Posted on 05/22/2007 7:38:57 AM PDT by NYer
If the Rev. Jerry Falwell personified the Christian right in the past, then the Rev. Frank S. Page may represent its future.
From his Thomas Road Baptist Church in Lynchburg, Va., where his funeral will be held Tuesday, Falwell gave evangelicals a strong political voice. But it was often the voice of a sure and angry prophet, as when he blamed the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, in part on "the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians," or described warnings about global warming as "Satan's attempt" to turn the church's attention from evangelism to environmentalism.
Page, 54, was chosen last year as president of the 16 million-member Southern Baptist Convention, Falwell's denomination and the country's largest evangelical one, in an election that he saw as a mandate for change.
"I would not use the word 'moderate,' because in our milieu that often means liberal. But it's a shift toward a more centrist, kinder, less harsh style of leadership," Page said. "In the past, Baptists were very well known for what we're against. . . . Instead of the caricature of an angry, narrow-minded, Bible-beating preacher, we wanted someone who could speak to normal people."
With members of an older generation of evangelical leaders, including the Rev. Billy Graham, the Rev. Pat Robertson, psychologist James C. Dobson and the Rev. D. James Kennedy, ailing or nearing retirement, Page is one of many pastors and political activists tugging conservative Christians in various directions.
Others include the Rev. Rick Warren and the Rev. William Hybels, megachurch pastors who are championing the fight against AIDS in Africa. David Barton, head of a Texas-based group called WallBuilders, stumps the nation decrying the "myth" that the Constitution requires separation of church and state.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
Some food for thought for you. My oldest sister shared your view about drugs until just a few years ago. What changed her mind was the close-up view of drug convicts' families she was exposed to after a new prison opened just south of the town where she taught school. It's a min security prison, housing mostly drug offenders and petty thieves. This brought in a number convicts' families to the area, many in her school district.
You see, she witnessed first-hand for the first time the destruction and hardship the WOD had rained down on these people and concluded that they were not deserving of such treatment. She learned how these folks wound up losing homes and personal property now that the bread winner was unable to make a living, how their credit was ruined for the same reasons, how they lost insurance coverage because Dad had lost his job, not to mention the fact that the wives had lost a loving husband and their children a loving father for several months or years.
They suffered all this for dealing in something that shares the same moral risks and hazards as the "legal" drug alcohol. Had there been no WOD, they wouldn't even have been dealers, just mere consumers. She recognized the inequality these people suffered before law vis a vis the legality of alcohol vs. the criminalization of these other substances. In light of all this, the drug war no longer made any sense to her.
Not that any of this concerns you in the least in that you, in your infinite wisdom and deep concern for the well being of all concerned, just know you have these people's best interests at heart.
You and your ilk focus on the worst-case scenarios, bemoan the tragedy, then extrapolate that worst-case scenario to the entire drug using population, rationalizing your way to prohibition. Then you turn a blind-eye to all the financial and personal damage inflicted on people prosecuted under the laws you support. You ignore the unintended consequences of the WOD, most notably a violent black market and the erosion of constitutional rights and safeguards. You ignore the inherent hypocrisy and double standard that the legality of alcohol poses. You and your ilk do Pontius Pilate proud. Your approach to drug use and drug abuse is akin to the "we had to destroy the village to save it" addage thrown about back during the 60's.
If you can tolerate a father or mother that likes to down a few beers at home or down at the tavern on a regular basis, then surely you can tolerate the same if they smoke a doob or two when the kids are at Aunt Sue's or already gone to bed. Until you're ready to jail consumers of alcohol for the same reasons you want to go after other drug users, please spare me your rationalizations for the tyranny that is the WOD.
Meant to ping you to #122.
The elect, being deceived, will approve of sin and evil cloaked as 'good' (or progressive). Jesus prophesied about some 'falling away' from the faith. Some will be led astray. Some were never faithful in the first place, but pretenders.
We are to stay strong and fear nothing, though. Jesus Christ is the same, yesterday, today, and forever.
KJV: Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying, Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us. He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the LORD shall have them in derision. Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure. Psalm 2:1-5
Falwell, as well as John Hagee and others, preached that man cannot condone what God forbids. That is anathema to the Left, who want to follow the Devil's way, 'I am my own God, I'll do as I will."
No one needs illegal drugs. Solution: Don’t buy and use them.
Life can be lived fully and freely without pot. You make it sound like a need.
I have witnessed enough substance use and abuse myself to know the guilt is 100% the users guilt. Dealers exist because of the users and not the other way around. How about get both? You act as if the users are innocent victims.
I totally agree. And there for the grace of God go I. But the fact remains, the users need support and guidance and need to be led to The Lord for total and complete recovery. He came for the sinner.
I totally agree. And there for the grace of God go I. But the fact remains, the users need support and guidance and need to be led to The Lord for total and complete recovery. He came for the sinner because He knew sinners need Him.
You will never catch 100% of these people. So how do you define success? In order to say it has failed you have to measure it against what would have been had the current policies not been in place, not against perfection.
As for "there but for the grace of God go I," doesn't that apply to the dealer as well? You seem to selectively apply it to suit your tastes. Too often I hear that used as an excuse to overlook wrongdoing. Buying and using illegal drugs starts right out of the gate being a rebellious and intentional act. It doesn't happen to you, you happen to it. My sypathies lie with those who are sorry and seek to change, not with those who just want to eliminate their own consequences while they continue to inflict undeserved consequences on the rest of their friends, family and society as a whole.
BTW...(while we are multiple posting, lol)....on what grounds can we charge dealers if buying and using drugs is not illegal? Is there any other product that is not illegal to buy or use but is illegal to produce and sell?
Emergency! Emergency! Straw man argument alert... LOL
On a more somber note, in my post I hoped to prick your conscience by relating to you my sister's experiences that led to her switch sides in the WOD. Given your straw man response above, I obviously wasn't successful.
Good day.
Anyway, thank you for sharing the story of your sister. I think she was right and now she is wrong.
The theme in most of your posts, at least the way they read to me, is that you do not think these drugs are really very harmful. As long as we disagree on that, there will be no agreeing on how to proceed. You say "this is a better way to fix the problem" but then you say recreational drug usage is really no big deal. That makes your agrument come across less genuine. You don't want a more effective plan to end the drug problem. You want to cease seeing drugs as a problem.
The little guy keeps the big guy in business. Essentially he is the dealer's accomplice. You only have to observe other posters to know that they do not want to stop. They want to use. They see nothing wrong with it. There is sorry and then there is sorry you got caught. Most fall into the second category. The heart of man is deceitful. He tends to lie about his intentions when he is caught doing something wrong. You know someone is really sorry when they actually change their behavior, even if that means getting help with an addiction.
We can agree to disagree and end this thread with your response. I'll read whatever else you want to tell me but I've got nothing else to say on the subject. It is an interesting debate.
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.