Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
466 bytes added ,  03:34, December 27, 2009
m
Reverted edits by HLowe (Talk) to last version by Aschlafly
Line 437: Line 437:  
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?
    
== List of Conservative Presidents ==
 
== List of Conservative Presidents ==
Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650

edits

Navigation menu