Personally, I am extremely conservative, although I may not fit the mold of the popular stereotype of one (few people of either party fit such stereotypes).
I grew up on a farm in the deep South state of Lousiana in a very religious Army family. Most of my family was Democratic in name, although they voted Republican exclusively at the national level. As might be expected, I had a very conservative upbringing, and growing up, I didnt know anybody that could even be described as even being remotely liberal in any respect on social issues, although most farmers are not extremely conservative fiscally, favoring as they do such things as protectionism and government subsidies.
I went to college at the very conservative Lousiana Tech University and joined the USAF upon graduation. In college I first encountered a few people that were somewhat liberal. In the AF I am still surrounded mostly by conservatives like myself.
I went through a thorough evaluation of my beliefs when I was about 16-18 years old. I wanted to be sure that I really believed all the things that I had been taught and not just because I grew up that way. I became interested in why other people thought and believed the way that they do, and to this day I love talking to and debating with people that have differing viewpoints.
I have strongly held opinions on most issues. However, I think that I have a somewhat unique ability to understand where the other side is coming from in almost all cases. I dont hate or even dislike people that have differing viewpoints, and I strive to understand them. That is my definition of tolerance. However, tolerance to me doesnt extend to condoning or accepting behavior that I find wrong. This is what I feel makes me different from most conservatives and liberals in general, the fact that I can see both arguments and understand the gray areas.
My opinions on some of the subjects that have been addressed here:
Gun control-- Vehemently against, I believe that everybody has a basic right to self defense, and that is what the 2d Amendment is protecting. I am not in principle opposed to some reasonable regulation of firearms (although many so-called reasonable measures that have surfaced of late are highly unreasonable to me) but I have little faith that the forces that propose these measures will stop if they are achieved, having as they do the end objective of banning all firearms. I believe that most of the people that support gun control are misguided but that they mean well. I certainly dont think that most gun controls are proposed out of some kind of desire to "take over the country" or anything like that. I think the people that support them are for the most part honestly trying to make the world safer. I think that they are naive to believe that gun control can work though, and while I respect their view I must strongly disagree.
Abortion-- This and gun control are the two issues that I am very strongly against. This is the one issue where I have extreme difficulty understanding or relating to the other side. This one is cut and dried to me. I think that the pro-choice people should understand that since we pro-lifers believe that abortion is murder, that there is no room for compromise on this issue ever. This is one of the worst political issues in the modern world for that reason and I dont even like talking about it much.
Animal rights-- They dont have any. I do feel that humans have an obligation to treat animals in a decent fashion and to not abuse them, but I dont believe that animals have any sort of inherant rights at all.
Environment-- As an avid outdoorsman, I would hate to see the world polluted and ruined, not do I think that any reasonable person does. I am for reasonable precautions to take care of the environment, but I think that most environmental groups are too political and actually exist to advance liberal anti-business agendas. I would never support any type of ruination of say, Yellowstone Natl. Park, but I am against groups that seem bent on stopping all progress everywhere. We need some reserves set aside untouched for the enjoyment of all, but the fact remains that we need oil, timber, and other resources. We cannot make the whole USA one giant preserve where no commercial resource gathering goes on. I am also against any type of government regulations that would seek to tell us what kind of cars we have to drive or anything like that. I think that many of the environmentalists use scare tactics to overstate their case about the dangers of global warming and the like. The "sky is falling" approach is more used by these guys than anybody although to be fair many conservative organizations employ these sort of scare tactics as well. I personally abhor this type of technique.
Government in general-- I believe that government should be handled at the lowest possible level. That means states should handle most things with the national govt. mainly taking care of defense and other things that cannot be handled at the local level. I think the current way things are set up is a nice balance in general. I support most privatization initiatives and have more confidence in the competence of private industry in general over the government at handling most affairs. I support some very basic level of welfare programs, but think they should be strictly limited. The nice thing about handling things at the local level is that if liberals in California want to have strict gun control and whatever else they want, they can do so just as long as they dont try to impose their views on the nation at large. As a matter of principle, I generally am against my own conservative fellows imposing their will on the people from liberal places. People should have the freedom to choose how to live their lives with minimum interference from government. I detest socialism in all its forms. It sounds nice on paper to some perhaps, but it works cross grain against human nature. It rewards the lazy and punishes the hard working.
Religion-- I am a devout Christian, but I believe that God put us on this earth with free moral agency, or in other words the ability and freedom to choose. An all powerful God could force everybody to believe in Him if He so chose, but he obviously doesnt. So who am I to try to force others to believe in Him or follow Him if they choose not to. I respect all peoples rights to live according to their conscience whether they believe in God, multiple gods, or no god at all. That said, I dont believe that freedom of religion equates to freedom from religion. Religion is an integral part of my life and a key part of my personality. It is impossible to separate my beliefs from my conduct and if I were running for public office there are areas where that would show. I would never force others to believe in my personal convictions, but I certainly expect them to respect my beliefs as well. I dont believe that the separation of church and state was ever meant to exclude religion from public life and politics. It was meant to prevent people from being forced to worship a certain way, and to prevent a state religion from being set up. If there were a law out there that said that you had to be a Lutheran to vote, or that all non Christians had to pay more taxes or something, this would clearly be a violation of the separation of church and state. Having a Christmas nativity scene on display on a courthouse grounds does not violate this principle.
Death penalty-- Make sure they are guilty then fry'em. I completely understand the opponants of the death penalty and I have thought much about this one, and I believe that the benefits outweigh the dangers. We know that if we give police guns, they are going to on rare occasions shoot the wrong person. The solution to this isnt to take guns away from police, since this would lead to an increase in the deaths of innocent people overall due to a rise in crime, since police would be unable to protect people from criminals. Likewise, abolishing the death penalty to save the extremely rare innocent person that might be executed, will cost many many more lives overall. The death penalty should be applied judiciously and only after we are 100% certain that the person is guilty, but there are cases that do warrant it.
Pledge of Allegience-- This one is trickier than I first thought. My first reaction when I heard about this decision was a kneejerk "what were those kooks thinking?" I thought about it all day today and I have concluded that my first reaction was right, although I can certainly see the other side of the argument. I believe in the pledge of allegience wholeheartedly the way it currently stands. I think that the great majority of people like it the way it is, and polls show this. I dont think that the majority should force the minority to do some things but the majority is the majority after all, and the minority shouldnt be able to impose their will on the minority either. We arent forcing the people that dont believe in God to do so, we are simply stating the pledge the way we believe in it. Anybody that doesnt agree could a.) not say the pledge, or b.) say the pledge while not saying the "under God" phrase. The atheists and those that believe in multiple gods or whatever, arent being forced to change their beliefs because of this. I disagree with the notion that this amounts to state sponsored religion. I believe that this whole situation is a needlessly divisive issue that should never have been brought to court at all. This decision will never stand, if the Appeals court does not reverse themselves on their own from the pressure, then the Supreme Court will certainly do it for them.
