quite simply if you believe your positions are absolutely necessary AND you are losing out on these issues in the Democratic process, the alternativve is revolution.

I use the American revoilution as an example, because most Americans have favorable feelings towards the American revolutino even though in its earliest phases it was quite undemocratic.

Report comment to moderator

or more accurately then peopl who refuse to compromise.

Unfortunatley or fortunately democracy runs on compromise. Those who will not and who demonize their opponents typically find democracy a very unpleasant place, at least inj the 20th and 21st centuries.

Report comment to moderator

And in general I have not seen conservative forces effectively executing revolutions.

I’m at a complete loss as to what this has to do with my post on whether or not Sarah Palin’s reason for wanting a man fired was because he divorced her sister.

Report comment to moderator

Pejorative terms for people with principles.

Report comment to moderator

now there are exceptions to this process. But these are typically called revolutions and they usually do not honor democratic principals (at the beginning of the American revolution independence was a minority position).

And in general I have not seen conservative forces effectively executing revolutions.

Report comment to moderator

actually, one can generate a consensus position which typically is not the personal perspective of any given individual.

It generally does not satisfy the fundamentalists or ideologs.

It does have staying capacity.

Report comment to moderator

and if you still have concerns about my analysis here, then simply examine say Drills, Make It Mans, or even Peter Leavitts, to name a few, posts on these topics.

Report comment to moderator

now if instead of a fundamentalist assurance that they are right in imposing their beliefs, we have the alternatvie of a profession of one’s belief but a realization that all may not agree and one wil continue to have a civil discourse with your opponents, then one has a different dynamic.

But you can easily explore and examine the dynamic which is in action when the social conservatvie community “brings their beliefs to the public square”.

Democracy depends on a willingness to compromise AND honor your opponents.

So for example if the late 60s if abortion had been proposed as beoing legal with strict medical and parental controls, it would have been accepted and we would not have had Roe v Wade.

If civil unions had been proposed int he late 80s, we would not see the successful push for gay marriage in thge 2000s.

And I believe this demonstrates the case nicely.

Report comment to moderator

The only perspective that is not someone’s “personal perspective” is a perspective that no person holds.

Report comment to moderator

certainly, but boundary cases preovide interesting insight in to the overall phenomenon.

Ok, so shall we talk gay marriage?

And you see I can continue this set of exemplars for quite a while.

And you can see these exemplars in action in this blog on a regular basis.

If the phenomenon is that we will build my personal belief system into the civil law AND there is not a strong consensus (not a 50% +1 majority) for the proposal, then in the context of the 20th and 21st century, it has historically been problematic.

And the effect is typically blow back on the belief system.

Report comment to moderator