I've been a member of the Free Republic for many years, and I enjoyed much of the content here, albeit not always in agreement with some viewpoints expressed, and I am sure others felt the same about mine.
I don't think I've ever commented on any of your remarks, but today, I believe I need to. For the record, I do consider myself to be a conservative; I do not support abortion, I do not support “gay marriage”, however no issue with civil union, and I do not support big government.
As a Nation built upon Christian beliefs, we can't continue to make our point or wrap our disagreements with each other around one or two quotes of scripture; The Bible and in particularly for Christians, the New Testament is something to consider as a whole as it covers in far greater detail much bigger issues then false profits and gays.
The notion of religious freedoms, religious expression and spirituality is evaporating in these United States, all because of extremism; the extremists that do everything possible to move everything that is spiritual or simple expressions of Religion under the banner of “Separation of Church and State”, to the other extreme who use religion and scripture to condemn anyone that does not conform to some very narrow interpretation of the Bible and religious belief.
Where in your Christian Bible does it is say its ok to refer to other human beings as a “POS”? The Bible I read talks a lot about love, kindness and tolerance and its seems to go to great lengths to reinforce love, kindness and tolerance in many many passages; so while you are forewarned about “false prophets” and it also says “He who is without sin shall case the first stone”. Who do you think God will judge more harshly; a gay man that lives a loving, caring, faithful life or the man that engages in name-calling, standing in judgment of others?
The arena of public debate has adopted a hate-based philosophy; one side will play the role of the victim and the other side will “demonize’, and the vast overwhelming majority of us in the middle are losing out (largely to our own fault) to these extremes and the direct result of that has been the loss of freedoms. In addition this extreme environment drives the best and brightest of people, away from the public service arena.
All we talk about, write about, broadcast about, is our differences. Gay vs. Straight; faith vs non-faith, rich vs. poor, fat vs. skinny, man vs. woman, black vs. white, young vs. old, and I can go on. When do we focus on what we have in common?
We've moved this line of tolerance so far, we've become intolerant. Did we really need the Congressional Black Caucus, Gay Pride Parade, Black History Month, Race quotas, etc.? Maybe we did in order to change, but when does the discussion begin to get rid of these establishments? And if there isn't going to be discussion for that endeavor; when will the discussion begin to create the Congressional White Caucus, the Straight Pride Parade, White History Month? I don't truly advocate these things, its simply an illustration.
I think there are core issues that most agree on; most want religious freedom, peace and prosperity. We want a system of government that is not intrusive, that doesn't over burden us with taxes and fosters of a culture that encourages hard work and is intolerant of lazy cheaters that look to live off the public. When do we united around some of these notions?
I too have concerns about Governor Romney being President. I don't share all of his beliefs, but I can find what I do identify with and believe him to be decent man. He's obviously a blessed man; and has much to be grateful for, which is something that I believe God plays a huge part of.
We need to return to civil discourse, issue focused, and not extreme taking points and rhetoric focused. We need the return of intellectual and spiritual honesty. Name-calling only brings more of the same, regardless who's doing it and its an intentional distraction created to keep us unfocused on the real issues.
God Bless,
Heff
I couldn’t even see civil unions, unless perhaps they want to be open to the idea of unions of such things as three men, one woman, and a greyhound dog. (Being a little sardonic there.) States have good enough reason to honor the existing age-old society-wide institution of marriage, but should never be used as the roots of establishing whole new arrangement. Things were going to hell in a handbasket with that, let alone the modern gay marriage.
Very nice post.