Scotsman.com News – Opinion – Wayward Christian soldiers — The backlash against this sort of crap is going to be something to see. Good reading.
THE enemies of God are all having their say. It’s time to hear The Christian Voice.” The headline flashes out at you from the website. This is the militant evangelical group, Christian Voice, proclaiming its aims. Scroll further down, and you get a picture of what it stands for: it is against abortion, homosexuality and taking the name of the Lord in vain. Blasphemy is high on its list of hates.
Strangely, however, blackmail is not. Yet this is what Christian Voice now stands accused of. Last week it used a blatant threat to persuade the Scottish-based cancer charity, Maggie’s Centres, to turn down a £3,000 donation from the musical Jerry Springer the Opera, which it termed “blasphemous”. It warned that if the charity accepted the money then it would call out its members to picket the charity’s premises and jam its switchboards with protest calls. It would spread the word that the Maggie’s Centres had accepted “tainted” money, thus ensuring that funds from Christian sources dried up. It gave the charity less than 24 hours to agree – which, reluctantly, it did.
This is as close to blackmail as you can get. But there was worse to come
My definition of an extremist is someone who is willing to violate his core principles to further his core principles.
Hardly rises to the term blackmail. This is more along the lines of “pressure” and is commonly used by all sorts of groups to shape policy. C.f. boycott. I suppose it’s only blackmail when one disagrees with it.
By the way, what’s the horror of opposing abortion, thinking that homosexuality is wrong, and opposing blasphemy?
Anybody need proof that God does NOT exist?
Simple. The ONLY written words of God were his Ten Commandments. If God is all-loving and all-knowing then why is there a contradiction in his fundamental laws as he inscribed onto tablets? To wit, the first three commandments state:
1. I am the Lord thy God. Thou shalt not have strange gods before me.
2. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.
3. Remember thou keep the Sabbath Day.
Thus, the summary of the first three is: I am an egomaniac, the god of all gods, I am never wrong, you better worship me, or else.
This is a contradiction to an all-loving god, who would be more virtuous (The Seven Cardinal Virtues: Humility, Kindness, Abstinence, Chastity, Patience, Liberality, and Diligence). These commandments sound like they came from any of the following: George W. Bush, Donald Trump, David Koresh or _________ (Fill in the blank).
Look at the upside. There is still justice in the world.
You can’t tune it in on the television though.
Why James Blasius there may be NOTHING wrong with the oppositions, but those are YOUR OPINIONS, i.e. personal opinions about personal decisions. And, the problem at the moment is people can’t seem to tell the difference between PERSONAL OPINIONS and public opinions.
Personally I am against Vanilla Ice cream, and think it is obscene, and against all that is decent. I think that no one should have vanilla ice cream because I think it is bad. I also don’t like mint ice cream of any sort, and I think the stuff with bubblegum balls in it is outright dangerous and should be outlawed. But, most people could care LESS about my likes and dislikes in the ice cream. In fact, you seem to me to be one of those vanilla loving people, and you should be ashamed of yourself.
Again, a PERSONAL OPINION about a personal decisions.
The problem with trying to force YOUR views on me, or my neighbor, my kids and my “kind” is that then you take away MY decisions to do what I think is best for me. All the things we care about in this country are suddenly gone. The country was created with the idea of personal and religious freedom. — personal decisions. Just like ice cream, there is enough room for all of us to enjoy the flavors we want. Turn the other cheek, James. Tolerate..isn’t that a JC teaching?
So, in summary…. don’t try and cram that religious hoo0-ha that’s gripped parts of this country like a cancer and call it either good, patriotic, or in the name of god. Go read history. And, oh, yeah, keep YOUR PERSONAL OPINIONS about my personal decisions to yourself and we’ll get along just fine.
The article John noted…is INDEED blackmail….the ugly part is that the spineless charity folded under the tyrants.
David,
You need a lesson in basic Christian theology. Your entire argument demonstrates a stunning level of ignorance and immaturity. First, you can never prove God does not exist so don’t waste your time. Even vehement atheists admit that one.
Second, although Christianity does require faith in one god, God does not force anyone to have faith. You have free will to do as you please. Unfortunately, for you anyway, the choice to not have faith has consequences. If you are comfortable with the consequences then so is God.
Good parents give children rules to follow while they are growing up. Their rules are usually much harsher and all encompassing than God’s. By your convoluted logic this would mean that they do not love their children. Setting rules is a demonstration of love not a contradiction to it. Perhaps if more parents set some rules, or more people followed the commandments, our world wouldn’t be such a mess.
I can give you an extensive reading list if you like. That way you can educate yourself and make logical and coherent arguments in the future.
John,
You seem to devote an awful lot of your posts to bashing Christians of one sort or another. Why? There are extremists for every issue, religion, gay rights, abortion, anti-abortion, you name it. Why the constant negativity about Christians who happen to feel strongly about their religious views? Maybe you ought to target some of the ani-religion zealots for a while for some balance.
RFB
This is more along the lines of “pressure” and is commonly used by all sorts of groups to shape policy.
What “policy” is being “shaped” here?
Any protests should be directed towards the show, and the people who pay to see it, not towards the chartitable acts of the show’s staff.
Why don’t the protesters put all their phone-jamming, picket-line-marching energy into fundrasing for the Cancer center – to help keep it “pure” of “tainted’ money?
By the way, what’s the horror of opposing abortion, thinking that homosexuality is wrong, and opposing blasphemy?
How are they opposing blasphemy in this case? How do their actions prevent blasphemy from occuring? Who are they punishing, for the blasphemy?
They can’t stop the Springer “opera”. They can’t stop people from paying to see it. So, they lash-out at (sorry, “put pressure on”) a charity? Nice.
What can you say? You got people on the take, you got some boiler room operation in LA, people screamin and makin all kinds of racket and weird porn. You got blackmail, junkmail, sideshow Bob and the whole works. And people are lookin for proof from God. Look in the mirror, if somebody else is lookin back and it ain’t you look out. Some people you can’t give a break. Some people can’t give, they’re on the take. There was a song about it. Gimme back my bullets, put ’em back where they belong. God doesn’t need to prove anything, that’s how he got to be God. God doesn’t need bullets either, just to make another point if you know what I mean. You have cops out there without guns, these guys have microscopes and DNA scanners, all kinds of stuff. They have some big lab and will bust you with a strand of hair and piece of lint. What were we talking about here again? Blackmail. You ought to stick to writing about things you know about John. Backmail doesn’t pay very well and the benefits suck. You could end up becoming a guest of the federal government messing around in that kind of crap. Springer is just a showman. What’s the problem here? In God We Trust pal. This post is getting wayward here. If we got to pay you a visit, make it worth our time. You don’t want to waste our time. Forget about it. Remember, it’s a free country, thank God for that. This post could get lost someplace on the Internet with all of the fake ads for your sexual aids, loan scams, unFDA drugstores and what not and so fourth in Googleland. Play it safe and don’t be sorry. God isn’t sorry, that’s why he is God.
To RFB, I do not have a “bash Christians” category in fact I tend to post a very few scathing reports of any religious folks doing bad things. I could easily do more. Mostly what you see is about creationists and how many posts from that category do you see on this large page at the moment? None. As for consistently going after other groups that you cite, how many hold themselves up to a higher standard and make a point of it? Gays or abortionists or whatever you named are not spiritual leaders, are they?
And as for over-doing it, if you look at all the current posts up right now there is ONE critical of one religious group (this post here) and one down lower that mentions Christians which is just an urban legend of no consequence; and I was NOT critical of anything but the legend existing as such. So I do not get this comment or complaint at all.
What are you complaining about, really?
Is it that anyone saying anything even remotely critical of anyone who claims to be religious like the scammers on TV should be off-limits? If someone says “amen” or mentions the Lord, are they exempt from any sort of analysis? To you is this true even if this person is attempting to trample on your rights as a citizen? In fact this is what things are coming to. It’s a disaster and you’re not helping things by seeing what isn’t there and pointing in other directions. Send me some anti-religious zealot links and I’ll be glad to consider them as targets. I don;t think you can because anti-religious zealots are generally crackpots who never hold themselves up to a higher standard and force their narrow beliefs on others. They are mostly complainers. So what?
There is no question that this blackmail. Christian Voice, a group with apparent political sway, threatened the charity with withdrawal of funds unless they refused donations from another donor. That sounds like blackmail to me. It is, however, entirely legal. Yep, Christian Voice organization is well within their right to choose with whom they donate money. It is also clearly within their right to tell the charity that why they are choosing not to donate their money. Were it not legal, we’d all be in trouble.
RFB
The reason that Christians are the general target for ridicule these days is that they (in general) are the ones attempting to slide in policies that give their religion favored status amongst other religions. Further your comments about the ten commandments is entirely illogical. If the commandments are really sort of “parental-like” guidelines, that does not explain the various harsh penalties given out for breaking them. It is hard to argue that you have an “all loving” deity when that deity meshes out punishments like killing the first born of their enemy, wiping out entire towns and in general killing thousands of people. Imagine how it would go over if a “parent” killed one of their children as a lesson to the other children.
Yeah, not to mention eternal damnation vs grounding and time outs…
RFB,
I’m not saying that God doesn’t exist, I’m just saying it is not a personal god as is believed in many religions, Christianity being one of the greatest offenders. As soon as someone speaks for God, that is not God. Putting it in words is impossible, you just have to experience God. Probably Buddhism has the best interpretation of what God really is. I was a believer in a Christian God for half my life. I’ve read enough, and mostly have experienced enough to know what is Christian theology. I’ve taken communal showers with priests, for crying out loud– I think I’ve seen and read enough.
The consequences of not having faith in God? I know, hell. I’ll tell you one thing: If there is a Christian God in front of me after I die, I’m punching him in the nose. I can live with whatever consequences lie ahead.
Setting rules is fine. But after my kids leave my home when they turn 18, they are on their own. No more rules. If I continue to impose my rules on them after they become adults until they die, then I am no longer an all-loving father, but rather a bastard with nothing better to do. I don’t love them; I love myself more in that case. Being a father means letting go one day. The greatest LOVE a soul can give is giving another soul its freedom. Commandments for life is Bondage to a Selfish Creator.
John,
Over the past several months you have taken numerous shots at creationists and fundamentalists christians. Of which I am neither. My complaint is: why waste time on these topics. All you are going to do is stir up a religious debate. All you usually end up with is knee-jerk opinions from uninformed readers.
As for the religious groups holding themselves up to a higher standard, what is wrong with that? You claim that they are trying to trample on your rights. They are fighting for their rights. They simply have a different agenda than you. Should they lower their standards to accommodate people they are opposed to?
Your point about other groups not setting themselves up as examples doesn’t make sense to me. All you have to do is watch television any given night and you will see various people of all stripes telling you how you should think and behave like they do. Anyone who disagrees with them is uncivilized, a moron, a fool, a barbarian, etc.
I don’t believe that religious folks should be immune to “analysis”. No one should be immune, including you.
RFB
Robert wrote: “First, you can never prove God does not exist so don’t waste your time. Even vehement atheists admit that one.”
Sure, it’s quite easy. It all depends on how you define God. In the west God is defined as being both omnipotent and omniscient. I.e., all powerful and all knowing. But if he knows what will happen, he’s powerless to change it. And if he can change it, he didn’t know it. Thus, any being that is both omnipotent and omniscient cannot exist. And since that is the way Christians define their God, that means that God cannot exist. Christians have essentially defined God out of existence.
Now if you happen to define God as a being who created the universe. Or as a being who runs our afterlife. Well, that’s out of my expertise.
RFB you say:
“All you have to do is watch television any given night and you will see various people of all stripes telling you how you should think and behave like they do. Anyone who disagrees with them is uncivilized, a moron, a fool, a barbarian, etc.”
What are you watching? Why are you watching it?
Thomas,
If you want to talk about blackmail, why don’t you read up on Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow Coalition.
I didn’t say that the Ten Commandments were parental guidelines. I merely used parental guidelines as an analogy. The Ten Commandments are the law in the Old Testament. And the God of the Old Testament punished law breakers. He was not a “loving god”. In case you didn’t know, Christians aren’t bound by the Old Testament. Therefore, criticizing them based on Old Testament philosophies is ludicrous.
David,
You too are confusing the Old Testament with the New. The gospels tell people they have to believe and that Jesus died for all of their sins. If you accept Jesus then you are saved regardless of your sins. It also states that Christians shouldn’t force others to follow their viewpoint. Instead, they should lead by example. I’ll be the first to admit that many Christians don’t follow these views. However, don’t lump 2 billion people in with a handful of idiots.
Punching God in the nose after you just found out he is for real might not be the best idea. 🙂
RFB
“They are fighting for their rights. They simply have a different agenda than you.”
There is no question that they have an agenda. They are fighting for the right to coerce a charity to evaluate contributors using their whacked out sense of morality. Is this legal? Yes. Should it be legal? Yes? Is it ethical? No, by anyone’s standards.
It is true that advertisers daily (or even minute by minute) try to coerce you into purchasing their product or service or buy into their point of view. However, there is a clear ethical difference between that type of coercion and the explicit withholding of money from a charity to which you believe and were previously contributing solely based on your own moral evaluation of the other contributors to that same charity for presumably the same humanitarian reasons. Either you believe in the cause and wish to contributor or you don’t. Claiming that you believe in a cause but only if the other contributors meet you moral barometer is hypocritical (but legal).
> I don;t think you can because anti-religious zealots are generally crackpots who never hold themselves up to a higher standard and force their narrow beliefs on others. They are mostly complainers.
I don’t think the anti-religious commenters on this Blog are “crackpots”. Many of them seem like reasonable, logical people. In fact my lack of religiousity points to something I have in common with them. But some go too far and attack all religion as illogical and evil. That’s their opinion, fine, but it does add to the overall tone set by this blog.
You can’t choose your audience, and you shouldn’t censor them to create “balance”, but the comments do contribute to the tenor of this Blog. I happen to agree with RFB.
But there’s not much you can do about it, because Thomas is correct that the [religious] right is on the offensive. Considering they’ve been thrown on their back heal for most of the 20th century, during the rise of Communism and government/civil paternalism (New Deal, Great Society), this seems inevitable.
> who never hold themselves up to a higher standard
This portends a race to the bottom for our entire society.
“People who hold themselves to a higher standard” probably includes most of the people posting on this site, but perhaps not in the religious and moral area. In fact most probably do have high moral standards, but they feel like meetsy that they should keep it to themselves. Yet when we fail to acheive the goals and standards we set for ourselves, does that make us less honest or worthy than the people who didn’t even try in the first place?
Essentially what you are saying, John, is that you only attack hypocrites. But we are all hypocrites. Just because you’re a hypocrite doesn’t mean you aren’t right. Even though you may not be able to live up to that higher standard yourself, it may be right logically and right for our society.
CULTURE WAR
(what this post/thread is really about)
The reason for the cultural war in our society is that the moral common ground we took for granted for so long is slowly eroding away. And we can’t even agree that it’s happening, let alone what to do about it. When you argue in the public sphere, it seems inevitable that the “live and let live” crowd will win, because we want more “freedom”.
But RFB’s analogy to child rearing is RIGHT ON TARGET. There’s a growing realization that many of today’s bratty, undisciplined children are a direct result of their parents not setting strict rules. Essentially, letting the laize faire argument of society and the 60’s inform the way they raise their children. Hence the book “The Epidemic”, a documentary from England I saw recently, and the TV shows “Super Nanny” and “Nanny 911″(?), where setting and enforcing clear rules becomes the number one priority and produces results.
BUT WE ARE ADULTS, you say. However, government does and has for a long time setup penalties and incentives for various behaviors. Not just the criminal code, but through entitlement programs and the tax code. “Owning a house” is a good thing and earns you tax breaks, while having 2 high incomes and then getting married is penalized (and has been “inadvertently” for decades.)
Also, look at the rules for welfare, food stamps, unemployment, social security. Some government programs have created a “culture of dependency”, so at great political cost they are “corrected” to promote returning to work and the boost to self-esteem of a dollar earned.
Government policy indirectly shapes the behavior of its citizens. Not only would adopting an “anything goes” policy be a disaster, I don’t think it would be possible.
Thomas and meetsy imply that we can avoid this debate if people would stop telling each other what to do. But through society and government we tell each other what to do every day, in a thousand different ways.
WHAT WE NEED are institutions and forums for discussing the moral character of our country, without the implicit threat of imposing other people’s rules on society. Without the threat of new laws that would criminalize or discourage “bad” behavior.
To separate our discussion of SOCIETY from our discussion of GOVERNMENT.
How can we encourage “good”, “healthy” behavior, without making the opposite illegal? How can we make a statement that isn’t empty without spending money or creating a government program to support it?
In American society today, I’m not sure it’s possible. The only institution beside government that has ever commanded such attention from its citizens is the Church. Not just the Catholic Church 1000 years ago, but the church you go to every Sunday.
And so we come full circle.
[I’m sorry this is so long, but I’ve thought about this topic for a long time. If you’re too shy to post your thoughts here, please e-mail me at tcmoore4 AT yahoo DOT com. I’d like to know I’m not a crackpot, or why I’m wrong. Thanks.]
-tom
TC, I’m not talking about reasoned arguments on the blog. I’m talking about someone who would put up some antiChristian website and go ape with rants.
I heard an interesting article on ethics on “On the Media” last week. (http://www.onthemedia.org/otm021805.html)
In the study they mentioned, religious people were more ethical than the general population … UP TO A POINT.
That point appears to be dogma.
This seems true in my observation. Generally, I find religious people (Christian, mostly in my circles) to be generally more ethical, kind, giving, loving, etc.
But only to a point. The HYPER religious among us ( who dwell on dogma, systematic theology, doctrinal statements, etc.) at some point turn off their humanity and go on auto pilot.
Hank
TC…. I don’t believe that the promise of an afterlife in heaven is a motivator for me to be moral and honest in this life. That seems more like bribery or like the stupid child rearing themes of this country “be good and I’ll give you a treat”. I don’t see a difference between…live a moral life so you can go to heaven.
I chose to do moral things because it is what I believe. It is not what someone else tells me that I SHOULD DO or think. I’m guided by what is right… my god is within me, and that is what guides me.
I resent anyone damning my views because they are MY views…and they have no idea what they speak of, when it comes to me. I am guided by the lessons I have learned in this life, and that is all quite personal to me.
I was raised firmly in a non-traditional religion (Native American) and, also in a traditional church. I found churches to be creepy, even as a kid. Too much mumbo jumbo, people on ego trips, and power hungry bickering between the so-called “moral leaders”. Not to mention what we know from history that all the horrors Christians have brought to the world. Christians and all the “we have all the answers and will guide you” self-righteous stuff has caused more pain and suffering in this world than all the bratty kids, boobs on television, and rampant homosexuality in America today.
I think television is lousy. I don’t watch it much. My kids are well behaved, and polite. They chose right from wrong, without being threatened with hell and damnation, or beaten by the Pearl’s rod of Christian teachings. I give to charity by finding people who need help and helping them. I make up my mind on what I should do to not do damage in this world. I don’t shop at Wamart or Target. And, I’ll tell you this, I don’t need some fake “god says” b.s. to guide me. But this does not mean I do not believe in a larger force. I do. Mine has no name, is not spoken, and, is part of everything around me. (It’s not the Zorastic black/white good/evil stuff.)
My beliefs encompass more than the endless words and empty sales pitches the bible passes as “knowledge”. One man adding more words, and more words, each trying to outdo the other, and add their own twisted agenda. I’ve read it, and consider it a badly written mythology. Sorry, just my view.
Unlike most of the bible, and most of the followers that I’ve listened to in the last 40 years….. I honor the life around me…not just humans. I try and create and not destroy. I care about this world….and hate seeing the damage that greed and ugly human desires have done. I don’t see “christians” being that “christian”.
I’m sorry, but I don’t need morals dicated, legislated, or lectured. My morals come from within. I wonder why more people seem to need guidance…. they should look within instead of looking for the easy, shallow answers that someone else provides.
It’s a lot more difficult…..you might want to explore my way, before condemming it. Hmmm?
“why waste time on these topics”
Yeah, let’s all be “nice guys” whilst the “not-so-nice-guy” take control of government, budget, education, media and public morality. Pastor Niemuller said it best: “First they came for the Jews….”
T.C.
I can’t agree on the abortion, and gay marriage points. The reality of pre-marital sex, is that with birth control it’s not so much a baby might be concieved, but what emotional damage can be done — in going too far too soon. But, kids looking for acceptance and love (missing it with dominating, dictating parents, or withdrawn and dismissive ones) are more likely to experiment earlier. Children seek out what they need…we all do…and if they can’t find hugging and kissing and someone taking them seriously at home, they’ll turn to the opposite sex. Talk to some kids….you’ll hear it.
It does have long term consequences, emotionally, which is why it’s not “good”. I won’t go into that.
Marriage..well, most children are in foster homes from MARRIED PARENTS. (Many more than from single moms.) The number one reason is drugs, number two too many kids too soon, number three mental illness.
It’s false that kids in foster homes are from single unwed mothers. And, although there are an abundance of couples looking for babies (hence the anti-abortion stance by a lot of agencies)….the truth of it is, the agencies in the middle are charging, on average 25k to place that child with waiting parents. (And, birth mother expenses are ON TOP of that!!) But, in our odd country, many of our black babies are placed in European and Canadian homes, because the agencies get more $$, and because of the stigma in this culture. But, most of these mothers cite religious reasons for carrying the child to term, in the first place. So, religious groups push anti-abortion, but then don’t follow through and care about the offspring of these mothers. I find that to be exceptionally sad. If you are anti-abortion, then it should be YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to raise a child that was unwanted …either at the outset (stayed pregnant because of pressure from religious groups) or a foster child who’s parents had too many children too fast, and broke the camel’s back. So how many children have you adopted/fostered? It is hypocritical to say your beliefs are against a medical termination of pregnancy, but then not support the results.
I favor abortion, when the mother has determined it’s the best choice for her. The emotional, long term consequences of a medical proceedure at 8 weeks, compared to carrying to term (and I do realize that you may have never actually carried a child to term….it’s no cake walk, it’s a very miserable, painful, tiring experience, and it does carry great risk to the emotional well being of the mother….long term).
Meanwhile, I have delt with birth mothers and their issues. I have seen the long term emotional hardship in the decision to carry the child (often because of pressure from peers) and then turn it over to the adoptive parents. It doesn’t end there. It’s a lifelong emotional scar, that doesn’t heal. The anti-aboritonsists always treat it like it’s some little think, like disposing of a litter of puppies. It’s not. It’s caused higher than average psychological problems, drug problems, and depression than the women who made a decision early. More women are destroyed emotionally, and physically by carrying an unwanted child to term…than any damage that has ever happened the medical termination route. It’s more humane for the existing human, in many cases. And, yes, I have met foster kids who wished they had been aborted, instead of going through the 20 or 30 foster homes and the misery that they’ve had in their lives.
And, as I said, one of the leading causes of kids ending up in foster care is tooo many children. When the number of kids under 5 exceeds the number of parents….there is a pretty high likelyhood of 1.) failure of the family (children in foster homes, abused, etc) 2.) poverty 3.) lack of parental support of the children leading to earlier drug use and sex.
So, long term, abortion can be a good option. But, again, it’s personal. Theories are all nice, but really….what happens in real life is the key to us evolving as people. Walk a mile in someone elses shoes kind of thing….
As for marriage…gay or otherwise. Let’s face it, marriage is something we take lightly in this society. How many divorced people do you know? The statistics are something that one out of every two marriages will end in divorce within 5 years. It’s a legal contract….hence why one must go to the courts to disolve it. Only Catholics need to jump through some hoops to also do some hocus pocus through the church (and I’ve BEEN to second and third all white, fluff weddings IN the Catholic Church….how does that work? Must be like fish on friday=hell). So, given we are in a lawyer rich society, one that sues for hot coffee spilled, and slipping on loose grapes on a linoleum floor. We put warnings on kitchen cleanser to NOT PUT IN EYE, nor eat. (Evidently we are either too stupid to figure that out, or the companies need to protect themselves from lawsuits.) So, why NOT let gay individuals have the same legal protections, and the same pain-in-the-ass divorce proceedings, and the same emotional “security”….as anyone else. Heck, it’s not like there aren’t enough lawyers needing the additional money for more divorces. The benefits of allowing the same legal protections — gay or not — only makes sense in this society. I don’t think it demeans straight marriage, because Zza Zza Gabor and Mickey Rooney and Elizabeth Taylor already made marriage a joke. I’m honestly not that interested in being so involved in other people’s business. Let ’em (and as Will Durst, the comic, promotes “what better way to cut down on gay sex, than gay marriage”. I agree). Heck, if the big fear is that a gay man will want to have sex with your son…better than he be married to another man, and have the threat of a costly, messy divorce for his actions. Seems that the arguments are all wrong on this one. Religious leaders should be embracing this one…..as there is no hell like the court system.
Um, what about my general point?
I only brought up premarital sex – and briefly mentioned in one sentence the other topics – as examples of where we may or may not find common ground on various aspects of American culture.
Is that even possible in today’s political climate?
You seemed to miss my saying I DO NOT agree with the right on Abortion, Gay Marriage, and contraception. Both sides don’t even LISTEN to (let alone understand) each other anymore.
How can we turn that around?
[Not listening to each other is one of the main reasons I didn’t vote for Bush, because he will continue to polarize the electorate and society even more. But I don’t have much respect for Democrats who let their hatred get in the way of their policy analysis (talking about Congress, not you or your post(s)). Nor for Republicans who let their victory and hubris run roughshode over the other side.]