On holiday i decided to read a book called Galileo's Daughter, a biography of Galileo using his daughter as the main source. One of the things that I noticed was that the book Dialogue which advanced the theory of Copernius (who advocated the theory of the Earth going round the Sun) with proof. The book was banned and Galileo was forced to redeem his self with penances. Looking at the timeline at the back of the book I found that the Dialogue was not accepted and removed from the list of banned books till 1835, over 200 years after Galileo wrote it! In 1972, 135 years later, Pope John Paul II concedes that the Catholic Church was wrong and Galileo was a great man. This made me pretty annoyed but not at religion.

Through religion there can be some good works such as the Street Pastors in London and the friendly manner of the people on Harris and Lewis (who still celebrate the Sabbath). So I though it is not the religions that are to blame but conservatism. Look at the new Pope calling Harry Potter misleading about Christianity when there are no references to it!!! And his actions on conterception is stupid as it is likely that because of it, people are more likely to die of AIDS.

Its not just the religions its also politics. Look at Bush finally admitting there is such a thing as pollution and then instead of trying to cut the problem, tries to create new technology instead when cutting greenhouse gases might at least be sustainable. The war on Iraq is another topic in which this is relevant. In the mad dash for oil, Bush may have created a worse situation and Tony Blair our own PM is now trying to repeal the Human's Right Act! This leads me to conclude that conservatism is bad for people and to have a better world, Liberalism and common sense would be best.

I now will leave my soap box for future orators. Feel feel to comment or have you're own little rant.

I totally agree buddy. Who are we to judge the correct path of development? I say flexibility is the key to improvement.

I agree and disagree.

yea, I'm with 11b. I agree in portions.

What don't you agree and what do you agree then?

blaming the world's problems on 'conservatism' is over-simplifying things. For one, conservatism seems to mean different things politically in the US and Europe. Our conservatives here (politically) tend to be more down to earth...less government is a conservative idea, for one. Liberals want everything legislated and a larger government.

Anyway, though I understand what you're saying, I think you're been too broad. I think the problems with the world are alot more complicated than just people trying to live in the past. Alot of the problems with the world are people being blind to the past and trying to boldly forge forward into idiocies people in the past have already blundered over. Or whole new idiocies.

I think what it is is, idealism. People grab hold onto ideas, for good or bad, and then they get tunnel vision.

Satis is right though, conservatism in America is more of less a good thing. Conservative values would include less government, more localized government, more power to the people, more empowering the individual wheres as liberalism is more about big government, lots of government programs, government has there hands in everything.

See, and the whole "idea" of conservatism and liberalism is idealism. Really these to categories shouldnt exist. It should be "whats good for the common wealth of the people".

sorry, it late, im tired, and I dont think I conveyed my answer very well.

We have the same notion here in the UK. However, the conservativesa dont win anymore because all or their conservative values have become out dated, and the people vote for a more social government. Im very proud of the British people, with the Conservative past that they have, they still have the bravery to change. And now lookk where Britiain is. Its improving vastly.



That is largely due to a couple of reasons. The trademark conservative strategy is to strongly implement capitalism. Free-markets allow this and the conservatives always promise it with the privatisation of this/that. Now if you look at the actual politicians of the Conservatives, youll see that a startling numbr of them come from wealthy families and have significant economic interests back home. Thus, the idea of less government is not a political issue, but an economic one.



Very good, to this i agree.



Yes this is also true to some extent.

Thank you. Sorry for the confusion of conservatism because I'm thinking of conservatism as in intransigence and unwilling to accept change nevermind actually doing it and I had no idea that the definition may be different around the world since liberalism in the UK is to help all people and try and ensure that all people can how they want to live. Conservatism to me is the harkening to the good old days. What 11b said was right tho, idealism is probably the best labels of tunnelvision as I've described

Yes, I agree with 11b as well. It's idealism that's the problem. Be it political or religious, it's probably the single biggest problem the human race faces. Yay stupidity!

So, Derf, I'm curious...by your statements, do you support larger, more complicated and more controlling central government? It's anathema to me, but it sounds like you consider it a good idea.

Well...I dont really like a large government, nor a small one. The small one has too little control and the large one too much influence. What i do generally agree with is a well scrutinised, non-conservative, non-radical, socially minded government.

Yep that was me, damn computers.

I prefer a smaller fragmented one that allows people to voice their opinions (like the original Athenian democracy) which in turn would be able to voice opinions in larger governments. Yes this does sound like present governments but I would like it at a smaller level so that cities would have their own say on important decisions like city states in the 500s BC

So basically total-decentralisation with direct democracy?

I think the average world citizen is too stupid and self-centered to contructively participate in a true democracy. The typical retardo would probably vote as follows



etc etc etc. People are too stupid and self-centered to govern themselves directly. Noting would ever get decided, because everyone would always be at odds with one another.

A representative democracy I think is the best way to go. But more representative than it currently is (at least in the US). Right now we seem to be more representative of money than the people.