News-Letter

I am perplexed. What form of conservatism is the author attempting to defend? He makes a more able case for the defense of liberal ideology.

By its definition, conservatism means something different from liberal. One conserves, one endulges. How does the author seek to marry and compromise obvious antonyms such as these without changing the definition of conservative to liberal and vice versa. You either sit on the fence or you make decisions and follow through on those with conviction by actions.

What reason does the author have for a rather idiotic attack on religious people other than a vent session that unfairly stigmatizes them alongside a few individuals who have made mistakes. By selecting Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln as a cornerstone to his different conservatism argument he essentially undid his entire effort. Any person who studies American history, knows that both gentlemen's conservatism was profoundly impacted by the same religion he denounces. That that religion has had an undeniable impact on western civilization, and that while men in history did abuse it to further selfish ends, the teaching itself has not been tarnished and that its value of all human life, of liberty, and other great morale teachings had a profound impact on the thinking and actions of the the great minds who penned the declaration including Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Lincoln, and any second grader who does the research can emphatically share as much.

The author's defense of conservatism sounds far more like liberalism ideology. He makes no attempt at all to clearly define what he considers conservative. And while he spends time ridiculously embellishing the evils of conservatives with religious convictions, he doesn't even define what those "evils" are.

Big words with nothign of substance, Vague, Poorly defined, and lacking critical thinking skills. Its a shame really, it could have been a decent piece.

I agree with Jason, I too was perplexed by the author's plan to "rescue" conservatism eg.(the ACLU?!). Perhaps the article should have been titled, "Making campus conservatism indistinguishable from Liberalism".

And,did I sense an overwhelming bias against the "religious right" on the author's part?