Do you believe that support of LGBTQ is socially conservative?
Because if I'm reading you right, it sounds like what you're saying is that you identify as socially conservative, but don't follow social conservatism on the issue of LGBTQ rights. Which is fine (and good for you) . . . but your example is notable because it's an exception and an area where you break with social conservatism.
It's more nuanced than simply being pro this or anti that. I support LGBTQ rights even though I submit to a different ethic because a core tenet of my faith is that *all* people are made in the image of the divine, and our highest calling is to love others in action. (I'll be the first to admit that many, though not all, American churches have failed to understand or live up to this, nor am I perfect in this respect - such is the process of living out one's faith). Therefore I have zero interest in anyone being denied human rights because I live differently, and want all people to be treated with dignity and in love. Is this a break with social conservatism? It depends how one draws the boundaries. If we choose to draw it around the most extreme elements then it's clearly a break. But the most extreme elements are, IMO, the minority opinion within a diverse set of beliefs, which could also be said for groups on the Left. So again, I come to the point of questioning the usefulness of painting in such broad strokes.
Right. What you're doing sounds like a very reasonable way to discuss sex and sex education. But again, I have to ask . . . would you describe that as being socially conservative? Because I grew up in a pretty socially liberal household and that's how sex was always approached in our family.
In my view the core of social conservatism vs liberalism is a question of values, not methodology. Sure, on the extreme far-right you'll find anti-intellectuals and those who are essentially anti-sex or opposed to even talking about it. Our methodology is to engage with our kids and teach them as much as we can, but doing so within a conservative value. Of course it's up to them to decide how they live as they mature into adulthood, and we will love them unconditionally no matter their choices (as we like to tell them, there's nothing they can do to either increase or decrease our love for them), but we want to give them a framework for thinking about sexuality before they are thrown into a culture that is pervasive in its objectification of people.
So I have to ask a question...I suppose in a way turning your question back to you: Are you reluctant to admit you may have points of agreement with at least some social conservatives such that you're appropriating the overlap into your own sense of social identity?
If your scriptures say that the Earth was created in a few thousand years, they are empirically factually wrong. If your scriptures say that God created each animal and no animal has changed since then, that's empirically wrong. That's not cultural imperialism, it's proven fact.
That said, it doesn't mean that there is no value in the scriptures - the story telling and deciphering parables will obviously still hold tremendous value for answering moral questions or determining the best way to live your life. But literal interpretation is obviously foolish. Which makes sense . . . these books were written by fallible humans thousands of years ago, with the knowledge and understanding of fallible humans thousands of years ago. Of course they will contain mistakes. That doesn't mean that they're without value, but it does mean that you must interpret them with an understanding of the time that they were written. Literal interpretation will make you look like a fool when you butt up against conflicting reality.
Yes, agree with the bold above. 3500 years in the future, assuming we haven't destroyed the earth, people will look back on our science and say "wow, they got it really wrong in so many ways" and they will be right to say we were empirically wrong. But I hope they are willing to grant us the understanding that we did the best with the information available instead of casting us off as irrelevant. It's the failure of many moderns (though not you specifically) to grant this grace to the ancients that is cultural imperialism. Yes, their science was wrong, in terms of their understanding of the cosmos and biology and geology and such. But that was not the purpose of their texts. They did not have the technological sophistication we have, but they were not dumb and were as intelligent as us moderns. A lower percentage of the ancient world was literate, but of those who were many were literary geniuses. They did not have TV or video games or other distractions, so they spent most of their time reading and writing. They authored, compiled, and edited writings over 1000+ years, expertly weaving together narrative, poetry, symbolism, design patterns, literary allusion, and culture references (Hebrew and the neighboring cultures). Its a collection of anthologies designed for a lifetime of meditation and reflection. I think part of the problem we modern's have with ancient texts is that we've lost our literary imagination so we approach subtle and complex multi-layered texts with a modern concrete brutalism that does great violence to the text. And so we say "bah, this is bullshit!" because we don't get the simple answers we expect from a people we wrongly assume were simpletons. I should add that believers and non-believers are both guilty of this, as I have been in the past and will continue to doing even as I peel back the layers of my own anachronistic projections.
So I read the creation accounts "literally" in the sense that these are a very specific genre of literature, namely ancient near east cosmology, which requires traveling to a different time and culture (including neighboring cultures) to interpret and understand the deeper truths within.
I agree that prohibition was a disaster, but so too was the blasé attitude about drugs in the 60-70s. While I have zero interest in prohibiting alcohol, I do support policies to reduce binge drinking and to limit the commercialism and advertising that encourages a lot of destructive behavior. It's not an either/or issue, and as a society we need to have discussions about the interleaving details.
This is a perfectly valid and reasonable stance to hold. (And one that I hold myself.) But social conservatism does appear to have largely given up on drinking right now . . . and is currently waging a war against drugs. Particularly in the case of marijuana usage, I don't understand why social conservatives want to continue supporting the failed criminalization rules for this drug.
Nor do I see the point in trying to criminalize it. But before you suggest that I'm breaking with social conservatism :) I should add that I'm somewhat ambivalent about it. I worry about the extremely high levels of THC in modern breeds of cannabis and what the long term effects are on the brain and, in the case of smoking, the lungs. So this is where I see the kernel of truth in conservatism on this issue, not their desire to criminalize it, but instead a push back on our headlong rush to promote a drug as harmless or even healthy (to be clear, there are probably some health benefits, but these things are never completely unambiguous). IMO, it would be prudent to legislate THC levels, maybe not back to 1980s levels, but maybe like 15% or even less.