Is Radical Religious Conservatism a form of Psychopathology?

Conservatism is a political and social term whose meaning has changed in different countries and time periods, but which usually indicates support for the status quo or the status quo ante. Cultural conservatism is a philosophy that supports preservation of the heritage of a nation or culture.
The political term conservative was coined by French politician Chateaubriand in 1819. In Western politics, the term conservatism often refers to the school of thought started by Edmund Burke and similar thinkers. Scholar R.J. White wrote: “To put conservatism in a bottle with a label is like trying to liquefy the atmosphere … The difficulty arises from the nature of the thing. For conservatism is less a political doctrine than a habit of mind, a mode of feeling, a way of living." Russell Kirk considered conservatism "the negation of ideology".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservativism

Psychopathology as a descriptive term
The term psychopathology may also be used to denote behaviors or experiences which are indicative of mental illness, even if they do not constitute a formal diagnosis. For example, the presence of a hallucination may be considered as a psychopathological sign, even if there are not enough symptoms present to fulfill the criteria for one of the disorders listed in the DSM.
In a more general sense, any behavior or experience which causes impairment, distress or disability, particularly if it is thought to arise from a functional breakdown in either the cognitive and neurocognitive systems in the brain, may be classified as psychopathology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathology#Psychopathology_as_a_descriptive_term
Religious conservatism
Religious conservatives seek to apply the teachings of particular ideologies to politics, sometimes by proclaiming the value of those teachings, at other times seeking to have those teachings influence laws. Religious conservatism may support, or be supported by, secular customs. In other places or at other times, religious conservatism may find itself at odds with the culture in which the believers reside. In some cultures, there is conflict between two or more different groups of religious conservatives, each claiming both that their view is correct, and that opposing views are wrong.
Because many religions preserve a founding text, or at least a set of well-established traditions, the possibility of radical religious conservatism arises. These are radical both in the sense of abolishing the status quo and of a perceived return to the radix or root of a belief. They are ante conservative in their claim to be preserving the belief in its original or pristine form. Radical religious conservatism generally sees the status quo as corrupted by abuses, corruption, or heresy. One example of such a movement was the Radical Reformation within the Protestant Reformation and the later Restorationists of the 1800s. Similar phenomena have arisen in practically all the world's religions, in many cases triggered by the violent cultural collision between the traditional society in question and the modern Western society that has developed throughout the world over the past 500 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Conservatism#Religious_Conservatism

The inability to change over time usually leads to extinction. There are rare examples of organisms that have found an environmental niche that has remained unchanged for tens or even thousands of thousands of years and there by they have remained on this planet an unchanged life form.

Written religious texts or well-established traditions tend to be static as apposed to living documents. The conservation of the behaviors and beliefs that are based upon ideologies that were formed in the past promotes conflict. The disability that comes from irresolvable conflict is a social impairment that can lead to the death of the participants, without remorse on the radical conservatives’ part. This sounds like psychopathology to me.

Small Government

We only need one rule, this my Dad got correct, 'Treat others as you want to be treated'. And in a perfect world there wouldn't need to be any one to enforce the Golden Rule. But in the real world small government can not be just one rule to live by. It must be a plethora of laws and rules to enforce this one small rule.

In addition to the new rules the constitution is there to be the bassis upon which we built the rules to protect you from those that will not treat you as they want to be treated. Beyond the rules to enforce the small rule we also need a way to deal with the infrastructure and defence of our nation. So we need a lot of rules.

It is a big world and we would not be comfortable in it with small government.

Mercenaries

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hessian_(soldiers)

During the American Revolutionary War, Landgrave Frederick II of Hesse-Kassel (a principality in northern Hesse) and other German leaders hired out thousands of conscripted subjects as auxiliaries to Great Britain to fight against the American revolutionaries. About 30,000 of these soldiers were sold into service, and they came to be called Hessians, because 16,992 of the total 30,067 men came from Hesse-Kassel. Some were direct subjects of King George III; he ruled them as the Elector of Hanover. Other soldiers were sent by Count William of Hesse-Hanau; Duke Charles I of Brunswick-Lüneburg; Prince Frederick of Waldeck; Margrave Karl Alexander of Ansbach-Bayreuth; and Prince Frederick Augustus of Anhalt-Zerbst.

The troops were not mercenaries in the modern sense of military professionals who voluntarily hire out their own services for money. As in most armies of the eighteenth century, the men were mainly conscripts, debtors, or the victims of impressment; some were also petty criminals. Pay was low; some soldiers apparently received nothing but their daily food. The officer corps usually consisted of career officers who had served in earlier European wars. The revenues realized from their service went back to the German royalty. Nevertheless, some Hessian units were respected for their discipline and excellent military skills.

http://member.tripod.com/~Silvie/Hessian.html

http://www.blackwaterusa.com/

You deside.

Economic Stimulus

The basis of our economy is the worker. The majority of the buying power comes from the 40k to 110k job. If these jobs are more prevalent and secure with every reason to expect them to gain at a rate greater then the rate of inflation then money can be saved and spent.

If more jobs, starting around 15 to 20k, with good benefits (retirement, insurance, vacation) and opportunities for advancement, can be produced in an effort to build and repair our country (infrastructure), financed by the government, we can start to buy homes again and stuff to put in them. Now that would be a economic stimulus plan I can believe in.

World Leaders

The Chinese are coming up against some hard realities. Probably the worst hurdle they have to cross is their own corruption. They are so corrupt that they will even poison their own children for a profit. They send their relatives overseas for education, vacation or their health and then they take what they can until they are about to be caught then they flee the authorities. They don’t float their currency so we can’t compete with their production costs. They pollute their water and air. They defile the land. Their only motive is to gain a short term advantage. And it is coming back to bite them. Their people are rioting and have the numbers to demand fair treatment.

We support them with our greed. We need to make moral choices not easy choices. We need to take care of our people and the environment that they depend upon.

If we can become a moral nation that cherishes the earth and the people that live on it then we can be the example that the rest of the world once again turns to. We can be the world leader that we once were. We can be the 21st century world leader that is missing and so desperately needed.

His Legacy.

If the 43rd president is looking for a legacy, I think he need look no further then the offhanded comments of current world leaders who reprimand their piers when they get out of line by saying, ‘You don’t want to be like Bush do you?’

43 is characterized as an instinctually lazy cheerleader who gets board easily with the mundane work necessary to govern.

I think I would like to talk baseball with him as long as it was in the first innings, before his mind started to wander but I’m glad he will no longer be president.

History revisionists aside, 43 has to be the least effective and the most destructive president that we have had the displeasure to be accosted by.

Don’t let the door hit your lamest of duck ass on the way out 43. You will not be missed.

US Auto Industry

There are two important goals in maintaining US auto manufacturing. The first goal is; maintaining the US work force. There are a long list of workers that depend upon the US auto industry. If the US auto industry can produce quality vehicles, which have the fuel efficiency we need to become independent from energy sources that are beyond our control and they are sold at a price that is comparable to vehicles that are either manufactured beyond our borders or within our country but with the profits going elsewhere, then there is no reason for the US auto workers to loose their source of income. And that brings me to the second goal; the profits from US auto sales need to stay here. Foreign manufactures, producing vehicles within our borders, sends the profits from the sales of those autos else where. Having foreign auto companies produce autos here helps US workers but sending the profits beyond our borders should be unnecessary if the US auto companies can compete. If foreign auto makers can produce high quality, fuel efficient cars at a reasonable price so can we. So it is time for the US automakers to drag themselves into the twenty-first century or disappear, their choice.

Henry Ford started his company with the goal of building a car that his workers could afford. Tat seems like a goal they should get back to.

The death of idiocy

Why do we have to support points of view that are based on false information? Why do we have to even acknowledge someone that is spreading lies? Don’t we give them strength and credibility by acknowledging them? Can’t we just say they are lying and here are the facts? Or better yet, can’t we just say, here are the facts and not mention the lying source at all?

When published information is retracted the incorrect information is not reprinted just the correction.

And what ever happened to the practice of shunning? Can’t we just stop recognizing that someone exists? If we shunned a person effectively enough eventually wouldn’t they just go away, shrivel up and die?