Free Republic

The author doesn’t suggest that some kids in America couldn’t read, write, etc, only that in his school, everyone could.

As far as romanticizing the past goes, I’d trade every technical advance of the past 35 years for a return to basic, common sense, patriotism and the standards of decency in art, music, literature, theater and political discourse that most people used to embrace.

People often confuse the fact that while blacks voted overwhelmingly for certain Democrat presidential candidates as far back as FDR, most still self-identified as Republicans and voted for GOP candidates in lesser races more often than not until the mid to late ‘60s. The 1964 Civil Rights Act was the beginning of an irreversible trend to Democrat from Republican of blacks generally, primarily because the GOP presidential candidate of that year, Barry Goldwater, had voted against the legislation while LBJ had signed it into law.

The statement that the greatest movie ever made was The Great Escape is merely an opinion, yet it is one held by a lot of American males who grew up in the ‘60s and ‘70s.

If the author was born in 1963, he would still have been a kid in 1975 when Atari Pong came out.

Mother Teresa’s name was well known to people all over the world before she won the Nobel.

While abortion may have been a growing political concern in the ‘60s, and while the Supreme Court did indeed decide the Roe Vs. Wade case in favor of abortion rights advocates in 1973, those facts do not suggest that the majority of people in the U.S. were “pro-choice” during that era. They were not.

The food stamp program was in existence in the 1960s and ‘70s. The Food Stamp Act of 1964 was the beginning of the modern age of federal food supplement benefits dissemination, and in the early ‘70s it was expanded.

If you read the article, you’ll note that The Donna Reed Show isn’t mentioned in it. Images added to most op-eds are usually chosen by the publication’s editors, not the authors of the articles to which those images are applied.

The author doesn’t imply that the programs to which you refer were the main shows of his childhood. In fact, he doesn’t even mention them. The picture posted with the article is an editorial addition that has nothing to do with the substance of the piece.

Nowhere in the article is The Donna Reed Show even mentioned. The image of that show’s characters would almost certainly have been chosen by the editors of the website that published the article, not its author. Most op-ed writers don’t include pictures with their written submissions.

What does the age at which the author may have become politically aware have to do with anything? Just because a child may not have been cognizant of certain political realities back in the ‘60s and ‘70s, doesn’t mean they didn’t exist. That’s why the word REFLECTIONS is used in the title. It’s written by the adult that the child grew up to be.

House Speaker John Boehner is not a serious adult when it comes to addressing the out-of-control federal spending of the Democrat party. That is evident in his proposal to cut a largely inconsequential $61 Billion from the final seven months of this year’s budget.

To give you a good idea of just how astoundingly weak Boehner’s proposal is, consider that the budget deficit for February of this year ALONE was $223 Billion, or almost four times the amount that the Speaker proposes to cut by year’s end.

Even if the Senate agrees to sign on to these cuts, Obama’s obscene spending policies will still add another $1.6 Trillion to our already crippling and unsustainable $14.2 Trillion national debt.

Add to that, the fact that the President has crafted a monstrously irresponsible $3.7 Trillion budget for fiscal year 2012, and Boehner ‘s $61 Billion scheme is exposed for the pathetic monetary joke that it is.

To put it bluntly, if the Republican leader of the House is not willing to propose at least $700 Billion in cuts this year in the hopes that he may be able to strike a $350 Billion deal down the road, then he has no business being Speaker, or even being a member of the GOP leadership.

Sure, I understand that the Speaker of the House has no power to force the democrat-controlled Senate or the President to accept such a proposal, but he does have the authority to set the budget-cutting negotiations bar as high as he likes.

I ask you, why allow the Democrat leadership to malign and demonize you over a mere $61 Billion in proposed budget reductions when they could easily be maligning and demonizing you over a number many times higher than that?

At the end of the day, you’d have to be the most inept haggler in the world not to get at least a quarter of a Trillion dollars in cuts out of the bastards, and what’s more, they’d come away from the experience understanding that you actually are what you said you were in November.

Unfortunately for us all, John Boehner is not what he claimed to be during the conservative electoral tsunami of 2010.

In fact, he is a demonstrably unmotivated, unremarkable and unserious individual. who’s just made it painfully clear that he has no intention of confronting the tax-and-spend left in any appreciable way.

Edward L. Daley

“How do you knkow that God never arevealed the Gospel to that person because he knew they either (a) wouldn’t accept it or (b) are not of the elect.”

In the first place, I don’t KNOW, but are you suggesting that God has imbued certain people with knowledge of his word (as written in the Bible) that he didn’t imbue the rest of us with? After all, if God wanted us all to just know his word, why would he bother inspiring certain people to write the Bible in the first place?

Secondly, if God knows who will and who will not accept his word at the onset, what reason could he have for allowing some non-believers to read or hear them, while denying others that privilege?

Correct me if I’m wrong, but the concept of free will is based upon the premise that we are free to act, as we see fit, on the knowledge we’ve gained. If we are denied certain knowledge, how can we freely choose to accept or deny it?

“I looked up the definition of deism in the dictionary - what a surprise! Could the “dark prince” be attempting to fill the void with politically correct and morally relativistic gibberish? Just asking...”

He just might be. Of course, I wouldn’t know because I’m not the “dark prince” of which you speak. DarcPrynce is just a computer handle I’ve used for over a decade, and my adoption of it had nothing to do with religion, God or spiritual concepts of any sort.

I’m happy for you. :o)

“I would say there is more merit in that than being intentionally wrong. But most people think they are right, so what is so special about that?”

Nothing... nothing at all. In fact, it’s as common as the day is long.

“and yet you offer that it is OK to publicly demean their practice, because it is wrong, and I agree!”

I said just the opposite. You need to re-read my remarks to you.

“Standing up for what is right, against a society that tells me evil behavior is OK”

So you know what’s right, but I can’t possibly know that... correct?

“to tell other people what consists right and wrong, from your own mind, without reference to any higher power”

What higher power did you reference? And don’t say God or even Jesus, because you did neither.

“You have invented a set of rules and beliefs from your own mind.”

No I haven’t. I’ve adopted a set of personal rules for behavior from a great number of sources. The standards by which I live my life are derived from various experiences, people and literary volumes, not the least of which is the Bible itself - both old and new testaments.

I’ve invented nothing.

“The road to hell is paved with fallen man’s free will.”

If that’s true, then do we blame free will itself for the smooth pavement which comprises said road, or do we blame the judgment of those who exercise such will?

Should we blame God for bestowing free will upon us in the first place, and if we do, isn’t that tantamount to wishing that we were robots?

Is it better to be damned to hell than never to have been afforded the choice to go or not go there in the first place?

I kinda like choices, so I’ll blame myself if I end up in hell. Whatever happens though, I thank God every day for my Earthly life.

I wasn’t sure, but by any means, I’m just saying. ;o)

“That doesn’t really answer my (pretty clear) question.”

Hmmm... perhaps you should ask it again in a slightly different way.

“There is truth, and there is untruth. It doesn’t matter how you, me, or anyone else understands it.”

Can a person not be wrong, due to a misunderstanding or misinterpretation of the facts, yet still be truthful in his heart? that is to say, if you believe something to be true, you’re not lying or trying to deceive anyone just because you’re wrong.

“But what if 3 homosexuals call themselves a religion, and decide (much as you have just done) what constitutes reasonable behaviour, and they stay nicely within what society considers acceptable (ie. they follow your thoughts, above). If chooses denounce them and their “religion”, have they not broken your ?commandments?”

In the first place, please don’t insult me by insinuating something that isn’t true. I’ve sought to command no one with my opinions, and I’m pretty sure you know that.

Secondly, as I wrote in my opening article, no practitioner of a good religion would seek to openly demean, degrade or defame the good religion embraced by another, even though one may strongly disagree with the latter’s method of worship.

Tell me, what good does it do you, your religion, or anyone else, for you to openly condemn a religion - assuming that 3 people can actually compose a religion - which means no harm to you or anyone else?

“Of course they are. And they are based on words like “demeaning, degrading or defaming”.”

So? The democrat party is based on slogans like “party of the working class” and “party of civil rights”, but just saying it doesn’t make it so. Just because some people misuse words to advance their own, selfish agendas, doesn’t mean that people of more noble intent shouldn’t use them.

“But what right do you have to do that?”

The same exact right as anyone else.

“You recognize that you have a creator, you decide you don’t know who that creator is, or what his intents are, and yet you decide to tell everyone else what basic good behavior is?”

I’m simply sharing my opinion of what good behavior entails in this particular context. Is that forbidden in your religion?

“I didn’t bring up the subject of free will. That was another poster. I merely gave a pertinent answer :)”

Sorry for confusing you with another poster. I’m currently carrying on several conversation on this thread.

“Care to share them?”

I’m afraid that would take more time than I’m willing to devote to this thread right now. Perhaps another time and another thread... one more specific to Christianity.

“But what criteria are you judging those people and religious organisations on?”

On the criteria of basic decency and fairness, at least as I understand those concepts. Those concepts I define thusly:

Decency - behaving in a polite and respectful manner, until a valid reason not to - such as being confronted with impolite and/or disrespectful behavior - presents itself.

Fairness - conforming to a standard in which all parties involved are treated equally and with equitable intent, until such a time as it is shown that one of the parties involved should not be, due to their own untoward actions.

“I am afraid previous posters are right - you are setting yourself up as a “god”, in the sense that you are the one defining what is good and what is bad.”

Nonsense. Merely expressing my opinions as to what is or is not good human behavior in no way implies a deistic quality in me. That would be like saying that a Rabi is setting himself up to be a god for simply expressing his views along the same lines. The only difference between myself and a Rabi in this respect is that my criteria for defining good and bad are somewhat different than his.

“a deist is someone who believes in god, (or gods, or a supreme being) but has come to that belief by some form of rational or logical process of deduction and reasoning, as opposed to personal revelation. And this is all very well and good, except that it presupposes that all truth can be discerned solely by the powers of the mind.”

I presuppose no such thing. I actually do believe that many people experience a personal revelation not born entirely of reason which leads them to truth. I simply admit that I have yet to experience such myself. Please do not assume that because I’m not, say, a Christian, that I don’t understand or appreciate that such spiritual revelations as you’ve remarked upon exist.

“No one knows the mind of God, but plenty are more than ready to speak for Him.”

As a deist, I have chosen not to speak for God. I merely speak for myself and leave God to sort everything else out.

“Unfortunately people often take criticism, particularly negative criticism, to be demeaning. But that’s not the fault of the critic.”

I agree.

“Homosexuals believe they are being “demeaned” by Christian organisations that refuse to sanction their practices by “marrying” them.”

That’s because many homosexuals are leftists who like to misuse words to garner sympathy for their cause.

I can dig it.