God, which is an affront on multiple levels.
Every televangelist who says or implies “God wants you to give me money!” is breaking this commandment.
I am a Jew. Not a Christian. The reason we say ‘G-D’ instead of ‘God’ is because outside of davening (praying) or teaching, we not allowed to say His name. This has been taught since before the rabbonim during the original Twelve Tribes. We say that the intention behind speaking matters more than the word itself. If you intend to curse by saying ‘Frick’, ‘Dang’, ‘Crud’, etc, it is still considered cursing. Likewise, if you intend to say ‘God’ when referring to His name, it is still considered saying His name.
For Jews, it’s totally different. Not directed at you personally, because I’m sure you already know this. 😉
God’s name is unknowable and unpronounceable which is why the Bible displays it as the tetragrammaton, based on how you maybe, kinda, might have said it.
But regardless, God isn’t the name, the tetragrammaton is, which is why Jews avoid saying it out loud in favor of substitutes like “Adonai”.
https://reformjudaism.org/learning/answers-jewish-questions/why-do-some-jews-write-g-d-instead-god
“The bulk of Jewish legal opinion agrees that the law applies only to the written name of God when written in Hebrew and not when written in other languages.”
Using one specific sect does not really negate what I said. Yeah. Reform Judaism is ~10% of worldwide Jewry, Conservative Judaism (not conservative, more reformist, just the name) is ~8% of worldwide Jewry, ~2% adheres to Other sects of Judaism, secular Jews and cultural Jews without a particular sect are ~40% of worldwide Jewry, and Orthodox Judaism is ~40% of worldwide Jewry. When talking about religious authority, I would generally go with the largest sect as it represents religious Jews the best, not other sects that makes up ~20% of worldwide religious Jewry combined. Do note that these are averages and percentages varies based on the polling method. Regardless, it is disingeneous to list a source from a sect that only has 1/10 of all Jews worldwide over the largest sect with 3/10-4/10 of all Jews worldwide.
Edited because I got a percentage inaccurate that I had to fix for accuracy purposes.
The state (nazi germany) said that people who helped Jewish folk were guilty. Do you stand by your innocent until proven guilty by the state for that situation?
There is a difference between actual innocence and what the state says is innocence. Those are not the same thing. If a man is ACTUALLY innocent and he did not harm another, innocent until proven guilty. If the state says a man is guilty when he is innocent or if the state says a man is guilty for not harming the innocent, that is called tyranny and the leader is a despot.
Edited because I said whay instead of what. Lol.
Getting esoteric, what would you say is tyrannical? Right wing (read: conservative) governments are currently using laws based on their flavour of god to set morality, so how do you colour someone as tyrannical?
Tyrannical is when the government restricts speech, expression, protest, religion, physically hurts others who are not actively threatening or being violent, and going after others for immutable characteristics or identity.
Right, so why align yourself with a political belief that does all those things, or is actively working towards doing those things?