ANOTHER CONSEVATIVE JOIN US SUPREME COURT
Amy Coney Barrett was sworn in on Tuesday as the US Supreme Court’s ninth justice, her oath administered in private by Chief Justice John Roberts. Barrett was confirmed on Monday by the Senate in a 52-48 virtual partyline vote. At 48, she’s the youngest justice since Clarence Thomas joined the court in 1991 at the age of 43.
Faith and conservatism: Are the two intrinsically linked or should they be viewed in isolation, and with the right amount of trepidation? Do they feed off each other and make one less liberal? I have no problem with the liberal or conservative point of view but I do believe sensible folks strike a balance. But many are falling into a progressive swamp while throwing the muck at those who are unlike them.
Conservatives may be religious or less religious which does not mean they are less liberal or progressive in their ideas. The question reared its head during the US Senate confirmation hearings of judge Amy Coney Barrett, a religious person who is known to openly embrace matters of faith. Her opponents among the progressives claimed she would not dish out the right sort of justice and uphold liberal judicial standards if she was elevated as judge on the US Supreme Court. Worse, Barrett was President Donald Trump’s nominee, and was replacing Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a liberal icon among those on the progressive side. The president is not perceived as a religious person, but then the political devil can quote the scriptures. He is the modern symbol of hatred and continues to make a mockery of both the liberals and conservatives.
Liberals seem to have a problem with faith and those who have beliefs. And one needn’t go as far as to profess one’s faith, one simply needs uphold some belief to come under suspicion. I have concluded that progressive conservatism has become radical and militant, and deserves to be stopped in its tracks before it consumes and extinguishes our ability to think for ourselves.
Personally, I have begun to launch a counter-attack against this aggressive form of behaviour online after a bunch of ‘backward’ progressives recently tried in vain to force me to change my neutral position on an issue that involved individual rights and marriage.
I insisted I have not evolved and would like to stay that way till the time is ripe or auspicious for me to transform into a ‘liberated liberal’ who fits into their stream of thought and ‘heightened’ consciousness. They would have none of it and alleged that I was playing the victim card.
There was no escape from their chicanery, I thought. They kept coming at me despite the resistance I put up and demanded my insights on personal rights and the legality of relationships and marriage. A verbal slugfest followed and I suspected they were mocking my judgement, hoping (against hope) that I would change my mind.
In the liberal scheme of things, it is all about subjective openness, a point of view that they put forth, believe in and which reinforces what is a dogmatic and dangerous position. The conservative is to be despised and condemned and the views espoused by those who think differently and religiously are to be discarded.
Liberals can hate the ‘conservatives’ who are
not permitted to hate them in return. They have taken ownership of that emotion in their own narrow way, for their selfish interests. When they hate, the wheels of justice are on their side, they believe. They can troll and control the narrative on the media while parroting about why it is important to take a moral stand for the good of the world, humanity, and mother nature.
They claim that they mean well for the masses when procreation and pro-life are anathema to them. Too many people on planet earth, some say, while others say it is about pro-choice, whatever that means. They take refuge behind the rights of the individual while denying others the right to explain their ideas or views. I understand rights but why brand and hector me into submission? Not that I will take it lying down.
I have never understood the term pro-choice, but often play along for the sake of diversity of opinion while doubts fester in my mind. Liber
als like to think of themselves as the reservoir of diversity, solidarity, and unity while others, they claim, seek to sow discord among seemingly peaceful nations, communities, and people. Their version of chaos is order while the others are fascists and anarchists.
When I insist that I am neither conservative nor progressive in the conventional sense, they soon have their verbal daggers drawn (online of course) and taunt me saying that I am too weak to take a stand. The truth is: I am wary of taking a stand in my changed circumstances, more so during the pandemic, which they fail to appreciate.
After several encounters with progressives on the prowl, I am now comfortable in my ‘liberal conservatism’ which does not impinge on my personal faith. Maybe I don’t fit in, maybe I am on the same side as Amy Coney Barrett. It doesn’t matter as long as I am not a bigot.