Glenn Beck

[John81]

I think he does speak about questionable stuff.

What do you mean?

[BlessedChristianlady8]

I need to think about what LOL but I know he had something a few months an hour long documentary about something and it was hard to understand LOL.

[HappyChristian]

Some of Beck's information may be hard to understand - especially in the format in which he delivers it. Many people have never learned some of the things he's bringing to the forefront (as far as history goes), and so it can be confusing. If a person doesn't want to watch or listen to him, that's the beauty of the "off" button. I DO NOT like to listen to Rush Limbaugh or Micheal Savage - they are both just yellers with big mouths! And quite egotists! Of course Beck presents his information with a bias. He's not a reporter, he's a talk show host-type. I do believe he loves America. He may not be palatable to everyone, but that's okay.

KJVK - I don't know whether your friend was pulling your leg or not, but no Mormons teach that a woman is to marry two men! In true Mormonism, men are to have more than one wife, but women only marry one man. If she became a Mormon, they most likely told her if she married it had to be to a Mormon man. They do excommunicate (it's not called that), so it wouldn't surprise me if she would have been kicked out if she married a non-Mormon.

[1Timothy115]

And libertarians aren't ultra-conservative?

As to presenting facts which he chooses to use: that is the common MO for most people who are presenting facts...

Libertarian Party 2010 Platform
Adopted in Convention, May 2010, St. Louis, Missouri

Statement of Principles
1.3 Personal Relationships

Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the
government's treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption,
immigration or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, license or
restrict personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices
and personal relationships.

3.5 Rights and Discrimination

We condemn bigotry as irrational and repugnant. Government should not deny or abridge any individual's rights based on sex, wealth, race, color, creed, age, national origin, personal habits, political preference or sexual orientation. Parents, or other guardians, have the right to raise their children according to their own standards and beliefs.

[CPR]

Libertarian Party 2010 Platform
Adopted in Convention, May 2010, St. Louis, Missouri

Statement of Principles
1.3 Personal Relationships

Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the
government's treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption,
immigration or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, license or
restrict personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices
and personal relationships.

3.5 Rights and Discrimination

We condemn bigotry as irrational and repugnant. Government should not deny or abridge any individual's rights based on sex, wealth, race, color, creed, age, national origin, personal habits, political preference or sexual orientation. Parents, or other guardians, have the right to raise their children according to their own standards and beliefs.

It all depends on how you define "ultra-conservative". In a classic sense, it would mean the smallest government possible, which means no interference in the private matters of individuals or institutions. Basically, the government is there to protect your life and your property and stay out of absolutely everything else.

The "religious right" which has come to define "ultra-conservative" today, generally does not hold to this belief. They tend to be fiscally conservative (small government) but believe that the government should take a stand on matters of personal morality (ie sexual orientation).

Not trying to pigeon hole the views of people on this board, just saying that classically, the libertarian view is the conservative view of government.

[John81]

It all depends on how you define "ultra-conservative". In a classic sense, it would mean the smallest government possible, which means no interference in the private matters of individuals or institutions. Basically, the government is there to protect your life and your property and stay out of absolutely everything else.

The "religious right" which has come to define "ultra-conservative" today, generally does not hold to this belief. They tend to be fiscally conservative (small government) but believe that the government should take a stand on matters of personal morality (ie sexual orientation).

Not trying to pigeon hole the views of people on this board, just saying that classically, the libertarian view is the conservative view of government.

Good points.

One thing most often forgotten today is that the Founders established the central (federal) government in a very libertarian manner but the States were free to establish their laws as they saw fit.

So, on the federal level the government was seen best to be of a more libertarian manner. Very small, very limited powers, no real impact upon individuals and very little upon the states.

State governments were free to be as conservative, libertarian, liberal, overtly Christian, secular or whatever they chose for themselves.

Those who say they stand for the Constitution as the Founders put forth and say they stand for strict construction are in great error when they demand the federal government involve themselves in most matters they want them involved in. Either ignorantly or hypocritically they proclaim liberals have no constitutional right to push their agendas through the federal government yet they seek to do the same with their own agendas.

As established, Alabama would be free to proclaim their laws based upon Scripture and to be very conservative in their approach to laws. Maine could determine to be very liberal and secular. Oregon could establish equal rights for all sexual deviants even while Idaho declared all sexual practices outside marriage to be a felony. Illinois could practice fiscal restraint while Indiana played lose and free with their fiscal policies.

Just examples, but these united States were never meant to become a collection of cookie cutter States forced to adopt a central policy on virtually all matters. We were to be a collection of free States where people would be free to move to or from States in order to be where they felt most at home.

[HappyChristian]

One thing that a lot of Christians tend to overlook (and this is due in part to Reconstructionist teaching...) is that conservatism does not equal Christianity.

[John81]

One thing that a lot of Christians tend to overlook (and this is due in part to Reconstructionist teaching...) is that conservatism does not equal Christianity.

Yes, and that's a fairly modern prOBlem. I don't know if it's due so much to Reconstructionist teaching (that may have some influence now) as it has to do with the upsurge of Christians into the political arena in the late 70s which culminated in the Moral Majority and the election of Ronald Reagan. Without the so-called "Christian Right" Reagan would not have won in 1980. From that time onward a great many professing Christians have basically entangled their views into Christianity, conservatism and Republicans being one and the same.

I don't think most of the Moral Majority were of the Reconstructionist ideology but they did hold to aspects of that by their belief in electing conservative Republicans who would pass laws in keeping with biblical mandates.

Since the folding of the Moral Majority and similar groups I believe those you refer to (Reconstructionists...can't we use a shorter name ) are gaining influence in this area and they are finding the ground already prepared for their seed.

[HappyChristian]

Yes, and that's a fairly modern prOBlem. I don't know if it's due so much to Reconstructionist teaching (that may have some influence now) as it has to do with the upsurge of Christians into the political arena in the late 70s which culminated in the Moral Majority and the election of Ronald Reagan. Without the so-called "Christian Right" Reagan would not have won in 1980. From that time onward a great many professing Christians have basically entangled their views into Christianity, conservatism and Republicans being one and the same.

I don't think most of the Moral Majority were of the Reconstructionist ideology but they did hold to aspects of that by their belief in electing conservative Republicans who would pass laws in keeping with biblical mandates.

Since the folding of the Moral Majority and similar groups I believe those you refer to (Reconstructionists...can't we use a shorter name ) are gaining influence in this area and they are finding the ground already prepared for their seed.

Actually, John, the "Christian Right" was in a sense created by Recons (how's that for shortened? ) No, not everyone was of their ideology...but many don't really know their ideology. They just know what sounds good....Merging Christianity and conservatism is one of the things they do.

Recons have been around longer than the Moral Majority, John. Rushdoony popularized it in the '60's. Much of the Christian School movement and the modern homeschool movement is a result of him and the Recons. What better way to influence generations of people and teach them a particular theological slant and change history...?

[John81]

Actually, John, the "Christian Right" was in a sense created by Recons (how's that for shortened? ) No, not everyone was of their ideology...but many don't really know their ideology. They just know what sounds good....Merging Christianity and conservatism is one of the things they do.

Recons have been around longer than the Moral Majority, John. Rushdoony popularized it in the '60's. Much of the Christian School movement and the modern homeschool movement is a result of him and the Recons. What better way to influence generations of people and teach them a particular theological slant and change history...?

Agreed, I was just pointing out that Falwell and the Moral Majority were the major players in "mainstreaming" the Christian=conservative=Republican concept which permeates today. The roots of this, as you point out, are varied and do include as a major factor that which you brought forth. It also seems that those mostly unseen roots are now themselves becoming much more mainstream and taking to the forefront in all this.

[1Timothy115]

One thing that a lot of Christians tend to overlook (and this is due in part to Reconstructionist teaching...) is that conservatism does not equal Christianity.

...nor libertarian, nor democrat (goes w/o saying), nor republican, liberal,...

[HappyChristian]

...nor libertarian, nor democrat (goes w/o saying), nor republican, liberal,...

Yup!