ProgressiveU - the name has a ring to it. And it is apparent that there are a bunch of us who are progressing towards scholarships. But the meaning of "progressive" really depends on whose eyes you're looking through. Dictionary.com gives these two top definitions for "progressive" -
pro·gres·sive 
/prəˈgrɛsɪv/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[pruh-gres-iv] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
| 1. | favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, esp. in political matters: a progressive mayor. |
| 2. | making progress toward better conditions; employing or advocating more enlightened or liberal ideas, new or experimental methods, etc.: a progressive community. |
| 3. | characterized by such progress, or by continuous improvement. |
It appears the majority of people on this site have what they would call "enlightened" or "liberal" ideas; however, I would assert that abortion, gay marriage, embryonic stem cell research, anti-God, anti-church, anti-military, and anti-American blogging on this site is not PROgression; it's REgression. On THIS site, it is TRULY progressive to advocate PROGRESSING toward morality, to not follow the crowd, to not do what everyone else is doing, to not say what everyone else is saying.
"Improvement" over the norm today would be a reduction, not just in crime, racism, and the national debt, but in homosexuality, fornication and adultery, pornography, drug and alcohol abuse, and God-bashing. For things to continue as they are is going to plunge our families, schools, and society into more turmoil. You may say this is opinion, but it is based in fact. Do you know that the first year prayer was removed from school was also the first year that the United States fell from the top position in the world in education? Do you know that teen pregnancy went UP instead of down when birth control became a "right" of the unmarried? And a 25-year landmark study showed that adult children of divorce have higher rates of promiscuity, a lack of relationship skills, and even if they aren't among the higher rates of second-generation divorced individuals, they typically have an ever-present fear of relationship failure or other tragedy.
Ever since approximately 1960, so-called "progressive thinking" and social experimentation have objectively NOT led to better conditions. But as with everything, God has an answer. In II Chronicles 7:14, it says, "If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and TURN FROM THEIR WICKED WAYS, then will I hear from Heaven, and will FORGIVE their sin, and will HEAL THEIR LAND."
It's funny that you made this blog, because I had just commented on another about how "progressive" has been closely aligned with liberal views, when that it's necessarily the case. All it takes for someone to truly be progressive is for them to want to improve on society instead of leaving it as is.
Even though I don't agree with some liberal viewpoints, they are trying to create what they think is an improvement on society. On the same note, I don't agree with a lot of things you've said or that you advocate, but you're also trying to improve society as you see fit, so you're no less deserving of the title "progressive."
-Tim
"It costs nothing to be honest, loyal, and true." -Avett Bros.
I thoroughly enjoyed the way you put 'progression' as I have been accused of being REgressive for the very reasons you have stated. Progressive thinking is not so much in the small matters but what happens when we, as a group, make decisions and it affects society as a whole. You make the most valid points in your statements.
So much stems from people wanting to have all this liberal thinking and being politically correct in their vocabulary. I can afford to be liberal when it comes down to clothing, which foods my children want to eat at certain times of the day, etc. Yet, when it comes to the bigger picture of moral obligations, values and integrity, these are the things that affect generations to come.
Thank you for saying what was in my head but I couldn't get to come out my mouth in the best way possible.
The closest I have gotten so far is my recent blog on common sense if you care to read it:
http://www.progressiveu.org/213643-good-ole-fashion-common-sense-where-did-it-go
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
"Truths Are The Roots To Trust"
>"Progressive thinking is not so much in the small matters but what happens when we, as a group, make decisions and it affects society as a whole. You make the most valid points in your statements."
as a group, we are not ALL religious. as a whole society we are not ALL religious.
the only reason you see her points as valid is because you are RELIGIOUS and they go against your religions moral code. so to use these statement when talking about progression is hypocritical....as you have stated.
>"when it comes to the bigger picture of moral obligations, values and integrity, these are the things that affect generations to come."
exactly...and since we are supposed to be a nation that wishes to ensure the separation of church and state (even when talking about moral obligations, values and integrity), we SHOULD do our best to ensure THAT for generations to come.
My, my. . .quite judgmental for claiming to be Christian, don't you think?
Don't kid yourself for a minute into thinking you know me. . even a little bit! I never eluded to; "as a group, we are not ALL religious. as a whole society we are not ALL religious."
My personal reasons for seeing the poster's points "as valid" are varied and even if they were ONLY because, as you say; "the only reason you see her points as valid is because you are RELIGIOUS and they go against your religions moral code." So what? I suppose you might feel better if I had just said, "I agree with most of what you say as long as you leave religion out of it." But, I'm not here to make you or anyone else happy with my choice of words; my thought process; my outlook on life; or anything else I hold dear and/or sacred to my heart. And none of what I have said is hypocritical.
You on the other hand, can't seem to decide if you want someone's OWN opinion or; someone's opinion backed up with statistics; or someone's opinion backed up with UNbiased statitistics (which, by the way is going to be biased depending on who is reading it).
I never mentioned anything in MY post about the separation of church and state. . that would have been the blogger's statements. So, why you felt the need to pick apart and put words in my mouth instead of taking a statement for what it was;
>"when it comes to the bigger picture of moral obligations, values and integrity, these are the things that affect generations to come."
is beyond me. I was speaking on the fact that REgression need not be looked at as negative when looking at PROgression. When I speak of things like moral obligations, values and integrity (and I will throw respect in there as well), they seem to have fallen by the wayside in today's society.
Why is it that every time someone post's anything that has the mere mention of religion in it, someone feels the need to grab the nearest 'slap you' stick as if it is a dirty word? This is exactly what the original post is partly about. . the 'liberal' way of of thinking. While I don't walk around toting a bible and shoving gospel down people's throats, I am spiritual, yes.
There are many things that go into making up each and every one of us. Whether you or anyone else likes it or not, religion/Christianity/Spirituality just happens to be a part of that for some/many. To think that anyone should 'shush' that part of themselves in any forum is ridiculous just because you, or anyone else, doesn't 'think' it belongs there.
You can save your judgements for when you're sitting in the jury box.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
"Truths Are The Roots To Trust"
if you don't want to be judged, don't judge in return. my judgment of you is no different than your judgment of homosexuality.
....turn the other cheek i believe Jesus taught?
instead of throwing judgments back at me, then why don't you prove me wrong and tell me why you agree with what she said in the post. You said she makes very valid points in her post. I want to know: why? why do you agree with her?and if you don't agree with her outside of religious bias (and i say bias because the government has nothing to do with religion and therefore shouldn't be making any laws regarding it), then you only made my point.
part of being progressive is ensuring what we maintain a separation of church and state....(and just because you didn't elude to it doesn't mean I can't bring it up as part of my point) ....and the only reason I've ever found for someone to be bias against against "homosexuality, pornography, fornication, and God-bashing" is because of their religious opinion. again, if you'd like to prove me wrong and explaining to me how all of these things negatively affect society WITHOUT bringing up religion, be my guest.
>"I never mentioned anything in MY post about the separation of church and state. . that would have been the blogger's statements."
yes....a blogger's statements which you said you agreed with.
>"When I speak of things like moral obligations, values and integrity (and I will throw respect in there as well), they seem to have fallen by the wayside in today's society."
which moral obligations and values and integrity have disappeared? i see plenty around me all the time. i'd like to know what you see...or dont see.
>"I can afford to be liberal when it comes down to clothing, which foods my children want to eat at certain times of the day, etc. Yet, when it comes to the bigger picture of moral obligations, values and integrity, these are the things that affect generations to come."
why are liberal ethics and moral obligations any different from non liberal?
>"Why is it that every time someone post's anything that has the mere mention of religion in it, someone feels the need to grab the nearest 'slap you' stick as if it is a dirty word?"
because often time it follows with bible quotes and bashing of homosexuals and i think a lot of people are just tired of it. because we arent supposed to be bringing up the moral ethics AND the bible. we're only supposed to be bringing up moral ethics WITHOUT the bible. and in moral ethics without the bible there is nothing wrong with homosexuality.
>"To think that anyone should 'shush' that part of themselves in any forum is ridiculous just because you, or anyone else, doesn't 'think' it belongs there."
when talking politics (progression of society) religion/spirituality is not involved, so bring arguments to the table without those.
they should be shushed here for the same reasons a liberal would be shushed in a religious forum.
I agree that many times people view progression as being aligned with liberal thought, but if you look back at history it was then liberal thought that caused progress. For instance, the women's movement in the 20's and 60's/70's. Then it was a liberal idea for women to be able to vote or for women to not be slaves to a man's needs in the kitchen. I also think that you only represented one side of the spectrum. You mention that teen pregnancy went up with the creation of birth control. This is true because, although birth control was available, no one was allowed to teach teen girls about it. Abstinence was/still is the only idea that is taught. There needs to be a wider base of options.
As for prayer in school, speaking as a high school senior, I am glad that it is not still in public schools today. To integrate religion of any kind would contradict the idea of learning in an unbiased enviornment. In my school we have a daily moment of silence in the morning where we are able to reflect upon the day or even pray if you want to. I think that is as far as any kind of prayer in schools should go.
Concerning your other arguments, about "homosexuality, fornication and adultery, pornography, drug and alcohol abuse, and God-bashing", I don't see how you can honestly put homosexuality in the same category as drug and alcohol abuse. If you took out the religious bias, there is no argument against homosexuality. I do however agree that drug and alcohol abuse are problems that need to be overcome. However,fornication,pornography,and "God-bashing", are personal choices that are judged by a certain moral code that does not belong to everyone. Although, I certainly do not condone any kind of hate that is directed to a religion or individual, freedom of speech is something that is guranteed to everyone even if we don't like what they have to say.
Do what you feel in your heart to be right - for you'll be criticized anyway. You'll be damned if you do, and damned if you don't.
-Eleanor Roosevelt-
I beg to differ on the abstinence issue. Condom use, birth control, even the choice of abortion or not; these are all aspects being taught in many schools across the country. There are schools where condoms are being handed out or sold in their bathrooms. This is a far cry from abstinence.
Even with all of these issues being taught, we have a higher rate of teen pregnancy. What is wrong with this picture? Kids thinking they are infallible and the mentality of "Oh, that will never happen to me." Or, is it just plain stupidity?
If we were to go back in history on this subject alone, NOT providing our children with a mountain of information from which to choose a multitude of options seems to have been a better choice.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
"Truths Are The Roots To Trust"
"Even with all of these issues being taught, we have a higher rate of teen pregnancy. What is wrong with this picture? Kids thinking they are infallible and the mentality of "Oh, that will never happen to me." Or, is it just plain stupidity?"
yes it is stupidity. because the kids who are claiming to be infallible are the ones who AREN'T using the condoms/birth control they were taught to use.
what she (VolleyBallChick20) is trying to say is that there is more to the issues (which i hold no higher than mere coincidences) stated. the same can be said about the point of history which you are talking about. one of the major factors of our history is that parents were around a lot more often to supervise. we are in a day and age now when kids are allowed freedoms that they were not given in the past. and because of this we need to equip them with the right tools based off of the choices they are going to make when their parents are not around (ie: a condom and facts when they choose to have sex).
Yes, this is true: "we are in a day and age now when kids are allowed freedoms that they were not given in the past." Hence, the 'liberal' society/thinking we are speaking of! And yes, we do need to equip them with the right tools but, that also includes taking it a step further and equipping their minds with the right tools as well. That is why I mentioned; moral values, integrity, (respect for self and others); and the list could go on.
There has to be a foundation by which to start from instead of letting our children run-a-muck (using an oldy). Progress with guidance and the foundation based on principals and values that everyone needs in order to become positive, productive citizens in our society.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
"Truths Are The Roots To Trust"
you can still hold principles and have high moral values as well as integrity and still partake in drinking, drugs and yes even having sex.
and simply because a person partakes in these activities does not make them any less of a positive or productive person to our society.
"I beg to differ on the abstinence issue. Condom use, birth control, even the choice of abortion or not; these are all aspects being taught in many schools across the country. There are schools where condoms are being handed out or sold in their bathrooms. This is a far cry from abstinence."
Abstinence is still the number 1 thing taught in public schools. Although some alternatives may be taught in a few locations, the majority of schools are still only teaching abstinence. I can speak from first-hand knowledge as I go to high-school in a county where it is illegal to talk about condoms or other forms of birth control. Teachers actually can lose their jobs. As far as "Kids thinking they are infallible and the mentality of "Oh, that will never happen to me." Or, is it just plain stupidity?" there needs to be a point where parents need to raise their own kids and stop relying on the schools to do it for them. Schools can only teach us so much, but if its not reinforced at home then their is no point in teaching it. I am so sick of parents trying to blame the education system and the media for their childrens problems. Take responsibility for your own kids! The example parents set at home is what kids learn from.
Do what you feel in your heart to be right - for you'll be criticized anyway. You'll be damned if you do, and damned if you don't.
-Eleanor Roosevelt-
To the Poster:
I regard your comments as worthless thus, the are not deserving of my retort.
TO ALL WHO WISH TO COMMENT:
please, lets do this blogosphere a favor, and ignore this rubbish from an evangical who clearly knows nothing about reality or progress, in hopes that this scree of nothing fades form the page.
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
---Nietzche
R. Sam Chaney
Nice example of exactly what she's talking about R. Sam!
You couldn't have provided a better illustration of supposed "Progressives" who choose to hide their heads in the sand and ignore any differing view, trying to silence others who don't fall in lockstep with the common liberal slant. Instead of seeing the value in some of the poster's statements & possibly assimilating those with your own you automatically reject the entire blog, and person for that matter out of fear and prejudice.
Censorship, ignorance and blind adherence to the collective view are wonderfully progressive traits as you have demonstrated.
>"Censorship, ignorance and blind adherence to the collective view are wonderfully progressive traits"
....i hope you are being sarcastic :)
I've always felt the same way.
I don't see anything progressive about most of the liberal/progressive movement. Plunging society into moral decay doesn't sound progressive to me.
I'm not into the bible study thing but people have to realize there is a difference between right and wrong and that good an evil do exist. Societies that tolerate anything & everything don't last for long.
>"Do you know that the first year prayer was removed from school was also the first year that the United States fell from the top position in the world in education? Do you know that teen pregnancy went UP instead of down when birth control became a "right" of the unmarried?"
just because they happened at the same time doesn't mean they have anything to do with one another. Unless you have EVIDENCE (other than opinion) showing they have direct correlation with one another, then they can be taken as nothing more than mere coincidence, and therefore help your argument in no way what-so-ever.
>"And a 25-year landmark study showed that adult children of divorce have higher rates of promiscuity, a lack of relationship skills, and even if they aren't among the higher rates of second-generation divorced individuals, they typically have an ever-present fear of relationship failure or other tragedy."
those who hold the highest divorce rate (34%) in the US: Christians (people who are pro-God)
those who hold the lowest divorce rate (21%) in the US: Atheists (people who are anti-God)
>"abortion, gay marriage, embryonic stem cell research, anti-God, anti-church, anti-military, and anti-American"
are you grouping all of those together? because i think its pretty close minded (not to mention anti-American) to say that someone who is anti-God is anti-American. i believe it is our AMERICAN CONSTITUTION that ensures a SEPARATION of church (God) and state (America).
secondly i'd like to hear your opinions on why the other things you mentioned would be regressive. and from a political stand point please, NOT a religious stand point. When people speak of being progressive in society they are talking about politics and ways of society...and since in America we separate (or at least are supposed to) both those things (again, as stated in our constitution) from religion, we are in no way talking about religion. so leave it out for a moment.....if you can that is.
>"Ever since approximately 1960, so-called "progressive thinking" and social experimentation have objectively NOT led to better conditions."
ummmm....civil rights movement....woman's freedom (from the house....hehe not talking about suffrage)......the birth of the environmental movement......oh yeah those definitely didn't lead to better conditions.
>"In II Chronicles 7:14, it says, "If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and TURN FROM THEIR WICKED WAYS, then will I hear from Heaven, and will FORGIVE their sin, and will HEAL THEIR LAND."
so youre saying the only reason you're "progressive" is because the bible tells you so?
honestly.....Christians need to start fighting with their OWN opinion. not just what it says in the bible (yes its possible, i do it every day...and yes i am Christian thanx). one day its gonna get you guys in the ass.
>"On THIS site, it is TRULY progressive to advocate PROGRESSING toward morality, to not follow the crowd, to not do what everyone else is doing, to not say what everyone else is saying."
it is moral to accept those for the way they are and what they do (even if it conflicts with the bible....the bible is a RELIGIOUS moral code.....and America is separate from religion)
you follow a crowd. its called Christianity. and I say follow because you can't state an opinion of your own that isn't Christian-based. you can't think for yourself outside of being a Christian.
you do what every other christian is doing (aside for what i do and other like me do....but im going to go ahead and guess that in your opinion we're not Christian anyways....so that doesn't matter)
plus you say what every other Christian says: bible quotes. and that is all you use as your basis of argument.
bottom line: when Christians begin to discuss morality, ethics, right and wrong, just and unjust, society, and progression and NOT bring up GOD and RELIGION.....then we'll talk....but until then i think life, liberty, love, freedom, and pursuit of happiness/wealth/property are for EVERYONE (because thats what our constitution states...and thats what our country is built from).....and not EVERYONE is Christian.
http://www.progressiveu.org/020234-being-progressive
- Challenge yourself everyday, if you don't then it is a wasted day.
www.scoutbanana.org
What really irks me is that I support the ends suggested by the poster--individual liberty, capitalism, morality--but not the means. That is, I am not a supporter of religion. Let me explain.
According to religious folks, there can be no basis for morality outside of religion; any morality not based in religion is deemed by them as "relativistic." I beg to differ: humans have a very unique ability at their disposal--namely reason--and morality can very well be based in reason. It does not, for example, take a rocket scientist to come to the conclusion that mutually beneficial relationships--like trade--are better than thievery or murder.
That being said, I absolutely despise the so-called "liberals" of the day who claim that no morality exists. This is why I will side with the "religious right wing" over the left any day of the week. Leftists are morally insane.
You can't base your opinions on generalizations. I consider myself to be very liberal but I still have my personal morals. The point that liberals are trying to make is that the religious right needs to stop their insane idea that there needs to be some sort of moral police that go around judging everyone based on the bible. Morals are personal choices that an individual makes. I don't need any book, namely the bible, to tell me what is right or wrong. I can make those decisions for myself.
The religious right keeps pushing the point that everyone needs to respect their religion, but they need to respect others lack of religion. If I choose to not believe in God or not believe in the Bible then its my choice and my freedom to do so, just as it is their freedom to choose to believe in such. Both sides need to stop being so hypocritical and stop preaching to those who don't want to be preached to.
Do what you feel in your heart to be right - for you'll be criticized anyway. You'll be damned if you do, and damned if you don't.
-Eleanor Roosevelt-
Hey, I also just used 2 Chronicles 7:14 in my post; and thanks for standing up for what's right. =]
http://www.progressiveu.org/220535-where-is-god-in-america-part-one
What people need is empathy for one another. Do not worry about your surroundings, for you can not change others; only they can change themselves. Have you ever thought that in Jesus' Teachings that he was kind to all people and treated everyone equally?
Why do you need to not tolerate people that do not agree with you? We are supposed to love all people, no matter who they are. Let people change themselves if they want. All you can ever change is yourself. You can try and influence others, but just remember you control only yourself, nothing else. So make life how you want it rather than enforcing it on others or judging them. Let them be. If they make decisions you do not like, then just ignore it.
Yes, people do need empathy. The problem is, the only ones who usually get it is people who think like, act like, and/or accept "the crowd." I never claimed to be able to change anyone; to the contrary, I KNOW I can't. But if they are to be ready for eternity, they have to allow GOD to change them.
You haven't read much of Jesus' teachings if you think that He was kind to everyone. He called the Scribes and Pharisees vipers & hypocrites; and He drove the money changers in the temple out with a whip. This is most certainly NOT treating everyone equally, although they had just as much access to His salvation as anyone else. John 3:16 is probably the most translated verse in all the Bible, "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son; that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." Did you ever stop to ask yourself that if Jesus preached tolerance, why did He die? He would have offended no one, and would not have preached the need to be saved from sin.
There is a strong message in the country (and on this site) today that says truth is relative (it isn't; a thing is necessarily so, or it is not.), and that whatever a person decides is right is, in their reality, right (it's not, and we don't get to decide; God does). God loves THE WORLD - everyone in it. Jesus died for everyone. But what He does not tolerate, and what it behooves a family, a church, or a society to not tolerate, is SIN. Because it hurts the sinner, and those around him.
It would be a lot easier to ignore everything and everyone around me, but it would also be selfish and irresponsible. Jesus did command us to love others, and that should lead to helping others. But this includes sharing the message of salvation; this is not an option for Christians, it is a command. To make our journey in this life a purely humanitarian one is to leave out the most important reason we are here.
And this message, while it won't be accepted by everyone, deserves the same "tolerance" you're expecting of me.
Kim Tracey
Boy. . . have you got that right, "Yes, people do need empathy. The problem is, the only ones who usually get it is people who think like, act like, and/or accept "the crowd." I will have to say; I have never been accused of being in this group. Have always fought for the 'underdog'; the one being picked on in high school; the 'weaker links' in society; and those who cannot fight for themselves. Seems a lot of people have an issue with this. And while I have my own personal convictions for doing so; some based on my own personal reasoning as well as spiritual, if it happens to go against the grain, it tends to ruffle a lot of feathers.
I believe, in today's society, most want to take the easy road and that happens to be getting on board with they way everyone else thinks, acts and feels about a given issue. People tend to feel stronger in numbers. . . its human nature.
I also agree with your final statement; "And this message, while it won't be accepted by everyone, deserves the same "tolerance" you're expecting of me."
Jesus certainly didn't have an easy road by any means and most people didn't agree with him. . and why. . . they feared, as they do today, the unknown and that which was 'foreign' to them. They feared what they could not see, feel, touch, understand. . . they feared faith. Simply because faith is not a tangible, proven entity, people are not willing to accept anything on faith alone. Sad. Sad because people are so willing to place their blind faith in so many humanly things such as new relationships; our government; heck, placing their information over the internet; trusting a stranger, perhaps, to watch their child in the grocery line just for a minute while they run to pick up one more item.
It really makes me wonder; why so many people try so hard to disprove faith and want to be so intolerant of any discussion that smacks of anything having to do with God. They can tolerate all types of hypocrocies in this world; give rights to every cause; fight a hard fight for everyone and anyone yet, when it comes to looking in the mirror or within their own homes, how much turmoil and distention could be prevented on faith alone. I'm rambling. . . merely writing what is going on in my head at the moment.
Thanks for sharing.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
"Truths Are The Roots To Trust"
I understand that you feel as though you can't even bringup God into any conversation or idea without it being met by intolerance, but I don't understand why some people feel the need to bring Him into every conversation. I respect people's religions and their beliefs but sometimes I feel like I can't even post something on this website without someone bringing up Jesus or God. I understand that He is a big part in your life, but He's not in everyone elses life. I feel like by not having God as a huge part of my life that people respect me less. I believe in God don't get me wrong, but I just don't consider myself to be a Christian. I just feel like sometimes people make it out to be all about God, when its really not.
Do what you feel in your heart to be right - for you'll be criticized anyway. You'll be damned if you do, and damned if you don't.
-Eleanor Roosevelt-
"But this includes sharing the message of salvation..."
Yup, it includes sharing your salvation, again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again...
No offense, since it is a "command" for you to share your salvation, that's fine and dandy, but if I say no thanks the first time why would I want to hear it 2452376 more times after that?
Liberalism, not Democrat or Republican, is the view that society needs to be changed to accommodate and it is a very compassionate view of the world. On the other hand, conservatism is wanting to go back to the "good old days" (which have historically never existed) and hence would be more REgressive, as you like to say.
Liberalism and Conservatism are both progressive.
>"conservatism is wanting to go back to the "good old days""
Even if conservatives truly were trying to impliment policies of the past and make our society more like it once was, that is still wanting to make change for the better. Just because it's something we've tried before doesn't mean it can't be something to have progress towards. I'm not taking sides by any means, just showing why conservatives can also be progressive. Even Nazis thought the change they were promoting was for the betterment of society, so they too were progressive.
-Tim
"It costs nothing to be honest, loyal, and true." -Avett Bros.
that the conservative ideas only worked for that society. And we arent that society anymore, so those ideals would not be progressive for us. Any conservative ideas that has worked is still around....the same as any liberal idea thatworked is still around. Its justthat, when it doesnt work, conservatives tend to say "well i liked it before so lets try it again" and progressives tend to say "it didnt work then its not working now, so lets try something else."
in order to go back to ideas of our old society much of the positives of present day society would be chopped off in favor of conservative opinion.
I understand what your saying about conservative opinion striving for a progression to positive....but anything positive in our past is still here :) and those positive ideas DO need to be held onto so long as they help everyone as equally as possible.
Not to offend anyone who is conservative, but from the patterns that ive seen it seems that liberal opinion reaches for positive equality for everyone to the largest extent,and conservatives tend to strive for positivity that will bring greatest progression to their niche or themselves personally...even if they do it unknowingly through rose colored glasses.
I would agree with you as far as what is a GOOD idea, I just mean that even if I entirely disagree with a conservative ideal, if that person thinks it would be a positive change I would still think it to be "progressive."
And I do slightly disagree that anything in the past would still be around if it was the better option. There are a lot of laws that really shouldn't exist but have been brought upon by "progressive" (in this case generally liberal) ideas that leech off freedoms that people should have.
-Tim
"It costs nothing to be honest, loyal, and true." -Avett Bros.
Do you know that teen pregnancy went UP instead of down when birth control became a "right" of the unmarried?
Could that have anything to do with abstinence-only education where the entire curriculum is "Keep your legs together until you've got a wedding ring" and the fact that teens don't know how to properly use birth control? Most people (the overwhelming majority) DO have sex before getting married. Yes, even in the bygone golden era of white picket fences that you and others refer to with such nostalgia, people had sex and people weren't typically married when they did it. Attaching a stigma to sex just makes it more difficult to prevent diseases and unplanned pregnancy.
Some things have seemed to increase -- like teen pregnancy, premarital sex, rape -- because now we can TALK about these issues instead of pretending like it never happens. That doesn't mean that it necessarily has increased. It's just that we're talking about it more.
Also, what is this groundbreaking 25 year study on children of divorced parents? Who did the study? I'd like to look it up.
Anyway, I'd take increased promiscuity in consensual couples over stoning non-virgins any day and I'll take the single life over being forced to marry a rapist. Both things, by the way, are advocated by your Bible. So give me progress, REAL progress, warts and all, over abuse, death, and hate.