33
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 5:
Line 5: + + + + + + + +
Debate:Which is more important, economic or social conservatism? (view source)
Revision as of 00:35, July 22, 2011
, 00:35, July 22, 2011no edit summary
One semi-related question: would you agree that it is easier to understand social issues than it is to understand economic issues? Therefore those with no opinion is higher for economic issues than for social issues, and hence it is 'more important' to be an economic conservative as it is less common. And a question on social conservatism (because I can't work out how to add debate topics, nor find a place which tells me how to): What is the typical conservative view of those who refuse to consider or think about moral questions (and hence have no opinion)? - JamesCA, 5th July 2011
One semi-related question: would you agree that it is easier to understand social issues than it is to understand economic issues? Therefore those with no opinion is higher for economic issues than for social issues, and hence it is 'more important' to be an economic conservative as it is less common. And a question on social conservatism (because I can't work out how to add debate topics, nor find a place which tells me how to): What is the typical conservative view of those who refuse to consider or think about moral questions (and hence have no opinion)? - JamesCA, 5th July 2011
:I would say social conservatism. In my opinion, the moral decay of America is worse than the economic decay, and may even contribute to the economic decay. After all, if people mess up their lives, they're more likely to need government help, which results in more entitlement programs, which results in more taxes and more spending, bla bla bla...get my drift? Irresponsible citizens mean irresponsible government, which means the society decays at a whole. Of course, it's not like the government can make anybody moral; the best it can do is provide good laws, stand back, and wait for God to work. ;)
:As for you, AlanR, I understand where your argument of "social conservatism restricts freedom" comes from. After all, banning gay marriages and abortions results in less freedom than allowing them, right? But the thing is, banning gay marriages and abortions protects the sacred institution of marriage and the right to life of unborn children. It's a matter of protecting the rights to do what is considered good and honorable, while restricting the rights to do wrong things. The idea of social conservatism is to commend those who do right and to punish those who do wrong. Biblically speaking, it's in accordance with Romans 13.
:But of course, economic conservatism is also important. We need holders of elected offices who will be careful stewards of the American people's money. Still, for me, social is more important. The stopping of infanticide should be more important than the prevention of wasteful spending, for what is it if a man gains the whole world but loses his soul?
(Sorry if I overused the Bible. Well, OK. I'm not actually sorry. Sue me.) --[[User:StoryMaker|StoryMaker]] 20:35, 21 July 2011 (EDT)