Sorry, no. I was referring to YOUR comment.
Yes, I know, and you were wrong in your application of that logical fallacy to my post. I was responding to that. Read it again. Maybe you’ll get it.
Part of this is due to the growing “coming out” movement among young LGBTQ people. Gay folks born before 1975 or so still tend to be rather discreet, whereas younger members of the LGBTQ set are out to most everyone–for the most part. As a result, folks of that generation have come of age knowing that many of their peers–mostly folks as smart and responsible as they are–are queer. It’s tough to take a hard line against gay issues when, quite literally, some of your best friends are out, no matter how conservative you may be.
You’re confusing your terms, here. Social Darwinism is about anti-welfarism and “Root, hog, or die!” Social conservatism is about traditional sexual morality, prayer-and-creationism in schools, anti-abortion, etc. Very different things.
Philosophically, yes, but politically they are now well and truly bedfellows. SD has a strong crossover appeal to White workingclass religious folks, because they have a basically Calvinist heritage and work ethic that more or less agrees with root, hog, or die. When it involves Othered people - urban, Black, etc. - they agree without hesitation (except perhaps in admitting it).
I read the article a few days ago, and I couldn’t help but think this was a subtle bit of political propaganda. Note, for example:
[ul]
[li]How the leader of young NC Republicans “avoids mentioning” social issues, and how these need to be “far down the priorities list” if their party is going to be successful.[/li][li]How some socuial conservatives are “deliberately playing down their own views on issues as a tactical move to attract more young voters to the Republican Party.”[/li][li]How in the past 8 years the number of young Republicans who favor SSM has gone from 28% to 37%–an increase to be sure, but over the same period the general public moved by about 20 points (exact numbers depend oin which poll you believe).[/li][li]How some young conservatives are “playing down their personal views because they have made the calculation that such issues will not be a factor in this year’s races.”[/li][/ul]
I don’t doubt a lot of younger Republicans are sincere in their current support for liberal social causes. But items like the above make me question whether this is more about electoral strategy than social concern, that younger people know they need to shut up about the Republican social agenda because they sense it’s a loser. I also wonder whether–like a lot of younger people–they won’t eventually allow their youthful beliefs to be crushed by a political world that rewards orthodoxy and at best treats dissent as a political tool (“Look, we have a pro-choicer at the convention! We really ARE a big tent party!”).
So, what’s the debate? Young people of GROUP X are more socially tolerant than their elders? This is supposed to be surprising? Controversial? Something?
That frankensteined amalgam of social darwinism with social conservatism helps paper over the contradictions (“keep the gummint out of my Medicare!”) in their version of the former – they aren’t leeches; those other people are!
How? I think that economic institutions that can’t survive on their own should by and large (with a few exceptions) be allowed to fail but that doesn’t mean I think the poor should be allowed to starve in the streets-unless you mean by Social Darwinism something more sensible like the successful keep their rewards.
There can be a Biblical case for opposition to a welfare state-a lot of people argued that most taxation not for stuff like military or law enforcement is simply redistributive and thus counts as “theft”.
Most white Evangelicals are Arminians/“free-willers” not Calvinists. Most Calvinists were in New England which rather ironically is one of the most liberal sections of the country.
This is pretty crappy theology, yo.
See Mark 12:41-44 and Matthew 19:21. Not to mention Matthew 5:39.
These arguments actually arise as a form of concern trolling, from sources such as these.
If you want to get your theology from atheists, by all means, do so. Personally I’d go with Bart Ehrman or Bertrand Russell if that were the case, but at least be honest in your arguments.
Anyway, I actually prefer social conservatives, at least those that tend to reject social Darwinism and practice charity. There’s something a little disjointed about realising that people ought to be free and yet uncritically accepting wage labour and social iniquity.