1. I am warning you against being too triumphalistic. Remember "Ozymandias, King of Kings, look upon my works, ye mighty, and despair."
My comment about Muslim and charismatic-Christian immigrants has nothing to do with who I think will "inherit the future," so to speak. I brought that up as a possible example of a "secular conservatism"--they might complain about those two groups' values being incompabile with "Britishness."
(Islam has been done to death in these discussions, but Pentecostal services in the Anglican cathedrals would probably aggravate traditionalists as well. Plus the African Pentecostals have the "child witches" skeleton in their collective closet.)
My point was more general--what if at some point in the future, secular-liberal-democratic values are no longer dominant?
It needn't be "OMG the Abrahamists have taken over"--WI the values replacing it are Confucian in nature? A very powerful China could serve as a gigantic "values exporter" in a way that France did in the past (American passports are in English and French, the Russian nobility conversed in French) and the U.S. does now.
(I smell an FH discussion here)
2. The ideological correctness bit was because your comment about being "against societal progress" made it seem like you had your conclusion already.
Yes, there is a tendency among conservatives to have their conclusions already and shoehorn the evidence to fit (I'm thinking the young-earth types), but I get the impression you had the "conservatives are evil" conclusion and were picking the evil based on the argument.
(In previous discussions, you said you expected the GOP to claim it was "always" for gay marriage--implying dishonesty--and now you're claiming they'd oppose societal progress even if it meant allying with foreigners whose culture they find uncomfortable--implying excessive fear of change.)
3. I was under the impression the Islamists wanted to seize control of Afghanistan and Somalia by force and turn them into theocracies. In any case, a state being a fair broker means *nobody* is allowed to use violence. One doesn't need to actively repress the dominant religion to ensure fair treatment for religious minorities.
(Per our earlier discussions, I do not see the need to repress the "Christian home-schoolers" however annoying you--and me too, believe it or not--find them. Just ensure there is a strong culture of rule of law to ensure that abuses do not occur regardless of who is elected.)
My comment about Muslim and charismatic-Christian immigrants has nothing to do with who I think will "inherit the future," so to speak. I brought that up as a possible example of a "secular conservatism"--they might complain about those two groups' values being incompabile with "Britishness."
(Islam has been done to death in these discussions, but Pentecostal services in the Anglican cathedrals would probably aggravate traditionalists as well. Plus the African Pentecostals have the "child witches" skeleton in their collective closet.)
My point was more general--what if at some point in the future, secular-liberal-democratic values are no longer dominant?
It needn't be "OMG the Abrahamists have taken over"--WI the values replacing it are Confucian in nature? A very powerful China could serve as a gigantic "values exporter" in a way that France did in the past (American passports are in English and French, the Russian nobility conversed in French) and the U.S. does now.
(I smell an FH discussion here)
2. The ideological correctness bit was because your comment about being "against societal progress" made it seem like you had your conclusion already.
Yes, there is a tendency among conservatives to have their conclusions already and shoehorn the evidence to fit (I'm thinking the young-earth types), but I get the impression you had the "conservatives are evil" conclusion and were picking the evil based on the argument.
(In previous discussions, you said you expected the GOP to claim it was "always" for gay marriage--implying dishonesty--and now you're claiming they'd oppose societal progress even if it meant allying with foreigners whose culture they find uncomfortable--implying excessive fear of change.)
3. I was under the impression the Islamists wanted to seize control of Afghanistan and Somalia by force and turn them into theocracies. In any case, a state being a fair broker means *nobody* is allowed to use violence. One doesn't need to actively repress the dominant religion to ensure fair treatment for religious minorities.
(Per our earlier discussions, I do not see the need to repress the "Christian home-schoolers" however annoying you--and me too, believe it or not--find them. Just ensure there is a strong culture of rule of law to ensure that abuses do not occur regardless of who is elected.)