Well, except that the Confederacy was mad that their minority of states was slowly losing the ability to control the majority of states. They were fighting for an antiquated status quo: slavery, the power of the state legislature, the power of land-owners, the preservation of an agricultural economy, etc. The Confederacy was both anti-democratic and virulently opposed to change.
Not very. You’re quite right there. The liberal ideal would be that anyone should be free to leave if they don’t want to stay.
This only shows that there were more than one ideological divides involved.
Did I say “most American colonists” or “most Christians”? :dubious: Most of them were still living in Europe and most of those were undoubtedly still supporting their respective monarchies.
And a lot of them wanted to make George Washington king.
You can be a liberal and still be a Christian, and one way is to reject the very conservative notion of the Divine Right of Kings–or monarch in general–in favor of Democracy.
(Another way is to reject the authority of the Catholic Church. ITR champion, I would suggest you google “founding fathers anti-catholic”.)
I could be wrong about a strict majority of the common people throughout Christendom believing in DROK in their heart of hearts, but it was what they were expected to believe by the political authorities and the prevailing culture and that makes it a form of conservatism.
And as pointed by historians, it was still expected outside England but much more so in colonies of other empires like the Spanish or the French as their kings had not suffered something like the Glorious Revolution.
Then in the Spanish colonies the inquisition was enforcing those divine rights, there was still fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency…and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope…
You’re conflating monarchy and DRoK.
Except for France, if anything, the widespread of concept of DRoK as an important political/social idea was waaaaay on the decline. THere was, still, a confusión of church-state boundaries, but DRoK was already packing.
I’ll repeat, DRoK was in no way, even remotely, a factor (pro or con) in the Independence of the US or the Spanish colonies.
I’m sure there are plenty of other examples you could use, but that NBC article doesn’t say anything about Buchanan or Kristol being assaulted by “left-wing activists.” One might safely assume that Buchanan’s attacker leaned left, of course.
Sure, tell others that we should ignore Richard E. Greenleaf, who was an eminent scholar of the Mexican Inquisition and former director of the Stone Center for Latin American Studies at Tulane University, and others.
Not my problem if your you insist on an argument from ignorance.
Cross-posted from another thread, I notice liberal bastion Mother Jones seems opposed to genetically modified sterile male mosquitoes being released in Florida.
I repeat my protest. I was attacking his posting history. That is fair game. My comment showed Clothahump’s posting history to be an instance of what the discussion at hand is about, and you know it.
I will gladly cease and desist from this line of comment if a mod wishes it. But, I want that warning withdrawn. It’s not right.
There were zero cases of dengue fever in the US from 1934 to 2009. Since then we’ve had two small localized outbreaks (both were in Key West.) You’ll also note that article points out that the CEO “doesn’t know whether its method can reduce dengue over the long term.”
So this seems less “anti-science” than “cautious”. It’s not as though we’ve had 20 years of consensus about whether combating dengue with genetically engineered mosquitoes is a good idea.
Apparently, “…The critics in that piece are known anti-GMO organizations (FOTE), and their criticisms are either not well founded or apply to pretty much any control strategy.”
But isn’t “cautious when confronted with untested changes” the definition of conservative many are using?
(I quoted you before but didn’t qrite anything)
Exactly, but still you get the conslusion wrong.
DRoK had been all the fad in the Middle Ages, but the 18th saw it massively falling from favor. Even if the concept still existed, it wasn’t really pinging most people’s radars. Even if religion/church were still important political figures, the specific concept of DRoK wasn’t.
I think that’s a fair description of conservatism generally. I’m not sure that it describes modern American conservatives well, other than social conservatives. Fiscal deregulation is certainly a form of “untested change” that US conservatives generally favor.
I’m glad that quotes from unidentified agencies can confidently be cited as categorically dismissive. I was beginning to worry there might be a believable reason behind the fears of the folks in that article.
