Talk:Conservatism in the United States/Archive 17

This is an archive of past discussions about Conservatism in the United States. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

"Judeo-" Christian? Or just Christian?

The introduction to the article claims "support for Judeo-Christian values". However, if you actually click on the Judeo-Christian article, it (very accurately) reads:

Law professor Stephen M. Feldman identifies talk of Judeo-Christian tradition as supersessionism:

Once one recognizes that Christianity has historically engendered antisemitism, then this so-called tradition appears as dangerous Christian dogma (at least from a Jewish perspective). For Christians, the concept of a Judeo-Christian tradition comfortably suggests that Judaism progresses into Christianity—that Judaism is somehow completed in Christianity. The concept of a Judeo-Christian tradition flows from the Christian theology of supersession, whereby the Christian covenant (or Testament) with God supersedes the Jewish one. Christianity, according to this myth, reforms and replaces Judaism. The myth therefore implies, first, that Judaism needs reformation and replacement, and second, that modern Judaism remains merely as a "relic". Most importantly the myth of the Judeo-Christian tradition insidiously obscures the real and significant differences between Judaism and Christianity.

"Judeo-Christian" in name, only

Plus, Conservatives only hold "support" for Judaism, in rhetoric. In practice, Conservative Christians disdain Judaism, because Orthodox Judaism (real Jews) hold that Jesus was a false prophet, and so most Jews and Christians don't even bring up religion, if they even come into contact with one another.

Because Conservative Christians hold dear the idea that Jesus was (or "is") a part of their god, and because Jews don't hold that Jesus is a part of god, or even a prophet, tension exists between the two religions. Furthermore, the term only became popular as a means of fighting antisemitism by Christians, to change people's attitudes.

Now, it's true that Jews have made great contributions to American culture – but so have Muslims. 0123456789. <= Hindu-Arabic numerals, Algebra (الجبر), several instruments, etc. I'm not saying that Jews and Muslims haven't contributed to the forming of Western society, as we know it – I'm just saying that it's disingenuous to pretend that Conservatives care about Judaism.

As S. M. Feldman pointed out, the only aspect of Judaism that Christians care about, is that they believe their religion superseded Judaism. That's like saying that Muslims have "support for Judeo-Christian-Islamic values", because they believe Islam simply superseded the other two.

As it pertains to Israel

And as far as Israel goes, Conservative Christians don't care about the "Judeo-" aspect – they're just waiting for Jesus to return in the clouds on a white horse, rapture them, and see to the end of the world; and they believe that the existence of Israel is a part of that. So again, it's not that they care about "Judeo-" anything, they just care about their own beliefs, as they pertain to Christianity.

Irony

With these realities in mind, it's disingenuous to claim that Conservative have "support for Judeo-Christian values", and it would be more accurate to state that they have "support for Christian values". It's simply patronizing, every time a Conservative uses that term. Not to mention all the hardliner right-wingers who are still, to this day, antisemetic, anti-Catholic, and anti-Muslim. "Because everything that ain't true Christian, ain't Murican."

Jews are normally liberal Democrats

Furthermore, Jews aren't generally Conservatives, anyway. They're usually left-wing Democrats, which Conservatives usually hold in contempt, because they think the Jews should be on their side (as well as thinking that the Jews should accept Jeebus as their Lard and Savory).

Conclusion

I know that I'm being facetious, and that I sound biased, but if you read in-between the lines, and pay attention to what I'm actually saying, I would expect that these realities should be painfully obvious.

^Knowledge_Battle | ^Talk_Page | ^Godless_Infidel ┌┬╫┴┼╤╪╬╜ 08:25, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Originally the term was Protestant. I suppose it has been changed to recognize that Catholics and Jews are welcome too. TFD (talk) 09:01, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

No I disagree sharply. Read the US section more closely on the lines, not between them. Anti-semitism is no longer tolerated in conservatism (unlike 1930s-1940s). Feldman has zip to say about conservative usage in last 50 years in USA -- he deals mostly with Europe and US before 1950. Rjensen (talk) 10:43, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

@Rjensen: Okay, so if we interpret it that way, what about the rest? Christians don't generally care about Judaism, Jews are generally Democrats, Conservatism doesn't work well with Judaism in theory or in practice, Conservatives really only see Judaism as a stepping stone for their own religion, etc.

I'll go along with you, for the sake of the conversation, but I disagree that "anti-semitism is no longer tolerated in conservatism". First of all, that is grammatically incorrect, and so that sentence doesn't actually mean anything. However, if you were to say that it's "no longer tolerated in conservative communities", then you'd be forgetting the Stormfronters, the modern white supremacists, and their ilk. All it takes is some YouTube searches... "Jews taking over the world"... and it's obvious. The movement isn't out in the open, but they're out there, in large numbers. They hate Liberals, Jews, Socialists, Muslims, Communists, often times blacks, hispanics, and Arabs, homosexuals, etc. Those people definitely aren't liberals...

But putting that aside, even if we reinterpret Conservatives as being welcoming and friendly toward Jews (or people of any other religion), how would the rest of those points be addressed?

^Knowledge_Battle | ^Talk_Page | ^Godless_Infidel ┌┬╫┴┼╤╪╬╜ 17:51, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

"Judeo-Christian" appears frequently in conservative speeches and columns (actually listen to or read some of them, unfiltered), and simply acknowledges the Biblical Old Testament and the Judaic origins of Christianity. It's not a statement about orthodox religious dogma but it does imply a broadly shared moral worldview.

For the record, while most Jews are liberal, most orthodox Jews vote Republican, and a majority self describe as "conservative" [1] (a supermajority of ultra-orthodox Jews do), so it's ironic that you launched your argument by focusing on religious differences. Muslims are the only group whose support for Democrats intensifies the more religious they are. As with most other groups, Jews tend to be more politically conservative the more religious they are. Apparently most of them don't share your hangups or hostility toward Christianity, or at least recognize enough common ground to politically align with conservative Christians. VictorD7 (talk) 21:18, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

@VictorD7:

Fixing your ignorance:

You said: "Muslims are the only group whose support for Democrats intensifies the more religious they are."

Actually, to inform you, so that you're no longer ignorant, most American Muslims used to vote Republican, up until the George W. Bush presidency. Religious Muslims and religious Christians hold a lot of fundamental views in common – it's just that during the GWB presidency, and due to the aggressive hateful responses from Conservatives/Republicans/Christians during that time (but not GWB, himself), Conservatives heavily alienated Muslim Americans, and they turned to the Democrats, having mostly voted for Obama, and now largely supporting Hillary and Bernie. Because Muslims have received so much hate from Conservatives, they now want either: a Christian Woman or a Secular-Jewish Socialist as President. Hello???

That's also how many minorities (Jews, blacks, atheists, gays) end up turning to the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party has a wide range of beliefs and people, and over time, becomes more of a mixing pot and understanding toward "other" people, as more types of people join. The old Democratic Party of the South? Very similar to today's Republican Party. And no, I'm not a Democrat, even though I usually vote for them.

So, Muslims actually have a stronger tendency to support the conservative Republican platform, but would prefer Democrats in power, because they feel Conservatives have done them wrong.

That Pew study, and minorities within a minority

Also, "it's ironic" that you attempted to use that Pew study to make a point, that you failed to make. Quoting that study:

"But while Jews overall are a strongly liberal, Democratic group, there are pockets of conservatism and Republicanism within the Jewish population. Orthodox Jews identify with or lean toward the Republican Party over the Democratic Party by a 57% to 36% margin. And 54% of Orthodox Jews, including 64% of Ultra-Orthodox Jews, consider themselves politically conservative. On these measures (partisanship and ideology), the only other U.S. religious groups that are as conservative and Republican as Orthodox Jews are white evangelical Protestants and Mormons."

Comparing what the study shows, with what you try to make it seem

Orthodox and ultra-orthodox are minorities within a minority. They're Jewish (a minority), and they're Orthodox Jewish (minority within the minority). Now, considering that roughly half of a minority within a minority "leans" toward the Republican Party, that's not exactly building a strong case for the way the religious right misuses "Judeo-Christian" for support.

Addressing your bullshit

Now, contrary to your Conservapedia-styled accusation, "Apparently most of them don't share your hangups or hostility toward Christianity" ... I'm fairly certain you're not obtuse enough to actually believe what you stated there, but just in case you are – I have no "hangups" or "hostility" toward Christianity. Christianity is just an ideology, based on a book that I thought was somewhat interesting. It's only the narrow-minded Conservative Christians (same with the narrow-minded Conservative Muslims, or any other religion). Liberal Christians and Muslims are great people – I'm friends with many of them. We even have conversations about religion sometimes, with no problem. Conservatives, however, lose their shit and don't want to talk religion with me, unless it's to convince me that their god is real, and that I should care about and worship that dead Jesus guy.

Back to the topic

So again, it's not Christianity I have a problem with. I do, however, find it amazing how Conservatives like to misuse other people and titles to support their causes. That's a problem within Conservatism. Since Conservatism heavily emphasizes tradition – regardless of whether that tradition is obviously false – the group often takes it and runs with it, completely oblivious to everyone and the world around them – and we end up with fake, meaningless claims on Wikipedia, like "Conservatives heart Judeo-Christian values".

In fact, religious Christians and religious Muslims are more politically-aligned and share closer values, than with Jews (except, as you noted, approximately one-half of Orthodox Jews, a much smaller minority within the already Jewish minority).

Conclusion

So... all of the points I previously made still stand. It's bull to claim that Conservatives support "Judeo-Christian values" – they support only Christian values. Most of them don't even know any Jews, nor know what Jews stand for and believe. There are small pockets and strands where they can find some Jewish support – but that's also true of atheists – there are some Conservative atheists, too. "Judeo-Christian values" is a misused term (and would more appropriately be "Christian-Islamic values").

I'm pretty sure that everything I've stated is obvious, even to you. I don't know why you're pretending not to get it. Conservatives, generally-speaking, only support Christian values, know nothing of Judaism, and don't agree with most Jews, either politically or religiously.

However, it still leaves out the Conservative Atheists – but then again, Conservatives are really good at excluding "other" people. Like they did in the early 2000s, toward the Muslims...

^Knowledge_Battle | ^Talk_Page | ^Godless_Infidel ┌┬╫┴┼╤╪╬╜ 06:14, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I knew American Muslims used to vote Republican. So what? I only briefly mentioned them as an exception about current trends for accuracy's sake. Most Muslims around the world are socialists, which you failed to mention (probably because it's also off topic). It's hilarious that you also have such a hatred of Muslims that you don't want to be associated with them and launch into an irrelevant tangent trying to paint them as "conservative" at the slightest mention of them being Democrats. I guess you missed the part where I led off by saying "most Jews are liberal", but at least you posted numbers confirming what I said about most orthodox Jews being conservative and voting Republican, which is especially relevant since your insipid "argument" began by emphasizing religious differences and specifically mentioning "orthodox Judaism", even adding in parentheses "(real Jews)". Where's a laughing emoticon when one needs one? By your logic maybe they and other religious people support Republicans because the liberals and Democrats display such hatred and hostility toward them, or maybe they actually believe they share some key values with them. After all, blacks went majority Democrat at the presidential level for the first time back in the 1930s, when Republicans were crusading against lynching and Democrats were still the party of segregation, because they liked FDR's economic liberalism so much (you really know nothing about history), and have voted Democrat ever since. Although we've now established that most "real Jews" (your words) are conservative Republicans, that only reinforces the argument for using "Judeo-Christian", since it was never a statement about how Jews vote, but a reference to Judeo-Christian source material (the Bible) and some broadly shared cultural/moral traditions. Certainly the phrase is so commonly used by both Christian and Jewish conservatives that it merits its place in the article. And please. I've forgotten more than you'll ever know about these topics. Your trolling is getting boring. VictorD7 (talk) 20:08, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

@VictorD7:

Well, I now have a better understanding of whom I'm dealing with.

"...and I can see from your Edit summaries that you are the kind of editor that makes the rest of the world think that Americans are ignorant, arrogant, US-centric pricks."

– User_talk:VictorD7#"Controversial" at US article

I know nothing of history? Despite the fact I know exactly what you're talking about? If: a) I know nothing of history; and b) I know what you're referring to; then) you must know nothing of history, because I actually referenced the very thing that you accuse me of not understanding. Clearly, you either: a) didn't read the whole conversation; b) didn't understand what I was saying; or c) missed the reference I made.

Let's rewind a moment

Under the "Fixing your ignorance" section, I stated: "The old Democratic Party of the South? Very similar to today's Republican Party."

Consider when I said "the old Democratic Party of the South", compared to you saying, "when Republicans were crusading against lynching and Democrats were still the party of segregation." I think that you and I are both very aware that the old southern Democratic Party – the Confederate fighters and sympathizers – was the party of Jim Crow – segregation, lynching, racism, etc. And in that same sentence is when you said, "you really know nothing about history". I suppose if I know these this aspect of history, and you claim that I "really know nothing", then that must mean that you know nothing about history, either. :-\

Liberalism, the North, old Republicanism, modern Democracy

Since you know American history so much better than I do, then you must also know that the Republican Party used to be the leftist, liberal Party... similar to today's Democratic Party.

Socialists and Communists used to associate with the Republicans (because Republicanism was still practiced as a fairly radical idea). The Progressive Party (United States, 1912) and the Progressive Party (United States, 1924–34) both sprang up from the Republican Party, and it wasn't until 1948 that the Progressive Party (United States, 1948) sprang out of the Democratic Party.

Effects of Progressive Liberal Platforms

Strong, centralized government; Socialists and Communist are welcomed; blacks are welcomed; women are welcomed; healthcare for all; religious freedom... and as you noted: "economic liberalism".

Conservatism, the South, old Democracy, modern Republicanism

You also must know that the States' Rights Party (Dixiecrats) split from the Democratic Party at the same time as the Progressive Party of 1948, from the Democratic Party, too. You must also be very aware of the National States' Rights Party, which has a platform very similar to today's Republicans (and the historical Democrats). You must also know of the Southern Party, which shares many values with the modern Republican Party. You must also, certainly, have noticed that it's primarily today's Republicans who care to honor the Confederate Flag, as demonstrated over the last couple of years. Why do you think today's Republicans want to honor the flag of the historical Democrats? (Makes sense to me that it's because the Platforms are very similar – and today's Republicans are an offshoot of yesterday's Democrats – Nixon's Southern Strategy).

Effects of Conservative Platforms

States' rights; Socialists and Communists not welcomed; women are marginalized; blacks are marginalized; healthcare is not a right; "America is a white Christian nation".

1) The liberal, progressive Republican Party of the North, which welcomed Socialists, Communists, and Jews, and the later evolved into the Democratic Party, which welcomed all of those, plus women and blacks?

2) Or the conservative Democratic Party of the South, which demonized Socialists, Communists and Jews, and the later Republican Party, which demonized the first two, pretended to have shared values with Jews, which nowadays makes blacks feel marginalized, and the Party which feminists loathe?

As someone who does not partake in the 2-party bias, it's easier for me to see the differences between the two.

If you want a better understanding of the Left versus Right evolution of the Republican and Democratic Parties, ask progressive Socialists versus conservative racists which Parties, historically, they align with and prefer. That old Republican, Abraham Lincoln – friend and penpal of Karl Marx – was a great Republican, and would disapprove of the modern Republican Party.

My use of the phrase "Real Jews"

Yes, it's true that just over half of all Orthodox Jews (who I called "real Jews") are conservative Republican, but to then pretend that Conservatives support Judeo-Christian values ignores the other (approximate) half of Orthodox Jews who are liberal Democrats. And your assertion also ignores the vast majority of secular Jews (who are still Jews), and who are also modern Democrats. Therefore, in practice, liberals (not conservatives) support Jewish values. Also, that is in line with the fact that the Ku Klux Klan, historically, was mostly composed of Dixiecrats, and today, is mostly composed of Republicans. Whether historical Democrats or modern Republicans, they share 2 relevant character traits in common – conservatism and antisemetism.

Your claim that most Muslims are Socialists

Utter nonsense. Islamic socialism is a misnomer, just like the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea". North Korea isn't actually Democratic, nor is it a Republic.

If Islamic socialists were actually Socialists, there'd be a respect for women, LGBT, dismissive of their own Islamic dogmatism.

Finally, yes, I heard you before

Yes, I did notice that you conceded that "most Jews are liberal". That's why I used your Pew Forum reference to move on and discuss things, further, regarding the Orthodox Jews and their conservatism.

Of course, I acknowledge that approximately half of Orthodox Jews are conservatives (and about 2/3 of ultra-Orthodox Jews are), which is the point you made.

I've actually answered you a couple of times, now. No idea, then, why you assert that I "missed" that point you made, now that I've answered it a couple of times. We both agree that both of us are correct, in stating: most Jews are liberal. We've both made that point, and we've both agreed. We've now both made the point that about half of Orthodox Jews are conservatives. So please don't go on to assert that we don't agree on that, because we both agree.

Conclusion

My point – having kept those things in mind, which we agree upon – is that, finally, it's nonsense to claim that Conservatives support "Judeo-Christian values", when we both agree that most Jews (and half of all Orthodox Jews) are liberals. Realistically (repeating myself here), most Conservatives support "Christo-Islamic values", considering most American Muslims are actually Conservatives (notwithstanding the discrimination they've received predominantly from the Republican Party).

^Knowledge_Battle ^(Talk) | ──╤╦︻ ^Godless_Infidel ︻╦╤── 23:55, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Wrong. My observation about your lack of historical knowledge (directly) referenced your assertion that blacks (along with a lot of other groups) switched parties because Republicans were hostile to them. You obviously didn't know that blacks went majority Democrat back in the 1930s, when Democrats were still the party of segregation (not due to the much later mythical "southern strategy" BS the DNC propagandists trot out or the tactics that the discredited Kevin Philips failed to get Nixon to embrace, prompting the disgruntled shallow hack to switch sides and become the NY Times' favorite straw man poster boy), just like you obviously didn't know that most orthodox Jews are politically conservative (only 12% identify as "liberal" in that survey, not the "approximate half" you erroneously claim), or else you wouldn't have launched your moronic spiel by focusing on them and religion rather than secular Jews (Do you call them "JINOs"?). Your latest post starts off by faceplanting with your embarrassing misreading and goes downhill from there. It's chock full of false claims reinforcing your historical and political ignorance, from the regurgitated, debunked myth about the parties swapping ideologies (no they didn't; the Republicans were never leftist; read some of Coolidge's uber-capitalist speeches sometime, late 19th Century Democrats' populist attacks on Republicans' "pro-business" sentiments, or old Republican denunciations of the Democrats as "socialist" even in the TR era, not to mention the second half of the 19th Century being Republican dominated and a laissez faire glory period) to your comment about the Dixiecrats splitting from the Democrats (only briefly; they rejoined the Democrats) to your bizarre insistence that socialists can't oppose the LGBT agenda (LOL! Tell that to Red China, or all the Muslim nations with socialist economies, which is virtually every Muslim country) to many other false, easily refutable claims on topics it might be fun to educate you on if this were the proper place (it's not) and if your trolling wasn't becoming even more boring (it is).

Almost all of that is irrelevant here though. You may have missed this so I'll repeat it for emphasis. The phrase "Judeo-Christian" is not a statement about voting patterns. It's not even meant to narrowly represent some aspect of conservative ideology. It recognizes the Judeo-Christian tradition as a key component of Western Civilization over the centuries, and in particular America. Christianity is the West's overwhelmingly dominant religion, and it has Judaic roots. Both Christians and Jews (and others, btw) venerate the 10 Commandments as a cornerstone of morality and law. The Old Testament is sacred to Christians and vital in the history of the West in a way that Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. aren't. Conservatives don't single it out for emphasis to exclude these other groups, but to drive home the point that Judeo-Christian values produced the type of society that Hindus, Mulisms, Buddhists, and atheists want to join and that welcomes them. They believe these cultural traditions, along with other (sometimes related) principles that were instrumental in founding America and making it great, should be remembered and respected rather than denigrated or dismissed, or at the very least people should be aware of potential consequences to society they might not like if these values are discarded, regardless of their personal religion or lack of religion. Even some liberals agree with this, though conservatives emphasize it, sort of like how liberals emphasize "equality" while conservatives emphasize "liberty". That doesn't mean conservatives don't support equality and liberals don't support liberty to some degree. Conservatives more strongly emphasize patriotism too but even some liberals claim to be patriotic. All this would be true even if 100% of Jews voted Democrat (especially if they were all secular and merely "Jewish" in an ethnic sense). That orthodox Jews are strongly conservative and vote Republican reinforces it and refutes your misguided religion based argument, but it's not necessary to justify the term. VictorD7 (talk) 21:21, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Fundamentalists in theology and religion don't belong in this article

The terminology in religion is quite different than the terminology for political, economic and social conservatism. The self-styled "fundamentalists" originated in the US around 1910-1920, as a reaction against the higher criticism of the Bible. White fundamentalists tend to be rather conservative politically, but black fundamentalists tend to be politically quite liberal Democrats. Wikipedia has full coverage in the relevant articles on religion. Most famous of the 20th century fundamentalists was Billy Graham, who had a strikingly liberal attitude when it came to political-issues such as racial segregation. Rjensen (talk) 14:37, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I've provided the requested reference. The relationship between political and religious conservatism is so pronounced that I'm surprised you dispute it, but references abound. The conservative think tank The Discovery Institute is just one example. I'll provide more on request. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:35, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Not good enough--you merely linked the group's self-promotion website and it makes no mention of American conservatism or partisanship. it's OR to claim a link. Wiki rule is pretty clear: you need a reliable secondary source and it has to be explicit about ties to American conservatism. The Discovery Institute is a small group with little visibility in the last decade. Keep in mind that the political dimension of creationism was first promoted in a major way by William Jennings Bryan, the leading liberal Democrat of the early 20th century (see Scopes Trial)-- I can think of only one major conservative political figure in the last 50 years who has been closely identified with creationism (Ben Carson)--and only one conservative intellectual (George Gilder). Ted Cruz's father apparently preaches it, but Senator Cruz refuses to explicitly support it. Ditto Huckabee and Santorum. Carson gets it from his religion -- he's a 7th Day Adventist, but I think a lot of its members are black liberals. Note that rejection of evolution is strong (70%) among evangelical Protestants & Mormons, who are indeed conservative Republicans these days. So there is a correlation. BUT it is also pretty strong among Religious blacks (51%) and Muslims (50%) who are not conservative at all. see Pew data. I think I go with American Conservatism: An Encyclopedia ed by Bruce Frohnen--it says "One should not identify creationism with conservatism or Christianity in general." p 201. Rjensen (talk) 21:31, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I've added another reference. Let me know how many more you want. By the way, Muslims are among the most conservative people on the planet. I suspect that you wish that you could wave your hand and make some of the crazy conservatives go away, just as I wish I could wave my hand and make some of the crazy liberals go away. But we can't. Wikipedia cannot only report the good and ignore the bad about any movement.Rick Norwood (talk) 22:01, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually Muslims overwhelmingly vote Democrat, and Muslim nations abroad are all socialist, so they are definitely not "conservative" in the ideological sense used primarily in this article. They're only "conservative" in the same sense that communists are often called "conservative" in eastern Europe today, and in the sense they tend to favor certain religiously inspired traditions, though those traditions radically differ from those in America (millions of Chinese and other left wingers around the world are "conservative" in that sense too). VictorD7 (talk) 23:56, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I'll add that approaching this from a standpoint of "good" and "bad" positions (as opposed to characterizations), as your wording indicates you do, probably isn't the best way to edit neutrally. You apparently view ID as "bad" and even "crazy" (also your word), which is noteworthy since you're also a self-admitted liberal editing about conservatives. The goal should be to accurately, neutrally describe conservatism (which includes avoiding undue emphasis), not shove as much "bad" (or "good") material into the article as one can. Whether conservatives' views themselves are "bad" or "good" is obviously open to subjective interpretation. VictorD7 (talk) 00:21, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I came across this statement by Mike Huckabee. "I think that students also should be given exposure to the theories not only of evolution but to the basis of those who believe in creationism. I do not necessarily buy into the traditional Darwinian theory, personally."

Muslims and AMERICAN conservatives don't mix so well. I put in the Frohnen quote & dropped the Discovery Institute--it does NOT call itself conservative. Rjensen (talk) 22:19, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

The social conservative segment is becoming unwieldy and we should probably be thinking of ways to consolidate it for space and coherence. I'll likely propose something soon when I get some more time. VictorD7 (talk) 23:59, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I'll add that Rjensen's point about ID advocates not necessarily being conservative is well taken, and that purely being a cultural phenomenon wouldn't necessarily rise to level of inclusion in this article any more than sports would (sports fans skew conservative), though the overlap is enough and the debate is occasionally political enough in nature that I can support mentioning it. I don't think it belongs in the lead though. I'm considering an alternative. I recently deleted a paragraph in the middle of the Social conservatism and tradition body section that was basically just an attack on conservatives mostly sourced to one partisan blog, and featuring a large segment on Bryan's Scopes trial involvement, as though that almost 100 year old case is the most salient specific issue in defining social conservativism, and ignoring the fact that Bryan was a liberal Democrat. The remaining section can stand on its own, but I soon intend to flesh it back out some with a paragraph covering the main issues driving social conservatism, abortion, marriage, etc., and maybe expounding on them a little more than the lead does. I'm thinking about including an ID mention, as long as it doesn't receive undue emphasis. It should also include and focus on the procedural issue, since that's the actual political angle here. There are conservatives who aren't ID advocates who still oppose the notion that any state level curriculum item could possibly be prohibited by the federal Constitution, as the Constitution makes no mention of schools or curricula. They argue that such matters should be left up to the local population to decide through its elected representatives, and criticize "judicial activism". I also don't necessarily oppose adding a mention that some conservatives want ID taught alongside evolution in some capacity, as long as we avoid fueling the misconception that people are trying to ban the teaching of evolution. VictorD7 (talk) 05:03, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the anti-evolution movement does not deserve more than a mention. It is unpopular, and Ted Cruz, for example, will not say anything about his beliefs on the subject.

William Jennings Bryan was a populist, before the days of the current liberal/conservative divide. He was a religious fundamentalist, and he favored the farmers over the bankers.

The Discovery Institute was founded as a branch of the Hudson Institute, an Indianapolis-based conservative think tank. It's founder worked for the Reagan administration, and all of its positions are staunchly conservative. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:53, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

there are indeed individual active creationists --like the man in Texas--& small groups. But opposing evolution is not a mainstream conservative proposition.... The usual claim by pols like Cruz, Huckabee etc is a) "i am not a scientist and cannot comment on evolution" plus b) "all theories" should be taught in public school. Bryan was the #1 liberal in the 1896-1924 era and the fundamentalism he espoused was a new theory developed by theologians around 1910. Bryan was leader of a national movement to make it a crime to teach evolution, as Scopes had done--his was a criminal trial. Rjensen (talk) 12:20, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Political conservatism and support for ID/creationism being taught are hugely linked. Republican or conservative Democrat legislators have overwhelmingly been the ones to adopt the Discovery Institute's policies; Rick Santorum, backed by fairly mainstream Republicans like John Boehner, sought to pass amendments on education bills that would actively promote ID and attacks on evolution in public school curricula. Conservative legislators and governors in Louisiana and Texas have passed bills effectively legalizing the teaching of intelligent design in public and charter schools, respectively. Similar bills have been introduced, in all cases by Republicans, in Virginia, Missouri, and Oklahoma. William Jennings Bryan, or for that matter Black Democrats or Muslims, are definitely social conservatives, similar to the millions of socially conservative but economically leftist Americans today who oppose abortion and gay marriage but love Social Security. Social conservativism and support for ID are intrinsically linked. Rwenonah (talk) 15:42, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Santorum last won an election in 2000 and he never got his "Amendment" adopted by Congress.-- his minor stature these days is clear from the primaries. I think it's a theological issue here: the ID people are primarily anti-evolution, and that has never been a mainstream view of leading conservative politicians or intellectuals. It's been around 100 years --actually it was much stronger in 1920s under Bryan when the goal was to make it a crime to teach Darwin. My point is that it is not the social conservatives but the theological fundamentalists who are the activists. In Kansas, There was a big fight and the pro-science conservative Republican defeated the anti-evolution conservative Republicans. Bottom line: it is false to claim that ID is a mainstream conservative social position. It's all a matter of theology and biblical interpretation, which is where it ought to be discussed. Rjensen (talk) 18:36, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Santorum won 11 states and 4 million votes in the 2012 primaries ... evidently he speaks for a lot of Republicans. Santorum's hardly the only Republican to have campaigned for ID/creationism to be taught or expressed support for its teaching. Jeb Bush went so far as to say evolution shouldn't be taught at all in 2005. Rick Perry and Michelle Bachmann campaigned for teaching both much more recently; as did Ben Carson, both of whom have commanded sizeable support and are definitely mainstream. [Pew research poll] shows the massive difference in terms of belief in evolution between Democrats/Independents (67% and 65% of whom believe in evolution) and Republicans (43% of whom believe in evolution and 48% of whom believe in creationism). I haven't found a poll on support for teaching of creationism and ID in schools, but there's evidently much greater support for creationism among conservatives. I'd tend to think something believed by 48% of Republicans qualifies as a mainstream conservative social position. Rwenonah (talk) 20:48, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Santorum backed away from ID in 2005 and did NOT campaign on it in 2012 or 2016. [In a 2005 interview with NPR, Santorum stated "I'm not comfortable with intelligent design being taught in the science classroom." see interview] In his 2016 campaign website Santorum does not even mention the issue. Nor does Rick Perry nor Ben Carson on their websites. That looks like a defunct movement to me. Is it powerful enough (like abortion or gay rights) to make it a force in conservatism? I think not. Do lots of people disbelieve in Darwin--they do indeed. But if you look for organization you always come back to just one small organization the Discovery Institute. I think there's also a museum in Kentucky that shows dinosaurs playing with humans. That's a thin base. I think as a political force it pretty well collapsed when teaching ID was ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge in 2005. And it failed in state after state and in Congress. It's more telling to me that someone like Cruz keeps his mouth shut even though his father is prominent. My bottom line is that this is not conservative/vs/liberal matter but mostly a theological feud, which it has been since 1910.

If it's not a conservative vs liberal matter, why is it supported and proposed exclusively by conservative politicians and why is its support so much greater among conservatives than liberals? Santorum, incidentally, called for the teaching of theories that undermine evolution in the classroom in 2011. Rick Perry and Bobby Jindal have both passed laws as governors effectively legalizing the teaching of ID in public schools (or in Texas' case, charter schools), so it's patently false to say it's "failed in state after state". There's also no shortage of creationist/ID lobby groups; Answers in Genesis, Creation Ministries International, or the Institute for Creation Research. The Discovery Institute is undoubtedly the major lobbyist organization for ID, but that's because it invented the idea in the 70s as a more scientifically plausible version of creationism, not because of a lack of support. Rwenonah (talk) 21:47, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I just demonstrated that major conservative politicians do NOT raise the issue...it's not on the websites of presidential candidates in 2016 or 2012. ID failed in most states, and in others was usually soon reversed. As for Jindal he stated "I supported passage of the Louisiana Science Education Act in 2008 because I support academic freedom -- the freedom of teachers to introduce students to mainstream science on both sides of controversial subjects like evolutionary theory and climate change. It's not a "creationist" law. Creationism is a religious doctrine and teaching religion in public school is explicitly excluded from protection under the law." Rick Perry leaves it off his website in 2012 and 2016. That's very tepid support indeed if you're fishing for conservative primary voters among 17 candidates. "Answers in Genesis" is the Louisville museum I mentioned--it is a religious organization and a charity that is not allowed to engage in politics. It spends its energy in feuds with splittoff groups. "Creation Ministries International" is a breakaway group in Australia. "Institute for Creation Research" is another splitoff, with 4 staffers. Here we are in a really intense 2016 presidential campaign and none of these groups appears to be politically active this year. So we have religious groups debating theology and feuding away with each other. The public issue here is changing school curricula and these groups are not major players except for the Discovery Institute. Rjensen (talk) 22:17, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Rwenonah, even your poll figures above undermine the notion that this is a major partisan issue, since you cite only 67% of Democrats believing in evolution. Of course there's a difference between an opinion split on a random issue and it being a major political issue anyway. As Rjensen's posts underscore, this is not a major national political issue. Though I do think it enters politics sometimes (and to answer the question posed above, at least according to the 2006 Zogby poll on this ID site [2], 77% of likely American voters agreed with the statement, "When Darwin’s theory of evolution is taught in school, students should also be able to learn about scientific evidence that points to an intelligent design of life," with 19% disagreeing. A supermajority also supported the notion of including scientific evidence against evolution instead of just the evidence supporting it.), we shouldn't pretend that within the political realm it's on par with salient national issues like abortion, marriage, or the breakup of the nuclear family that receive vastly more discussion and attention by political leaders. It merits a brief mention in the body, but doesn't belong in the lede. VictorD7 (talk) 23:22, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

It seems the conservative view is that both sides of the debate on evolution should be taught in science classes, which distinguishes them from liberals and most mainstream parties outside the U.S. TFD (talk) 18:34, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Since courts have ruled that "Intelligent Design" is essentially a religious doctrine, the conservative view that religion should be taught in science class is not "fairness" but a violation of the separation of church and state clause in the US constitution.Rick Norwood (talk) 13:52, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

that's why it's no longer a conservative political position. We did NOT hear it from the many GOP presidential candidates in 2012 or 2016. Jindal said it: "Creationism is a religious doctrine and teaching religion in public school is explicitly excluded from protection under the law." Rjensen (talk) 14:22, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I think you would like more conservatives to be libertarian, but in fact their are many more religious conservatives than libertarian conservatives. About a third of conservatives consider themselves religious fundamentalists, while only about one in ten call themselves libertarian. Here in the American South, where I live, most Republicans are Bible-believing Christians, meaning they take the Bible literally, do not believe in evolution, think that the Earth is only a few thousand years old and was created in seven days, that America was founded as a Christian nation, and that the Christian religion should be taught in the public schools. Neither the third nor the tenth can win a national election, so the religious conservatives and the libertarians have allied, and downplay some of their beliefs on the national stage, but in state and local elections in the South, religious conservatism is still a major part of the Republican party. This article has to report what is, not what we might wish. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:52, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

In this case I generally agree with Rick Norwood, except on his Analysis of the momentum is in favor of the religious right In the South. I think it is in political retreat, as dramatically seeing in the Kentucky episode of a County Clerk who refused to marry same-sex couples, and also refused to resign her government position. I think the religious conservatives have given up on creationism & ID as a political issue. The evidence is that none of the 22 GOP presidential candidates in 2012 and 2016 endorsed creationism or intelligent design--I looked and found zero mention on their websites. More generally, the religious conservatives have drastically cut back on their aggressive attacks on Darwinism ( they originally made teaching Darwinism a state crime--see Spokes Trial). They still hate Darwinism, but the current strategy is to allow public school teachers to emphasize the weaknesses in the Darwinian model. (Rick I think exaggerates the proportion of fundamentalists who believe in a young earth 6000-year-old model. It does not seem to be often taught in the religious schools that I have seen.) As for gay rights, there has been a dramatic shift in public opinion since 2000 toward much greater tolerance. This tolerance is seen among among conservatives esp libertarians, neocons, and business interests. It leaves the religious right without allies (Although it does have allies in the black community which worldwide is strikingly conservative on gender issues.) The recent strategy of the religious right is to invoke freedom of religion for businessmen to refuse service to gays. The business conservatives strongly reject that solution as a red flag of bigotry, and so we have had very conservative Republican governors veto the new laws in several states, most recently in Georgia, to the dismay of the preachers. Rjensen (talk) 16:22, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually, we do agree. The momentum is against religious conservatives. But most religious conservatives have not changed their views. Rather, young people are much less likely to be religious conservatives. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:08, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

This conversation is threatening to go off the rails. To the extent social conservatives have a political position on ID, it usually involves rejecting the premise that ID is necessarily a "religious" doctrine, especially if the material in question doesn't mention religion (crazy of them, I know). Apart from that, it's correct to say they (and a supermajority of Americans, btw, not just Bible thumping religious southerners) support allowing the teaching of both views in school (I already linked to a Zogby poll showing that). "Libertarians", to the extent they have a position on the issue, oppose judges dictating curricula, regardless of their personal views on evolution or ID. The Constitution doesn't even mandate that there be a "science" class, much less control what appears in it. Such things are delegated to the (state) political realm. When activist judges presume to micromanage what can or can't appear in "science" class, libertarians and many other conservatives tend to view that as a comically absurd, unconstitutional overreach.

That said, one thing Rjensen is right about is that this isn't a salient political issue. It receives nowhere near as much attention or energy nor has anywhere near as much widely developed sentiment (as opposed to polled snapshots of people's first reaction opinions) as issues like abortion, marriage, the breakdown of the nuclear family, actual religious displays on public property (from prayer to war memorial crosses to the Ten Commandments to the Pledge of Allegiance to various mottos mentioning God), or even the current "transgendered" bathroom controversies. I can support mentioning it briefly in an appropriate body section, but it's undue to include it in the lede when it barely qualifies as a political issue and higher profile ones are omitted. VictorD7 (talk) 19:09, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

ID is not a scientific theory and no one except U.S. conservatives demand it be taught as science. Science consists of falsifiable theories can can be tested by empirical evidence and these theories have predictive value. ID is a restatement of Aquinas' argument from design. It has value as a theory and is taught in mainstream universities as part of the philosophy curriculum. The fact that conservatives want it taught as a scientific theory is significant. TFD (talk) 23:41, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes. My reading is that no conservatives actually believe in ID. they social conservatives all believe in a very personal God unlike the clockmaker of 18th century Deism. However they will promote anything that seems to devalue Darwin. The business element joins in trying to attack climate studies (in that case it's not Darwin so much as the fear that taxes will have to go up to stop global warming, and coal and oil profits will fall.). Rjensen (talk) 02:45, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

It's actually impressive how many scientists reject AGW hysteria considering the trillions of dollars governments have allocated for "research" supporting the man-made climate change premise. It's become common for someone fishing for grant money to tangentially tie their proposal to "climate change" somehow, even if their topic really has nothing to do with it, knowing it will increase their odds of funding. VictorD7 (talk) 21:17, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't know about "demand", though I earlier linked to polling showing most Americans, not just conservatives, oppose the prohibition against mentioning ID in science class. It's not really a partisan political issue, much less a salient one. Activist judicial rulings took it out of the political realm, where curricula is typically shaped. The "falsifiable" theory talking point is bogus and silly since all sorts of things that aren't falsifiable through testing are covered or freely discussed in science class, from outlandish multiverse speculation to the fundamental premise of evolution itself. While the details of evolution have been rewritten numerous times over the past century and a half as new evidence (discovery of genetics, fossil record, etc.) has disproved old assumptions, the basic premise itself that life evolved can't be discarded no matter what evidence could conceivably be discovered, because there is no alternative an atheist could accept. Even if, for example, intelligent life was discovered on another planet and they looked like humans, evolutionists would simply discard current ideas on how life evolves and replace it with some type of convergent evolution theory, or perhaps a Star Trek like "seeding" program by an ancient alien race, though that might come dangerously close to ID (and illustrates why it's not necessarily religious). Regardless, the constitutionality of a piece of curriculum doesn't hinge on its alleged soundness as a scientific theory. To the extent this might merit a mention in the body (but not the lede), it should be along those constitutional dispute lines, not people's personal views on ID. VictorD7 (talk) 21:09, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

This discussion is about whether teaching ID in science classes is a position taken by a large group of conservatives. It is. While I appreciate that class discussions can divert into unscientific areas, that is different from actually including them in the syllabus. Scientific theories, such as the speed of light, are falsifiable. We can conduct tests to see whether light travels faster than c and, if it does, it falsifies the theory than light cannot travel faster than c. But we cannot test a theory that the speed of light was determined by God. It may or may not be true, but it is outside the realm of science. TFD (talk) 23:11, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Your reply doesn't address anything I said. The opposition to the prohibition is a position held by a large group of Americans that cuts across ideological lines, probably more conservative than liberal, but it's not a salient partisan political issue either way. ID avoids mentioning God, and things I cited like the multiverse aren't considered "unscientific". Regardless, the Constitution doesn't say anything about science class, or what can or can't be taught there. To the extent this touches on politics it's within the broader issue of judicial activism versus constitutionalism, with conservatives supporting the latter. VictorD7 (talk) 07:05, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

The issue is not whether or not ID is correct but whether or not some conservatives think it should be taught in science classes. If you think ID is science, please explain what experiment could disprove it. TFD (talk) 07:23, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Reread my last couple of posts. I could reply by asking what experiment could disprove the fundamental premise of evolution, or countless other widely held scientific assumptions, but this issue isn't really about whether ID is science either. It's about constitutional process, and whether school curricula should ultimately be in the hands of the people or the judicial branch. That I have to explain this underscores that this isn't a high profile, pervasive political issue (at least not this narrow example; the larger constitutionalism versus judicial activism divide across an array of topics is a salient issue contrasting liberals and conservatives, but should be phrased more vaguely and generally), and to keep it in the lead is undue emphasis. VictorD7 (talk) 22:16, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Examples of the spontaneous generation of new species would question evolution. So would observation of extra-terrestials introducing new species. Anyway, "judicial activism" and teaching unscientific theories in science classes are two separate issues. both liberals and conservatives want judges to rule in their favor, whether by supporting laws they introduce or by striking out those of their opponents. So in D.C. v. Heller, most conservatives supported the court's overturning of legislation. Presumably conservatives not only think that there is a constitutional right to teach ID, but also that it is reasonable to teach it. TFD (talk) 01:00, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Question but not necessarily disprove evolution. ID advocates say their theory makes testable predictions ([3], [4]), and on the ET thing you mention that I raised earlier it almost sounds like you're implying the only way to scientifically consider the possibility is if we directly observe aliens doing it. That means if they no longer exist or never do such things again then studying the possibility falls completely outside the realm of science, by your logic, even if that's what actually happened. The truth is that scientists try to discern intelligent design all the time, whether searching for man made objects at potential archaeological sites to intelligence analysts scouring satellite data to SETI sweeping the sky for signals that appear artificial. But this tangent is off topic for reasons already given. You confuse the meaning of "judicial activism". It doesn't merely refer to judges overturning legislation. Conservatives, particularly originalists, support rulings that conform to the Constitution. Some laws are unconstitutional and should be struck down, while others aren't unconstitutional and should not be struck down, regardless of the judge's personal feelings on the policy. Activism is when a judge departs from basing a ruling on the constitution and imposes his own personal policy preference instead, whether he's upholding or striking down a law. Heller was the correct constitutional decision, regardless of one's personal preference on gun rights. It's not simply a matter of being for or against a policy. Even if you believe they're being disingenuous, conservatives undeniably couch this general judicial branch debate in those terms and employ a great deal of rhetoric emphasizing the importance of fidelity to the Constitution. By contrast liberals have openly downplayed the importance of such fidelity, arguing that the Constitution is anachronistic in many ways, and have a much more ends justifies the means attitude on court case after court case, mostly questioning whether the policy itself is sound rather than asking about its constitutionality (we've even seen some of that in this discussion). Democrat House leader Nancy Pelosi literally laughed off a reporter's question about Obamacare's constitutionality when that was being passed, dismissing it without answering, for example. VictorD7 (talk) 00:07, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

It's an irrelevant tangent but I should add for clarification on the first point that it's a matter of degree. Atheists likely wouldn't believe in evolution if macro-life was spontaneously popping into existence fully formed all around us on a routine basis, as the need for it would be obviated. But by that radical logic ID advocates' objection to evolution would drop if macro-evolution was occurring all around us at a fast enough rate to directly observe, if entropy flowed in the opposite direction (from disorder to order), if perfectly formed words commonly appeared naturally in rock formations or clouds, and complex codes that look artificial routinely appeared naturally. That's not how evolution is theorized to work, it's certainly not how the universe works, and if life did appear spontaneously somehow in the past it doesn't necessarily follow that it's an ongoing, continuous, permanent process. After all, life certainly did begin at some point in the past. Scientists really have no idea how, but most believe that all or virtually all life on earth is related, and that its formation from non-life hasn't been some continuous, still ongoing process. The assumption is that whatever conditions allowed life to form are no longer present on earth. VictorD7 (talk) 19:38, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Over the past several thousand years, mankind has gradually amassed a great deal of knowledge. By definition, conservatives support traditional beliefs over new discoveries. That is one meaning of the word "conservative": support for traditional beliefs. Today, most conservatives don't think much about knowledge such as mathematics, physics, and chemistry, but when new knowledge contradicts their religion, they often try to get religion instead of science taught in the public schools. The judge ruled that "creation science" was essentially religion, because the proposed textbooks, though they did not explicitly mention God, repeated page after page of the older textbooks that did explicitly mention God. The United States has a great many religious schools, and these schools are free to teach religion. What is unconstitutional is to use taxpayer money to teach one particular religion, in this case protestant fundamentalism. You can argue the subject world without end, amen, but Wikipedia is not the place for such a debate, nor is a grade school classroom. There are appropriate topics for debate, but religion is too emotionally fraught to be one of them. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:40, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

By definition, conservatives support traditional beliefs over new discoveries -- Rick is talking about European conservatives. The American conservatives are liberals by European standards, as the article states. The Bible issue is not about "new" science--it's a rehash of 1925 Scopes trial and it affects religious fundamentalists who include many political progressives such as Bryan himself. Rjensen (talk) 12:06, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

<INSERT>Hogwash. "...most conservatives don't think much about knowledge such as mathematics, physics, and chemistry"? Was that trolling or did you just misspeak? You must not know many mathematicians, physicists, or chemists. A lot of hard scientists are conservatives, especially those working off campus in industries (engineers and doctors too). The rest of your paragraph is equally false. They "often try to get religion instead of science taught in the public schools"? Even the staunchest ID advocates aren't trying to get evolution out, much less any other type of science. You do correctly state that the activist judge ruled that ID amounted to religion, and critics reject the rationality and legal soundness of that ruling in part, as you concede, because God wasn't even mentioned in the proposed material. The Constitution says nothing about overturning democratically passed laws based on alleged secret motives. If it did, there are countless other issues where such divining could come into play. In this case it's especially idiotic since other judges have upheld the constitutionality of things like the Pledge of Allegiance, which explicitly does mention "one nation, under God", and of course the nation's and many states' mottos contain explicit mentions of God. The U.S Congress still employs a chaplain to open every session with a prayer, a practice conducted since the Constitution was enacted and initially proposed by Benjamin Franklin in an eloquent speech, along with employing chaplains throughout the military. Expert commentators have observed that the U.S is not so much a "secular nation" as one that officially endorses theism while maintaining freedom of religion and avoiding endorsement of sectarian preference. The conservative position is that the First Amendment's establishment clause doesn't require the sterilization of religious references from the public sphere anyway, and only prohibits the federal Congress from establishing a national religion (like the Church of England) or from messing with official state religions (many existed at the time). ID, which, unlike the Pledge of Allegiance and National Motto, doesn't even mention God, can't reasonably be said to be the establishment of a religion, whether one believes it would encourage religious belief or not. Those who support the judge's ruling don't do so out of concern for constitutional republican procedure, but because they really don't like ID and want to prevent it from being taught by any means necessary. VictorD7 (talk) 00:07, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Today, dogmatic adherence to the Bible over science seems more a preserve of America than Europe; per the level of support for evolution is lower in the United States than virtually any European country (except Turkey, which is a different case in many ways). Europe - at least Western Europe - also has much more socially liberal "conservative" parties than the Republican party, the main standard-bearer of American conservatism. A similar trend is seen in [[5]] Ipsos poll, where the US has the highest level of disagreement with global warming being caused by humans; and disbelief in evolution and climate change in the US are both higher among conservatives than liberals. Skepticism of scientific consensuses does seem to be a notable feature of American conservatism specifically. Rwenonah (talk) 13:34, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

More hogwash, circular reasoning, and cherry-picking. Secularism doesn't necessarily equal "scientific". Brits, for example, are famously extremely likely to believe in things like ghosts (more so than God, according to a lot of polling over the years; [6]), and Europeans broadly reject genetically modified food produced by the US due to unscientific scaremongering (arguably motivated by competitive concerns). The anti-vaccination movement, most visibly supported by liberal celebrities like Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey ([7]), is stronger in Europe, where vaccination rates are generally lower than in the US ([8]). It's secular liberals, not Christians or conservatives, who are pretending sex (but not race?) is a social construction subject to one's own whims rather than a biological fact. The notion of theists supposedly being the ones who cloud their scientific views with extraneous agendas is a myth. Atheists can credibly be accused of doing it too. There's certainly nothing inherently scientific about atheism. For example, when Catholic priest/physicist Georges Lemaitre first proposed the Big Bang theory, it was rejected by atheist scientists for purely philosophical reasons much longer than the evidence dictated it should have been, as they preferred the older notion of a static, permanent universe to one that had a beginning, Einstein even going so far early on as to artificially introduce the "cosmological constant" to dismiss gravitational calculations showing the universe should be expanding (later acknowledging it was a blunder, and embracing the expanding universe model much sooner than many other "scientists" did). Marxist, militantly atheist regimes, have been the most anti-intellectual in history, with Pol Pot going so far as to slaughter anyone caught owning glasses because he associated glasses with reading, and wanted to purge book readers (along with killing anyone caught with religious paraphernalia). Free speech is crucial to free and open debate in pursuit of the truth or the best policies, and it's relatively secular Europe and Canada, not relatively religious America, and left wing elements at that, that have made strides in legally infringing on free speech with things like "hate speech" codes, where certain unpopular comments and ideas are actually criminalized. It's the left staunchly opposing technological innovations with practical real world applications (unlike the evolution/ID debate) like frakking and nuclear energy, and relentlessly demonizing the oil industry and US pharmaceutical companies, despite contributions by the former (against federal government opposition) providing about the only good economic news in recent years and the latter being largely responsible for driving global health improvements over the last several decades. Luddites opposing technology and civilization itself are far more common on the left than the right. It's trial lawyers, a major component of the US liberal base, who have a well earned reputation for playing on emotion and using junk "science" to win multi-million dollar lawsuits (e.g. the arguments that built careers for John Edwards and Erin Brokovich have largely been debunked: [9], [10], though I'm not aware of any plans by Hollywood to make a corrective movie about that). And, certainly from the conservative perspective, modern left wingers still clinging to socialist ideology despite the decisive historical/economic empirical verdict of the past 100 years are being extremely unscientific, or at least blindly anti-empirical. It's an echo chamber/bubble caused mistake to assume that characterizations like the one you offered of conservatives can only go one way. Even if one staunchly believes in naturalistic evolution and that human activity is largely responsible for climate change, the notion that those two issues should be selected from among countless others and used as the litmus test for determining how "scientific" someone is is absurd, especially since they reside in soft areas of science, with the former in particular necessarily requiring speculation on all sides about distant past events. Leftist propagandists cherry-pick those two issues because they feel they support their crafted narrative. By contrast many of the topics I cited above deal in harder science with immediate real world consequences. VictorD7 (talk) 00:07, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

There are several definitins of conservatism as explained in Huntingdon's article "Conservatism as an Ideology."[11] "Positional" conservatives may hold on to long held beliefs long after they could under question. But the question is whether ID is associated with U.S. conservatism. It appears to be associated with the Christian Right, rather than fundamentalism in general. TFD (talk) 18:17, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

No, that's not the question. The question is whether it's a salient enough political issue to merit special mention in a summary lede where space is a premium and misleading undue emphasis should be avoided. It's not. As for your opening claim, it's easily refuted as a defining trait by my several item list pertaining to liberals above, which includes many bigger political issues than the ID debate, none of which, I believe, are mentioned in the lede. VictorD7 (talk) 00:07, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

No one said that begin anti-science was a trait unique to conservatives ... although the fact you immediately jumped to that assumption (and, not coincidentally, used it as an opportunity to spew paragraphs of your own highly subjective characterizations of sixty different and largely unrelated issues) is illustrative. Obviously things like nuclear power, anti-vaccination, or opposition to GMOs are common bugaboos of the left - but it's important to note that the left generally fearmongers about the consequences of these issues, rather than outright rejecting their scientific validity in the face of overwhelming consensus, which seems much more a preserve of conservatives. Even anti-vaxxers usually purport to have "scientific" studies backing up their claims, and never really deny that vaccines are successful at preventing diseases in the same way ID activists deny that evolution can occur. The distinction is more about the character than the degree of disbelief in science. Rwenonah (talk) 00:51, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Actually labeling conservatives "anti-science" is a common talking point among leftist propagandists, and I was responding to multiple paragraphs where left leaning editors characterized conservatives as being more likely to reject science than liberals. No assumption jumping on my part required. You're even wrong about liberals rejecting scientific consensus. That's exactly what they do in the above examples of genetically modified foods, gender, and vaccination. Some militant feminists even deny that males are inherently physically stronger or more capable in any way than females, arguing that apparent differences are the result of cultural conditioning ([12]), despite the overwhelming scientific proof to the contrary. Claims about the alleged consequences of frakking and other industrial activity often have no scientific basis either, but result from ideology. You're right that the anti-vaccine crowd claims to have scientific evidence supporting their position, like the British doctor Andrew Wakefield's 1998 paper on MMR/autism that was discredited and condemned by consensus. But you go wrong in implying that conservatives reject science in some way that the liberals mentioned don't. ID advocates and AGW skeptics (two completely different things, btw, typically only lumped together by certain types of propagandists) both claim to be pro-science and both employ scientific arguments. In fact naturalistic evolutionists tend to shy away from direct scientific debates with ID scientists because they have a history of performing poorly in such debates, claiming that the ID advocates are "clever debaters", instead preferring to make ad hominem or round about arguments that ignore the IDer's scientific points and seeking to marginalize and silence them. ID advocates claim that the current mainstream consensus in favor of naturalistic evolution isn't a result of true science, but a self fulfilling result of it being ferociously guarded dogma drilled into students from a young age and having any hint of dissent ruthlessly punished. Many scientists in various fields are AGW skeptics though. They'd certainly reject the claim that they've rejected science in any way. VictorD7 (talk) 03:51, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

VictorD7, there are no defining traits of U.S. conservatism. Different conservatives hold different views but teaching ID in science classes is a popular issue with some conservatives. Relatively large numbers of conservatives also oppose the science of climate change, and social sciences are given less credence. TFD (talk) 01:12, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Sure there are defining traits of conservativism (e.g. support for free markets and opposition to creeping socialism), but large numbers of non conservatives support teaching ID in science class, as polling I've linked to elsewhere shows. Regardless, the question most at issue here is whether that specific topic merits special mention in the article lede. VictorD7 (talk) 03:51, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

No non-conservatives support teaching of ID in science classes. And support of free markets and oppostion to socialism are shared with liberals. In fact the conservative candidate for president appears to be less in favor of free trade than the liberal president. TFD (talk) 04:38, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Since this Zogby poll [13] found that 77% of Americans agreed with the statement "When Darwin’s theory of evolution is taught in school, students should also be able to learn about scientific evidence that points to an intelligent design of life", with only 19% disagreeing, you must believe that 77% of Americans are conservative. Trump isn't one of them though. He's (now) a Republican, but not a conservative. VictorD7 (talk) 19:19, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Many libertarians in the US joined the Republican party because they needed allies to win elections, but politics makes strange bedfellows. As TFD points out, there is nothing particularly conservative about free markets and opposition to creeping socialism. In most of the world, that's called liberalism. The only reason that some people in the US think they are "defining traits of conservatism" is a purely political alliance, which has nothing to do with common values. Conservatism is a belief in God, king, and country. In the US, since we do not have a king, it is a belief that America is a Christian country, a belief in patriotism, and in American exceptionalism. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:53, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Conservatives in recent decades say "Judeo-Christian" not "Christian." It is in part because of close ties to Israel. Rjensen (talk) 11:54, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect. You're using some bastardized, European style definition of "conservative" (with "American" attached), not the ideological term commonly used in modern American discourse. Libertarians essentially are conservatives. Most, according to polling, are even social conservatives, though socially liberal libertarians are still more conservative than liberals on balance since most government policy issues aren't social ones. Ronald Reagan said that "the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism." Margaret Thatcher, a British "liberal" but a "conservative" in American parlance, once interrupted a presentation by a left leaning government official by slamming down a copy of Hayek's Constitution of Liberty on her desk, saying "this is what we believe." Some libertarians (typically Libertarian party members representing about 1% of the population) try to draw a distinction between libertarians and conservatives in hopes of gaining more votes, but it's more common to see regular libertarians in the population identify as both, often with a label like "conservative libertarian". At the very least one can't ignore the massive overlap. VictorD7 (talk) 19:19, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

A small majority of American Libertarians identify as conservative. http://publicreligion.org/2013/11/libertarians-liberals-and-conservatives-oh-my/#.VzRxxb4Ym_I But only about 11% of Americans identify as Libertarians. Major issues where libertarians and conservatives disagree: opposition to a woman's right to an abortion, opposition to gay marriage, support for abstinence based sex education, support for increased military spending, support for prayer in the public schools, support for a religious test for immigrants, support for increased foreign aid to Isreal. All of these fit the idea that the defining trait of conservatism is a support for traditional values, which essentially only overlaps libertarianism on the issue of low taxes and opposition to environmental regulations.

This discussion has gone on too long, and this is not the place for it. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:24, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Your own source says 57% of self described "libertarians" identify as "conservative", while only 3% identify as "liberal". 59% of libertarians oppose same-sex marriage, so you must have misread your own source. 45% identify as Republican, compared to only 5% who identify as Democrat and 35% who identify as Independent or with a third party. The survey did say that 57% oppose making it harder for a woman to get an abortion, though that conflicts with other polling done over the years that's found different results, and libertarians are divided enough that even the Libertarian Party refrains from taking a stand on abortion, despite most conservative leaning libertarians voting Republican anyway. Quoting from your source: "Libertarian voting patterns reflect this more rightward orientation. Eight-in-ten libertarian voters supported Romney in 2012, while five percent voted for Obama, and 14 percent supported a third-party candidate."

Only about 20% of Americans identify as "liberal" in Gallup polling over the years, and that's considered a major ideology, so it's odd for you to dismiss 11% identifying as libertarian when we're just talking about a subgroup within a major ideology. Of course surveys have shown that many people essentially are libertarians without being familiar with the word, as it's way less commonly used than "liberal" and "conservative", so the number of self identified libertarians isn't really the point. If we're looking for broad differences, basically conservatives who identify as libertarian will tend to disagree with conservatives who don't identify as libertarian on issues like the legalization of drugs, gambling, and prostitution, and libertarians will be more extreme on economic issues than more moderate conservatives typically are. But even people who merely identify as "conservative" still tend to prioritize individual liberty in their rhetoric, even if they're more moderate about it than libertarians are. All that backs up what Reagan said about libertarianism being at the heart of the conservative movement. VictorD7 (talk) 20:56, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I would say though that U.S. conservatism, as normally defined, is not a distinct ideology, but a coalition of different groups, one of which advocates teaching ID in science classes. As the nation evolves, conservatives eventually adopt liberal views from abolitionism to same sex marriage, but new issues arise for them to oppose. TFD (talk) 16:10, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Of course you'd say that. Doesn't make it true. You're still ignoring the empirical evidence I posted showing a supermajority of Americans, not just conservatives, favor allowing ID in science class. That so many support the position, and yet it makes so little noise as a political issue, underscores that it's not a salient political issue, and that it's a gross undue emphasis violation to keep this in the lede when so many larger issues are excluded. VictorD7 (talk) 20:56, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Could you please name a "liberal" politician who says that ID should be taught in science classes. TFD (talk) 03:09, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I can't name any major politician on either side who proposes that in 2016. Rjensen (talk) 06:05, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Intelligent design in politics mentions a number of conservatives who supported the teaching of ID, but there is nothing about current support. Bobby Jindal signed the Louisiana Science Education Act, which allows the teaching of ID. But it may be that it has died out as an issue. TFD (talk) 22:01, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

If you can't find anything concrete about it being a significant current political issue, then it definitely doesn't belong in the lede, where numerous major ongoing issues defining social and other types of conservatives are omitted for space reasons. VictorD7 (talk) 19:39, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Religion is certainly remains a major issue for U.S. conservatism today, although the specific issues that come to the forefront vary. Kim Davis for example received support from some segments of movement including talk show hosts. Support for Israel is often phrased as support for judeo-christian values while Islam is criticized for not sharing those values although ironically it is also an Abrahamic religion. Of course there are mainstream Republicans, such as Mitt Romney, who do not inject religion into politics and a tiny minority of Randians who are atheist. TFD (talk) 21:29, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Religion and Judeo-Christian values are already appropriately, broadly mentioned in the lede. The hyping up of the specific "ID/evolution" issue is what doesn't belong in the lede. VictorD7 (talk) 21:41, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

If the lead were two or three sentences I would agree. But it also mentions libertarians (a smaller group than the Religious Right, and says, " Social conservatives see traditional social values as threatened by secularism; they tend to support voluntary school prayer and oppose abortion and same sex marriage." Why say that and omit, "Some also want the teaching of intelligent design or creationism allowed, as the topics are currently judicially prohibited in public schools." Note it does not say that they want the teaching of evolution banned, although there is a minority of conservatives who would agree with that. And not too that "judeo-christian" as they understand it would include either creationism or ID. TFD (talk) 23:23, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Because abortion and marriage are much bigger political issues than ID/evolution in science class is. So is the school prayer thing, though personally I'd prefer replacing that too with something broader like "oppose attempts to sterilize theistic displays from the public sphere", or something worded differently but along those lines that captures all the issues like the 10 Commandment displays on courthouses or other public property, "God" mentions in mottos or on currency, cross war memorials on public property or cross shaped tombstones on public property, the existence of chaplains, "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, public chapels, Nativity scenes or other Christmas displays on public property, etc.. Simply mentioning "school prayer" or, even worse, ID in science class, while omitting all these other things that have been as big or bigger issues is cherry-picking and does a disservice to readers whom we're supposed to be accurately and fully relaying the contours of the US political divide to. VictorD7 (talk) 21:02, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Many of your examples do not, according to the Supreme Court, constitute a violation of the separation of church and state, are not controversial and are therefore red herrings. There is a world of difference between "In God We Trust" on coins and teaching fundamentalist dogma in science classes. TFD (talk) 01:41, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

There's a world of difference between teaching ID and "fundamentalist dogma". Something explicitly mentioning God, and even pledging our trust or allegiance to his oversight of the country, rationally comes closer to violating the strict separationist interpretation of the Establishment Clause than a scientific theory or set of criticisms that doesn't mention God or religion. That said, I didn't mention the Supreme Court (the judicial branch's rulings have been confused and contradictory), but listed numerous contentious issues that, together, illustrate the political divide. On all those issues there are at least hardcore left wing elements, often represented by the ACLU and other militant atheist groups, that have loudly raised complaints, whether they've yet found a court to agree with them or not. Rather than listing every little issue in the lede, or worse cherry-picking one of the less major ones while omitting the others as the article currently does, we should consolidate them with a summary clause. VictorD7 (talk) 20:05, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

This quote from the Texas Republican Party platform is fairly typical of the influence of religion on conservative politics, though the reason it is in the news is not the religion but the bad grammar. "Homosexuality is a chosen behavior that is contrary to the fundamental unchanging truths that has been ordained by God in the Bible." Rick Norwood (talk) 12:12, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

By "in the news" you mean you saw it on some leftist blog? Your post has nothing to do with the cherry-picked ID lede mention. VictorD7 (talk) 20:32, 20 May 2016 (UTC) I'll add as an aside that the grammatical construction is better than a lot of sentences on Wikipedia, including in this article. That's often how writing by committee turns out. VictorD7 (talk) 20:35, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

VictorD7, you begin by saying teaching ID is not a conservative position and now you are defending it as consistent with the Constitution. But that is where fundamentalists differ from liberals and mainstream conservatives, which is why it should be pointed out in the article. Rick Norwood, this issue came up in the Kim Davis case. She was a clerk who refused to register same sex marriages citing her religion, and attracted right-wing support. (Ironically she chose to marry divorced people.) TFD (talk) 18:11, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

No, I said whether to teach or ban ID isn't a salient political issue meriting special mention in the article lede, and that doing so while so many other more defining, important issues aren't mentioned there is extreme undue emphasis. I did point out that polling shows a supermajority of Americans across ideologies support teaching ID, albeit without much intensity as it's not a real political issue, but I also said that perhaps the constitutional angle (which has nothing to do with "fundamentalism" or even necessarily one's personal views on ID but can be characterized as a conservative position illustrating the ideology's constitutionalist sentiment) could be mentioned in the body somewhere. Kim Davis (who was a Democrat, for the record, not that it it really matters) attracted conservative support because many conservatives support the traditional definition of marriage (not knowing her views on the legalisms of divorce and knowing that gay marriage fundamentally changes the very concept of marriage in a way divorce procedure doesn't necessarily, I'll refrain from commenting on the alleged "irony" involved). Marriage is already mentioned in the lede and has nothing to do with this discussion on ID.

TFD, If you're going to ignore all the points I made in my last post this likely won't be a productive exchange. VictorD7 (talk) 20:32, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Again, teaching ID in schools is not a defining issue of U.S. conservatism, because there are no defining issues. The liberal-conservative divide is more one of degree rather than separate ideologies and shifts over time. But at any time, there are always wedge issues as opposed to ideological cleavage, the most current of which appears to be transgendered people in women's washrooms. Can we say that opposition to transexual people in women's washrooms is a defining characteristic of conservatives. No and Trump, the current leader of the conservative movement, does not oppose it. Nonetheless it is a popular position with other conservatives and is one of the major issues discussed on Fox News Channel. No doubt over time it will be forgotten and other issues replace it.

BTW, what Muslim countries, other than former states of the USSR, have socialist economies?

TFD (talk) 01:14, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Again, I disagree with you in principle about defining issues, but, regardless, the point here is that this particular issue isn't even close to rising to the level of meriting specific inclusion in the lede. The bathroom controversy comes much closer as that's actually a relatively high profile (if new) political issue, but even it belongs in the body rather than the lede. If you don't believe in defining issues, perhaps you agree that some concepts are broader than others, and that the lede is a place for laying out the broad, salient concepts involved rather than specific niche issues. For example, the lede mentions conservative opposition to high taxes, not specifically Obama's 2013 tax hike or conservatives' long running flat tax proposal. It mentions favoring limited regulation; it doesn't mention Sarbanes-Oxley, Dodd-Frank, or even Obamacare. Support for Judeo-Christian values is already mentioned, along with a few of the most long running, prominent issues like abortion and marriage. We could mention that conservatives think sexual identity should be treated as a biological fact rather than a social construct or someone's personal whim, which would include the transgendered bathroom controversy and other related issues, but that would also belong in the body (perhaps under "recent policies") rather than the lede. You still haven't explained why you don't seem to care about those other issues I listed above not being included in the lede when the ID thing, which isn't even really a political issue, much less a major one, is. Why is that?

On your aside, while it's a matter of degree, it would be more efficient for you to name the Muslim nations that aren't heavily socialized. And Trump isn't a conservative, much less "leader of the conservative movement". If you had been following American politics you'd know that most of the conservative movement has been strongly opposing him for being too liberal, which is why he's currently having to take actions to try to unify the party. A lot of conservatives still aren't happy that the general election will be between Hillary Clinton and Hillary Clinton's friend and donor. VictorD7 (talk) 19:34, 21 May 2016 (UTC)