Originally Posted By jonvn "But how does a "Neo"conservative differ from just a plain ol' conservative?" A traditional conservative type is more along the lines of what a libertarian is. Small unobtrusive government, hands off approach to business and how people live. The "neocons" are newer conservatives that have a very strong social agenda and try to place their ideas as to how people should live onto others, and want to use the power of governmetn to enforce their view of how things are. Basically, the neocons are not really conservative people, in that they want to use government power for their own purposes, all the while saying that large government is bad. Our current President is what you would call a neocon. He has overseen a massive increas in our debt and spending, and wants to impose his religious beliefs on the whole of society. Barry Goldwater, who ran in 1964 for President, was a typical conservative, who believed in a strong defense, and that we were a great country and that the government should stay out of people's bedrooms and their lives as much as possible. They are neocons and not conservatives for these reasons. They simply aren't conservatives. They, just like the liberals they decry, want to use the government to enforce their ideas, and use "activist judges" to impose their will on people, although the will they want is a different one than what they call "liberal."
Originally Posted By jonvn A theocon is one of these neccons who base everything they do on their religion, and who think all things in America must be done based on their personal religious beliefs. In a nutshell that's what these are.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Is Focus on the Family against all the other mandatory vaccinations on a matter of principle?
Originally Posted By ecdc "Oh, and the term "theo-con" is simply a new way to demonize people of faith who have the temerity to voice political opinions." No, it's a way to criticize people who believe they should have their beliefs forced on everyone else by passing laws for and against different practices, be it gay marriage, prayer in schools, abstinence only education, public displays of the Ten Commandments, forced closure of businesses on Sunday, stem cell research, abortion, or any number of other issues. Is every person of faith who voices political opinions a "theocon" as Doug suggests? Of course not, and no one implied or said otherwise. But there are some in our government and in positions of influence who believe that they have their truth from their religion, and that's good enough. These same people would be outraged to live in a large Jewish or Muslim community to find businesses closed on Saturday instead of Sunday, or if prayers were offered up to Allah, but they expect everyone to cave and live the way they live when it comes to some of the issues I mentioned. Opposing a vaccine that actually prevents cancer (which does run in my family and is how my grandmother died) because you're worried teenagers might have sex is about on track with a theocon.
Originally Posted By ecdc As for the links Doug posted, they only show that the SF Chronicle was correct, though perhaps presented as one-sided (it was an opinion piece, after all). Focus on the Family is happy to have the vaccine, but somehow thinks it'll encourage children to have sex. We needn't point out that every study that's ever been conducted has shown that neo-con paranoia regarding sex has never panned out. Kids who have access to sexual protection such as condoms don't have any more sex than kids who don't. Kids who have sex ed that goes beyond abstinence only don't have more sex or higher rates of teen pregnancy than those who do have abstinence only. The concerns they have are about as valid as the concern that gay marriage is a threat to traditional marriage: they shout it from the rooftops but don't have a shred of evidence beyond the fact that their god says it's naughty.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> It's particularly crucial to get their recommendation because the three-shot series costs $360, and the ACIP's recommendation would most likely drive funding for poor (under the federal Vaccinations for Children program) and middle-class (many insurers will cover it with the ACIP's endorsement) alike. << Some people seem to be forgetting this part. With the 'mandatory' recommendation from this boart - the "ACIP" - comes funding to make it more widely available. It's relatively expensive and the three shot series is administered over about eighteen months. And without the necessary recommendation, the vaccine becomes less widely available to both the poor and the poorly insured. And I agree that these further links that are supposed to refute the initial posts only serve to support it. The facts are that christian conservative organizations with a long history of sticking their noses into every facet of modern day life are now throwing up roadblocks between the general public and this new 'miracle' vaccine. There's no misrepresenting of facts at all. And don't even get me started on the boondoggle of 'abstinence training'.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>The facts are that christian conservative organizations with a long history of sticking their noses into every facet of modern day life...<< As opposed to liberal organizations who are taking the socially responsible position of engaging the public in every facet of modern day life...
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>...they only show that the SF Chronicle was correct, though perhaps presented as one-sided...<< Noted. One sided depictions of complex issues are "correct." That would make certain members of the WE committee consistently "correct."
Originally Posted By fkurucz "I dont know. Ive dated some very religious girls, both Catholic and Mormon. Let me tell you from experience, these were for sure the most uninhibited wild girlfriends of my dating career." FWIW, Dr. Dobson and his crowd are Protestant Fundamentalists. They are neither Mormon nor Catholic.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Is Focus on the Family against all the other mandatory vaccinations on a matter of principle?
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>Oh, and the term "theo-con" is simply a new way to demonize people of faith who have the temerity to voice political opinions.<< It is funny to read articles that talk about how the left can win over the Protestant Fundamentalist vote, while the left continues to be quite public regarding its contempt for that voting block.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>Is Focus on the Family against all the other mandatory vaccinations on a matter of principle?<< I don't know that they have taken a position on all other mandatory vaccinations.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>No, it's a way to criticize people who believe they should have their beliefs forced on everyone else by passing laws for and against different practices<< More than critique, its reeks of name calling. It reminds me of Michael Savage when he rants and calls liberals "red diaper doper babies" and says that liberalism is a "mental disorder", as opposed to actually critiquing their platform.
Originally Posted By fkurucz There is a movement of people who are opposed to vaccinations of any kind, on the grounds that there is some "risk" involved in being vaccinated. Yet the "risk" of a car accident doesn't keep them from riding in a car.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>"Oh, and the term "theo-con" is simply a new way to demonize people of faith who have the temerity to voice political opinions." >>No, it's a way to criticize people who believe they should have their beliefs forced on everyone else by passing laws for and against different practices...<< So those who wish to impose gay marriage, ban all animal testing, force American industry to adhere to the Kyoto Protocol, remove all references to religion from the public arena, and provide contraception to school children are theo-cons? Who knew??? ANY use of labels in a sweeping manner degrades the exchange of ideas.
Originally Posted By Shooba >>ANY use of labels in a sweeping manner degrades the exchange of ideas<< So very true.
Originally Posted By Shooba >>ANY use of labels in a sweeping manner degrades the exchange of ideas<< So very true.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>I don't know that they have taken a position on all other mandatory vaccinations.<< Interesting. Because the argument they are presenting is that this immunization should be left up to parents to decide, not mandated by the government. I was thinking that if they took that stand regarding immunizations in general, it would give their critics less ammo. But if they haven't, well ...
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>There is a movement of people who are opposed to vaccinations of any kind, on the grounds that there is some "risk" involved in being vaccinated.<< Yes. And while I disagree with them, I was thinking that if Focus on the Family was using that line of reasoning, they would at least be consistent.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan (Or if they were saying "We don't think it's up to the government to immunize any child without parental approval.")
