2
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 434:
Line 434: + + + + + + +
→Is it necessary to trash athiesm as liberal: new section
==Junk science==
==Junk science==
Evolution may be bad science, but I'm not sure that rejecting it should be in a list of what conservatives support. Perhaps a second list of "''may also'' support would be good for this and a couple of others. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 20:56, 10 June 2009 (EDT)
Evolution may be bad science, but I'm not sure that rejecting it should be in a list of what conservatives support. Perhaps a second list of "''may also'' support would be good for this and a couple of others. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 20:56, 10 June 2009 (EDT)
== Is it necessary to trash athiesm as liberal ==
i would grant that this might be out of place, and if so i appologise, but here's my question:
why is religion necessary here? why can't this be a "George Will-type" conservatism, standing for small goverment, always? why can't we be like "hey, let's not strengthen goverment control over our lives by using it to deciede morality?"
why can't we revert back to goldwater conservatism, and leave religion out of it?