necoandjeff wrote:
> Edward Mills wrote:
> 
>>On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 07:15:13 GMT, necoandjeff wrote:
>>
>>
>>>First, define your conservatism (it can mean so many things these
>>>days), so we can see how much we have in common.
>>
>>Conservativism is a political philosophy which holds dear the values
>>that have withstood the test of time.
> 
> 
> Wow. That's it huh? You're entire political philosophy in a nutshell. So
> what is to guide a conservative  when those values are challenged? For
> example, place yourself in the 1850s. Someone suggests (brace yourself) that
> salvery is an amoral institution that should be abolished. How would your
> conservative forefathers have reacted to that? (Note that, although Lincoln
> was, as the Republicans never tire of informing us, a Republican, he was, at
> least by your definition, a liberal of his day, at least with respect to
> that particular issue.) Or how about the suggestion that women be given the
> right to vote half a century later, or that blacks not be deprived of equal
> protection another approximately half century later? Couldn't one argue
> that, while conservatives (by your definition) always have a defensible
> position to rest their laurels on at any given point in time, when seen in
> hindsight, through the eyes of history, they are simply the ones who are
> always (by definition, according to your definition) on the losing side of
> progress? Please note that I'm not quarreling with conservatism per se, just
> your rather simplistic definition of it, so no need to break out that trusty
> hammer just yet.

Abolitionism and the racial civil rights movement were the work of 
fanatical Christians.

- Kevin