The very purpose of our government, as even acknowledged by our own Constitution, is to promote the general welfare
through what was a restrictive process with limited powers to promote any policy, let alone that wide of a policy
Having said that, your gross generalization about the mind of "progressives" is no different from the minds of everyone else: you think roads and bridges are socially advantageous so you want them built by government, you think armies are socially protective so you want them maintained by government, you see abortions as socially destructive so you want them banned by government, you see guns as socially necessary so you want them revered by government, you see religion as beneficial so you want it coddled by government, etc., etc., etc. Your own view of government playing a necessary role is no different from mine; the difference is only in the details.
protecting our rights and a few limited roles is a lot different than promoting social policy
one thing you're ignoring is the expansion of the policies into areas government has no business going. i mean look at the whole era of the new deal and all the vast expansion in government
sure, any non-anarchist believes government has a role, but progressives see that role as infinite, where any time a perceived crisis emerges the solution is through government (even if there is no solution)
Again, your motivations are no different, thus the constant calls for prohibitions against sexual privacy, free speech, marriage equality, artistic expression, etc., etc.
where do i advocate any of that?
if you think i'm a republican who believes in using government to regulate social behavior that doesn't affect others, you're wrong.
That's just a false generalization and a ridiculous insult not worthy of discussion.
i'm looking at history and all the horrible consequences of progressive ideology. are you saying it doesn't exist?
That's a pretty odd statement for a non-"progressive" to make, considering his easy proclivity to hypocritically rail against the dangers of our own government while insisting on its mandates for his preferred policies, as already described,
who are my boogeymen (outside of government), rex?
Your own motivations are no different. The non-religious "hate" religion as false for its doctrines and its desired policies, just as the religious hate the opposite. In fact, religious expectations of behavior are far more dogmatic and restrictive than are those of the non-religious.
i don't know. they're pretty similar
i'm not a religious person, but i understand its role. it's the same with other similar societal structures
people pick their own churches, most of the time. whether that's anti-religion, environmentalism, anti-business, anti-rich, etc. they all follow similar patterns. i'm not really a part of any such group, as best i can tell
i don't trust authority
It's a self-evident proposition to state that to do otherwise than accept your own social desires would be insane bipolarism.
i don't push my own social desires on people who don't wish to participate, so it's a bit different