Can a Conservative celebrate a day of rebellion like the 4th of July?

Constantly painting you as evil? I'm not the one criticizing a group of people I don't know. I'm not the one judging a country. I'm not the one spreading false claims about a country I know nothing about.

Many people on CC find your attitude offensive and your words hateful and cruel. The only person painting a picture here is you. And it's not edifying or Godly. You need help.

This is such an odd thread. I never as a child growing up could understand what right England thought they had over people that had come to America. There were people from different places in Europe over here already. England just decided they had authority here, is what I remember, which was a self-ordained monarchy? How's it rebelling against authority to buck an invading country that claims they own you when you just plain don't agree? If my neighbor decides he owns my house and comes over and tries to take it from me, when I won't allow him to take my home from me, is that me not yielding to authority? What a ridiculous twist of scripture as well as the definition of a conservative.

Absolutely nothing. I was chatting to someone else. Hence I used the quote function on the board.

Are you the spokesperson? Have you taken a poll or vote?

Empires annex regions and countries.

The USA was not stable from the get go. California, Hawaii etc.

Australia is self governed by part of the Commonwealth and owes allegiance to the Queen.

Much like the Romans built London.

Post revolution I can understand, the sentiment stated, but there is nothing conservative about a revolution. It's the opposite of conservatism.

Thank you for giving a decent reply. Nice to be able to chat about these subjects without people questioning my salvation or standing with God.

We have no monarch.
The battle cry of the American revolution was 'No King but Jesus'.
That is why we are able to own firearms for self protection.
- The monarchs hate that. I believe yours were taken from you after the Tasmanian mass shooting, no?

Because of earthquakes and volcanoes? or?

So what? Is this suppose to mean something?

Is it just me? Cause I've no idea what the point of this thread is. lol.

Nope. We can still own firearms. The legislated against the modern semi-auto stuff that allows you to shoot up cinemas and kindergardens.

Ha,ha! What makes it especially funny is that Anglo-Saxon Jesus Avatar next to such railing diatribe.
- Good use of images.
- - Ha,Ha!

Well, I don't want to cover all American conservatives with a wide brush (neither should you, you see). Currently, we are still a collection of different philosophical groups that were forged into a movement to fight communism and Western Liberalism about sixty years or so ago. I can divide them into three main groups for you in relation to the War for Independence.

1. Those who are monarchist and find the idea of revolution distasteful. These people are, more often than not, Catholic. So there is a bit of irony in that France, Spain, or some other devotee of the Holy See would have loved to take a shot at England.

Very few in number.

2. Those who celebrate the Fourth of July and view it from the perspective of Edmund Burke. They believe that the War for Independence was fundamentally about the British over-extending their authority and violating the right to self-government established in colonial charters, covenants, contracts, combinations, etc. etc. etc. Our separation and assertion of national sovereignty is then seen through a different lens than a revolution. More a reaction and severing. This relates American conservatism a bit more to European conservatism that is exemplified in almost any nation.

This sort of American conservative has a habit too of being more choosey with their Founders. They have less love for those with a more revolutionary impulse and thought that the nation would be better off without their influence.

Editorially, this is the camp I fall with. It took awhile though and not without reading a copious amount of original material.

3. Others embrace revolution of the American variety with all its revolutionary nomenclature because ours was a just revolution. The crown was tyrannical and inept with out people as monarchy often (but not always) is. The fiber of our national being including political traditions was violated; we then had a right to alter or abolish the order as such. So we did.

Will of the people and influence of culture, tradition, family, church, etc (generally conservative lodestars) are seen generally as more important than the government. Should the government interfere with these higher bastions of conservatism, it renders itself fit to undergo another revolution. It is not desired, but remains a nuclear option for this camp.

This is probably the most common with variations within.

Either way, I hope this helps further your understanding and lessens your confusion.

What are you talking about?

Thank you Ritter. It does help, to see different factions and opinions within the label 'Conservative'. Perhaps we could have less wide brushing of the word 'Liberal' around here too? Might help everyone.

I don't really know what to label myself, other than to say I have a strong respect for the Law, which may seem on the surface to be Conservative, but I think the actions George Bush took changed that. I see Guantanamo Bay as disrespecting the law. I see the Iraq War as disrespecting the law and international treaties. I see the use of torture as disrespecting the law. I see the US government spying on me without cause or a warrant as disrespecting the law.

Everything great about Australia has mostly come from the left side of politics. It's why in 2013 we have the wealthiest middle class in the world and Universal Healthcare. Australians are the wealthiest people in the world

But maybe I'm a conservative? I don't know. Most likely these labels don't transfer across cultures very well.

Agreed. Political definitions are tough animals. Sometimes they are forged to reflect temporary political alliances and not something that is objectively true. Either way, the "no lables" movement in the United States is a complete sham. We need labels, otherwise we will never know the nutritional content in our food. Ararar.

In America you will find more philosophical variation within the term "conservative" because of where it came from in the past 50 years. Disparate groups that hand to band together to fight a very powerful Leftism in the US and abroad. Rothbard and Kirk participated in the same movement, but if you left the two in a room for a philosophical discussion, one would have their fist planted in the other's eye after a discussion on something like public virtue.

There is less of this within modern liberalism for many reasons. American liberalism as an organized political movement is (almost ironically) older. A lot of the infighting over philosophy doesn't reach quite the same pitch. The Democratic Party is now, by nature, now more coalitions based. The difference in raw philosophy has more two do with identity politics than it does, say, their opinion on the nature and destiny of man.

Unlike American conservatives, liberals are more integrated with their brothers and sisters abroad as well. Partially because they seek to emulate liberals abroad.

I am not saying people should paint all liberals with a wide brush. I am also not saying that different philosophical enclaves do not exist. Surely Trotskyists are floating around somewhere as are Fourierists. What I am saying is that it is much more easy to do given the current state of things. At least here in the US.

There are days when if I could trade places, I would. Having more tenets agreed upon would make the political process less of a headache on my end.

If you see the Law as something immutable and transcendent. If you think that government is most often a poor functionary in delivering this Law. If you think the government has not place in trying to alter this Law. Then you may be conservative by temperament.

In the ultimate sense, they do transfer across cultures fairly well. Your OP had to do with a very interesting particular that reveals an interesting aspect of American conservatism.