Posted on 05/28/2010 6:23:43 AM PDT by xzins
It's always good to get someone on record about their actual position. Such was the case last night with the ladies dubbed by Bill O'Reilly as "Culture Warriors", Gretchen Carlson and Juliet Huddy This time we weren't talking about Miley Cyrus on a pole or little dancing girls in stripper clothing.
Nope. We were confronted with issues of the day: abortion, homosexuality, capital punishment, and adultery.
Shields high, swords brandished, the culture warriors charged into the fray and....rolled over.
About abortion, we now know that "choice" is their preferred word and that "private matter" is as bold as they're going to get. Culture Warrior Courage Grade: F+
About adultery the ladies courageously sided with the overwhelming number of poll respondents who don't like it even a little bit. Glimmer of Hope Courage Grade: B
Regarding capital punishment there's the feeling from our Amazons that it will save litigation money, so siding with the general population in the poll, the ladies did OK, but we find warriorette reasoning a bit fuzzy, morally speaking. Courage of Conviction Grade: C-
Homosexuality revealed the ladies to be liberals of the "we haven't a clue what morality is" variety. Without reservation, they agreed that homosexuality is just fine. Courage of Understanding Grade: F-
In short, we can say that the "Culture Warriors" are pro-choice, pro-homosexuality, pro-pragmatism liberals. It's a bit sad, really. And not terribly courageous.
They don't realize that morality has to do with HARM, and that those things that harm the individual, the community, or the society are morally unacceptable.
The poor homosexual is having his life cut short by decades due to the harm of his behavior. The adulterer is killing the heart of others and turning his own into a narcissistic concrete shell. The society incapable of punishing murder with execution is demonstrating that it doesn't consider the harm of someone taking your life to be all that important.
Finally, those who would steal the life of our unborn posterity indicate that they really don't mind doing the harm of murder themselves, if that's what it takes. Quibbling over when "life" begins is the same as the stupid hunter who sees the brush move and having his partner say, "We don't know what it is; let's kill it anyway."
Culture Warriors surrendered last night. To the culture. To darkness.
A LOT better off than in 12/09 when I had gangrene. Like most of us, I was a lot healthier when I was 17 (much more than a few weeks ago). Computerlessness at the nursing home was the determining factor in returning to my home and my computer. Keep me in your prayers as recovery continues.
I'm not sure that's entirely fair. If you compare it to the lives of women WAY back in the day, they did the same if not more hours of work per day than today's career-minded woman. God blesses us with our mates when He sees fit and many times that is after a woman is of age and must enter the workforce to live. Without knowing specific details, such as choosing a career to the exclusion of marriage but still wanting a baby, I don't think they can be blamed for much just on the basis that they are older, single, and working. Huddy sounded like she MAY have put work first, but I know Laura did not. A few years ago, before Laura adopted her first, she was very publicly engaged, and spoke about it all the time on her radio show. Then in the spring she was diagnosed with breast cancer and began treatment. By the end of the summer suddenly the engagement was off. I seriously doubt it was Laura who broke off the engagement.
In that regard, it’s a terrible thing for Laura Ingraham to take on a couple of adopted kids. I’m assuming there’s no man in her life, but I don’t really know if she’s married or not.
I don't know if she's dating, but I know she isn't married.
If, however, there is not one, then she begins an enterprise in raising children in which she doesn’t have the time to devote to them, and the kids only receive a one-sided worldview, the female side. She is depriving them (son or daughter) of the male-sided view. (Research released by Family Research Council last week demonstrated the 4 times greater likelihood of young girls being lesbian who are raised without a Father.)
Again, I disagree that her not having the time is a valid argument since she puts in no more hours than many "housewives" throughout time. However, I agree that it is arguable that she is unwisely or unfairly choosing to deprive her children (one boy, one girl) of a known father figure in marriage (so far). If we assume that they both came from orphanages, with no stable mother OR father, is it better to say that she at least improved their status with the possibility of a father later being added, or that she was nevertheless selfish because of the chance that a couple might have adopted them? I don't know how to make a Biblical call on that one.
You can’t send the message to young boys or girls that MEN are not important or that WOMEN are not important. They are the ying and the yang of healthy growth in understanding relationships. Yingless or Yangless, and you have a child crippled to some degree.
I fully agree, but isn't it also true that still worse would be to be Yingless AND Yangless? :)
Being a loyal listener I am certain that Laura would prefer to be married. As to the other issue, publicly she is in a bit of a spot since one of her brothers is a homosexual. The latest I knew she was on good terms with him and had a loving relationship, etc. So, I could see if her view on the subject was somewhat inconsistently less conservative, at least publicly.
But in any case, IMO it is not wrong per se to be friends with a homosexual. We all have friends who are non-Christians or are otherwise unrepentant sinners. Hate the sin, love the sinner and all that. So, I give Laura a little bit of a pass for putting on a Tammy Bruce because at least Tammy has otherwise many Christian views. I would strongly criticize Laura if she put up a non-Christian who promoted the homosexual agenda. Tammy does not do that to my knowledge.
I wasn’t convinced that Gretchen was telling the truth. Hats off to the person who has the cojones to speak truthfully on their thoughts about homosexuality on t.v. It’s my opinion that anyone who would do so should be prepared for an early retirement.
In the case of Ingraham, we’re dealing with the super-successful. Their time demands are different, and their ability to have the children working alongside them, as in past farm families. I think I have some idea what you do for a living, but I’m pretty sure that a 3 hour radio prep each day, and appearances, speeches, and TV sub-hosting would consume nearly 20 hours a day. I’m betting it really runs these people down. O’Reilly had to back out of it. Hannity is a wonder, and Beck already was an addictive personality....now he’s just addicted to work.
Ingraham has the choice to raise them fatherless, and therefore, it is better for her to wait. Is it better to have one parent than no parents? In the case of tragic death of one parent, that’s sometimes unavoidable, but the position of the deceased still influences to some degree.
There is no tragic reason for Ingraham to take children given her schedule.
They’ll be with nannies anyway.
I did not see the exchange but this is difficult. I believe children need a good home with a father and mother who can devote the time and resources to them. I can't imagine Laura Ingraham, being single, could provide the attention required. She seems to be a very active person so I would suspect most of the time the children are left in the care of a nanny.
That being said, all people are sinners and need Christ as their Savior. Whatever environment they live in ultimately doesn't matter. What matters is that they understand the truth of the gospel so that it may change their hearts.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
I think fags are worse than criminals in that they preach their decease and try to spread it.
he and others like Hannity Beck etc too never show or discuss the homosexual agenda infact when Beck went after the czars and credit to him he never once mentioned Jennings.
We do watch TV programs that we see recommended by other Freepers. We order them through netflicks. ( Can't wait to get the season 8 of 24! Sometimes we are up to 2 a.m. saying, “Just one more!” )
The pus has come to the surface. They were extremely disappointing and shocking. Warriors? If you can call the walking dead warriors. They fight nothing but side clearly with death and immorality which is not a fight but a surrender. They haven’t a clue.
There are thousands of women like her. Most nights they eat alone and talk about their "special relationship" with their nieces and nephews as if they actually know what it is like to raise a child.
They don't.
I can understand the hard-wired longing for a child. It can be overwhelming which is a good thing really. And to rescue an orphan from poverty and abuse can only be seen as positive.
But it is equally true that women like Ingraham are setting terrible examples for young women who now grow up thinking single parenthood is just as viable and rewarding as married life.
It's not.
Children need a father just as much as they need a mother. Ingraham should have spent more time and effort looking for a husband who could be a good father to either their biological or adopted children.
I don't applaud her. I worry that the world she's creating is just one more log on the fire burning the Christian American male in effigy.
Ingraham should not have changed her negative views of homosexuality because of her brother's homosexual lifestyle. She should be spending time and effort and love on helping him to leave it.
You have to wonder if her lack of discernment was facilitated by her conversion to the papacy and its advocacy of all things gray.
I could not agree with you anymore (a homosexual relative). Were I in the same situation, I would deal with it, try to help him/her, but would not change my principles because of it. It is a SIN above all... and therefore can not be excused.
Christ told us there is only one requirement for our salvation -- God's grace through faith in His Son's sacrifice on our behalf. That's the sum total of Christianity. All the rest is the result of our new birth by the free gift of the Holy Spirit.
"Be not afraid; only believe." -- Mark 5:36
... But it is equally true that women like Ingraham are setting terrible examples for young women who now grow up thinking single parenthood is just as viable and rewarding as married life. It's not.
Certainly I would agree that single parenthood is not as good, it's just that I don't think Laura is holding herself out as conveying the message that it is. I would never put her in the same category as a Rosie O'Donnell "my family is as good and legitimate as yours" crusader. I have heard Laura have authors on as guests who promoted the importance of there being a stable father in the home. So, my guess would be that there wouldn't probably be that many young women who would go it alone based on Laura's example since Laura is so openly pro-marriage.
Children need a father just as much as they need a mother.
I completely agree of course and would even contend that Laura would too. I'll bet she would admit that her chosen arrangement is less than ideal.
Ingraham should have spent more time and effort looking for a husband who could be a good father to either their biological or adopted children.
I guess it's pretty tough for me to go that far. I have no idea how much time she has spent on looking for a husband and as we all know it is not an exact science. I know a couple of singles in my church who are my age and would prefer to be married, but are not for no discernible reason (i.e., there is nothing outwardly wrong with them :). I suppose I have especially strong feelings that finding mates is entirely in God's hand and by His direction given how easy I had it in finding my wife through NO special ability, talent, or effort on my part. I feel that God just put us together when it suited Him (in our case very early). So, because of my own very unremarkable example I find it hard to look at anyone else's "failure" to find a spouse in love. Anyone can "settle", but Laura apparently is not willing to since it is true that it would take her five minutes to "get a husband" if that was the only goal.
But that fact somewhat contradicts the impression that she would prefer to be married. Obviously she doesn't because she isn't.
Ingraham meets many people, and fame is a strong pheromone. There are a lot of nice men in the world. Maybe she should rethink what "settling" means.
I agree with you that God gives us our spouses (along with everything else in this world and the next.) But that old paradox is still true - God helps those whom He helps to help themselves.
Let's hope Laura's new role as mother makes her more open to the role of wife.
That only makes sense. I have never heard Laura give the practice a pass before, I have only heard her pass on commenting (criticizing) when my belief was that it was because of her brother. I take into consideration that her voice is heard by millions and it could be very damaging for him if she took a public fire and brimstone approach. I do not know what is in her heart of hearts, but of course I would hope that she has the Biblical view and (as you say) would privately convey it to her brother and be of help and support to him in showing him the Light.
You have to wonder if her lack of discernment was facilitated by her conversion to the papacy and its advocacy of all things gray.
Yes, if it is true that she is wishy-washy in her heart about the matter then this is absolutely a legitimate concern. This is one glaring example of where the letter and the practice of that faith take starkly divergent roads.
That could certainly be true, I don't know. :) I've never met and dated an adult before so I guess I have no idea how hard or not it is. LOL! I'm sure God spared me from that out of pity. :)
Let's hope Laura's new role as mother makes her more open to the role of wife.
Amen. I'll bet it becomes more and more apparent to her as she and the kids start getting involved with activities with other children and their parents.
We can hope so. I’m one of those people who thinks everyone should be married. 8~)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.