Only One is Needed

[kimba1]

We need to revitalize marriage, support the formation of families, and encourage a culture of commitment.

uhm

you can`t fix what is broken to begin with.
no one ever think about why people get married to begin with.
if marraige is so important,why is it soo incredibly easy to marry.
blood tests I`m told are gone.
divorce has way more thought involved.
If anything it looks like divorce increase the value of marraige
nowadays people who stay married are valued .
before divorce it`s not very impressive to be married along time
it just mean you lived long
at least in a arrainged marraige you know you don`t to like that person

[Xavier_Onassis]

I don't think it was ever hard to get married.

It seems to me people get divorced more often now because of two reasons: (1) they expect more, and they put up with less, and (2) the fact that women can actually get decent jobs and support themselves removes the economic restrictions against divorce.

Also, a more materialistic society and longer lifespans have a lot to do with it. People get married later in life, after they have become more set in their ways.

I really don't think the increase in the divorce rate has much to do with a decline in morality.

[Plane]

I suppose that you would accuse the Angel of Christmas Past of being a Liberal, the Angel of Christmas Present of being a Liberal New York Times-type reporter, and the Angel of Christmas Future of being an alarmist and a demogogue as well.

No you keep headin off on atangent that I am not intersted in.

Scrooge was wanting the Government to handle such problems early in the story .

Later on he was interested in doing something like kindness himself with his own money.

A Christmass carol is the journy of Scrooge from liberalism to coservatism.

[_JS]

Do you remember the line of Scrooge in "Christmas Carol" when confronted with a request for a charitable contribution?

"Are there no workhouses , jails and poorhouses?"

Scrooge thought that the taxes demanded from him were sufficient and his personal caring would be superfluous.

As a matter of fact Plane, that isn't what Scrooge's character believed at all. The Poor Laws and workhouses were the result of a stark change in attitudes towards the poor. Prior to the 1830's Parishes offered relief in the form of payments to the poor, especially in times of economic crises. Yet, around 1830 the British thinkers really began to believe in laissez faire policies.

Gone were the days of the Catholic pastoral view of the poor and it was replaced by a view of the poor as feckless, immoral, drunken, licentious, leeches of society. So the Workhouse was developed and was not paid out of general taxation, but from Parishes who were required to operate a workhouse. The workhouse was set up to be deliberately brutal and shameful.

Every detail was looked at to make it humiliating and a place of dread so that the feckless poor would not seek help. The free food had to be eaten in silence. Silverware was typically not offered, so that one had to use his hands. Extra helpings above the meager rationing were not allowed, even on Christmas (for it was thought that it would contribute to laziness). Beatings were common (and encouraged of workhouse masters) as was verbal abuse.

Charles Dickens, among others, was notable in his dislike of the Poor Laws and workhouses and campaigned strongly against them (read Oliver Twist as well as "A Christmas Carol"). So much so that he earned the praise of Karl Marx for his work on bringing these issues to the forefront.

"A Christmas Carol" is not just an individualist view of charity, but was a condemnation of the British societal view of the poor and the institutions of the workhouses and Poor Laws. Dickens fought hard against this stigma the poor carried, one which seems to be more and more common today.

[_JS]

A Christmass carol is the journy of Scrooge from liberalism to coservatism.

Wow. Read above and honestly read the story again in context of the time period and British Victorian thought. You are way, way off Plane.

[Plane]

A Christmass carol is the journy of Scrooge from liberalism to coservatism.

Wow. Read above and honestly read the story again in context of the time period and British Victorian thought. You are way, way off Plane.

Not in the context of the modern modes of thought.

If you were to go through a Dickens novel and replace "Poorhouse" with "Project" and otherwise carefully replace every insitiution contgemporary to his society with its modern equivelent you would convert Charles Dickens into Bill O'Riley.



BTW Georgia was settled with the overflow of debtors prisons in the early 1700's  , are you shure that the King was careing before 1830?

[_JS]

Not in the context of the modern modes of thought.

If you were to go through a Dickens novel and replace "Poorhouse" with "Project" and otherwise carefully replace every insitiution contgemporary to his society with its modern equivelent you would convert Charles Dickens into Bill O'Riley.

BTW Georgia was settled with the overflow of debtors prisons in the early 1700's  , are you shure that the King was careing before 1830?

But Dickens did not write the story in modern times, he wrote it in the 19th century Plane. And to be fair to Dickens, he was an extraordinary author whereas Bill O'Reilly...well, he exists.

Debtors prisons are not the same as the Workhouses, though they were equally reviled by many.

Your understanding of the character of Scrooge and the story of "A Christmas Carol" is telling. You have twisted it to conform to your world view. In reality Dickens would be horrified by your individualist approach to the issue and the modern conservative view of the poor would put him in mind of the very people he was speaking against.

Notice, for example, the Ghost of Christmas Present's identification of ignorance and want as the two primary evils. This showed Dickens view of universal education and redistribution of wealth as the two main combatants against the two chief evils of the world in which Scrooge lived. It was a very controversial statement to have made.

By contrast look at the conservative viewpoint (both then and today). Most believe in differential education based on wealth (i.e. you wouldn't believe in abolishing private education that is available only to the wealthiest citizens). Most believe in allowing want in some as a price to be paid for the great wealth of others. In fact, the modern argument to abolish benefits systems or severely restrict them is similar to that of the workhouses of yesteryear.

So in that vein your comparison of Dickens to O'Reilley is ridiculous. That is not what "A Christmas Carol" is about at all. It doesn't follow an "individual over society" view nor does it follow a "conservative over statist" view.

Plane, this is a primary example of taking something and revising it to fit your political view. I'd have thought evangelicals would be against that.

[Plane]

Not in the context of the modern modes of thought.


By contrast look at the conservative viewpoint (both then and today). Most believe in differential education based on wealth (i.e. you wouldn't believe in abolishing private education that is available only to the wealthiest citizens). Most believe in allowing want in some as a price to be paid for the great wealth of others. In fact, the modern argument to abolish benefits systems or severely restrict them is similar to that of the workhouses of yesteryear.

So,  really know nothing at all about conservatism ?

Why do you suppose that a voucher system is popular with conservatives?

A welthyer nd better educated population will generally vote for less dependance on government , that is why Liberals favor less effective education.

[_JS]

So,  really know nothing at all about conservatism ?

Why do you suppose that a voucher system is popular with conservatives?

A welthyer nd better educated population will generally vote for less dependance on government , that is why Liberals favor less effective education.

No offence Plane, but your use of "A Christmas Carol" in this context was really horrible. You've used revision to make it into something it never was.

This isn't about vouchers and less government, it is about the story itself. (Sweden uses a vouchers scheme, so I know more about it tham you think).

But look at what you're saying, "dependence on government." You still show this arrogance over those in poverty. As I said, your comparison of Dickens to modern conservatives is revisionism at its worst.

[Plane]

So,  really know nothing at all about conservatism ?

Why do you suppose that a voucher system is popular with conservatives?

A welthyer nd better educated population will generally vote for less dependance on government , that is why Liberals favor less effective education.

No offence Plane, but your use of "A Christmas Carol" in this context was really horrible. You've used revision to make it into something it never was.

This isn't about vouchers and less government, it is about the story itself. (Sweden uses a vouchers scheme, so I know more about it tham you think).

But look at what you're saying, "dependence on government." You still show this arrogance over those in poverty. As I said, your comparison of Dickens to modern conservatives is revisionism at its worst.

Methnks thou doest protest too much?

I really don't think that the governments war on poverty has been effective under any administration.

An I don't thik that the "Chrismass Carol" story endorses  better sort of poorhouse , it is about personal involvement and careing by the individual  , that is, a conservative position.

[_JS]

Methnks thou doest protest too much?

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks." Is there any work you won't defile? (that's a joke!)

I really don't think that the governments war on poverty has been effective under any administration

Irrelevant to the point, but noted.

An I don't thik that the "Chrismass Carol" story endorses  better sort of poorhouse , it is about personal involvement and careing by the individual  , that is, a conservative position.

First of all, caring by an individual is not a position of one political philosophy over any other. I'm guessing Adam cared for Eve and vice versa, so let's not be quite so arrogant.

Secondly, to claim that viewpoint Plane you have to ignore Charles Dickens life and history as well as the text of "A Christmas Carol", plus the context of the times in the United Kingdom itself. You may do that of course, but it is revisionism on your part of a very classic work of literature. I'm beginning to wonder if you've ever read it or another work by Dickens. Regardless, if you need revisionism to make your conservatism feel better - then hey, it is your bizarre little world. I'd advise for a more open mind and a look at the historical background, which is really quite interesting.

By the way, Dickens often fought for changes in Government policy. One of which was the overturning of the Sabbath laws.

[Plane]

Methnks thou doest protest too much?

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks." Is there any work you won't defile? (that's a joke!)

I wasnt sure you were a lady
[/quote]

I really don't think that the governments war on poverty has been effective under any administration

Irrelevant to the point, but noted.

An I don't thik that the "Chrismass Carol" story endorses  better sort of poorhouse , it is about personal involvement and careing by the individual  , that is, a conservative position.

First of all, caring by an individual is not a position of one political philosophy over any other. I'm guessing Adam cared for Eve and vice versa, so let's not be quite so arrogant.

Secondly, to claim that viewpoint Plane you have to ignore Charles Dickens life and history as well as the text of "A Christmas Carol", plus the context of the times in the United Kingdom itself. You may do that of course, but it is revisionism on your part of a very classic work of literature. I'm beginning to wonder if you've ever read it or another work by Dickens. Regardless, if you need revisionism to make your conservatism feel better - then hey, it is your bizarre little world. I'd advise for a more open mind and a look at the historical background, which is really quite interesting.

By the way, Dickens often fought for changes in Government policy. One of which was the overturning of the Sabbath laws.

[/quote]

The Christmass Carol is about takeing compassion on ones self this is a well known diffrence in Liberalism as it si practiced now and the way it was in Dickens day.

If "A Christmass Carol " had been written by a modern Liberal Scrooge wold have been sued by a heroic laywer , or a government agency would have given Cratchet a minimum wage , which would majcly allow him to enjoy a high standard of liveing..

Liberals today are something like the caricter of Scrooge ealy in the story , hard to seaparate from their own money .

I don't doubt taht Dickens lobbied for changes in government policys , every good conservative should be pulling for th government to get off thr neck of the people.

Got any examples of Dickins lobbing for public houseing , minimum wage or some other rediculously Liberal thing?

[Xavier_Onassis]

Jeezus, you are so far off the mark as to be on a different planet.

The closest thing to Scrooge (before his transformation) these days would be some scumball like Dick Cheney or Mitch McConnell.



Dickens was a great writer and observer of society. Bill O'Reilly, by comparison, is a loudmouthed blind man.

What you know about liberal political theory is something that appears to have been emitted from one of Rush's orifices and allowed to ferment for decades.

[Plane]

Jeezus, you are so far off the mark as to be on a different planet.

The closest thing to Scrooge (before his transformation) these days would be some scumball like Dick Cheney or Mitch McConnell.



Dickens was a great writer and observer of society. Bill O'Reilly, by comparison, is a loudmouthed blind man.

What you know about liberal political theory is something that appears to have been emitted from one of Rush's orifices and allowed to ferment for decades.

All right then , how do you caricterise Dickens attitude twards government interventon?

[_JS]

That's just it, Dickens didn't have a set philosophy. He was even criticized in his day for always attacking institutions but never offering any constructive alternatives of his own. Harriet Martineau, a utilitarian once stated:

It is scarcely conceivable that anyone should, in our age of the world, exert a stronger social influence than Mr. Dickens has in his power. His sympathies are on the side of the suffering and the frail; and this makes him the idol of those who suffer, from whatever cause. We may wish that he had a sounder social philosophy, and that he could suggest a loftier moral to sufferers

And it is true. Dickens was quick to attack institutions that he found to be lacking (and there were many) but never really offered many solutions of his own. It wasn't that he hated government, but he thoroughly disliked the aristocratic style of government that dominated Europe at the time. You might think that he should be delighted with the United States, but when he returned from a trip to America he was actually very disappointed with what he saw.

Dickens did work to expand some government institutions, especially universal education. However, he disliked the attitudes and some materials taught in Britain at the time. He found them to be based far too much on class, but not what you're thinking - he saw them as teaching lower class children that they basically deserved and would remain a part of the "unwashed masses."

Dickens disliked organised religion possibly more than the Government. Many of his cruelest or most ivory tower clueless characters are figures related to Christianity (e.g. Stiggins, Howler, etc). He also saves some sharp words for Victorian charitable "do-gooders" who push their religion and have no concern for the needs of the people (the Puseyites were an example he uses from the time).

So I'm not sure Dickens really fits your mold of a modern conservative.


As an aside I find it interesting that your definition of a conservative hinges primarily on the role of the state. By that sole focus you would place modern conservatives with Karl Marx (who argued for a final society with no state at all), Bakunin, Council Communism, every strain of anarchism, Libertarianism, and quite a few other political philosophers with whom I'm guessing many of your colleagues might not agree with.

Interesting.