Posted on 11/19/2001 2:03:57 PM PST by FF578
It's customary to flag a member you presume to speak for, in my book. To bad if you don't like it.
As to my knowledge of your philosophy, thats been obvious to me for years, from your posts. It's usually pretty easy to ignore.
'Infecting' FR wasn't.
It would be a very boring world if everyone was in total agreement on every issue. I enjoy the challenge of diverse opinions, and the interaction of people with opposing views. This keeps me sharp and either reaffirms my views or alters them (a rare event).
UHHHH, NO. . . .
NOR do some of us enjoy being labeled hyperreligous just because we believe some things as strongly as you do.
It's real cheeky to scream "HYPERRELIGIOUS" *primarily* or *only* because someone dares to state something as strongly as you do. One almost gets the impression sometimes that a big chunk of the rabid screamers hereon consider religion/spirituality to be horribly evil, intolerable concepts/practices.
the republicans set up laws that mimic god's laws to protect each of us from our neighbors. democrats, on the other hand, want to be god and set up even more laws to protect each of us from ourselves.
WHICH PART of "body politic" do you not understand?
You have no hesitation citing sources of value to you. You have no trouble valuing highly those documents, sources, principles which have brought your life meaning and guided your choices and behaviors. You are happy to integrate those into the whole of your life and certainly to guide your understanding of, discussion of and interaction with/in the body politic.
But you want to prevent Christians from doing the same. What a selfishly unnoble attitude and perspective that appears to be.
i said i could envision a scenario where i could support a pro-abortion candidate. fact is i never have. life is important to me, the most precious gift that god has given to us.
would i support a pro-abortion, reduce tax, candidate over a pro-life, pro-homosexual, separation of church and state candidate -- yes, but only because the supreme court made it harder to fight this.
i would like to see a political strategy where we stop raising the abortion issue for a few years. get those pro-abortionists to vote conservative and get conservatives in office. then let's work on the abortion issue...
Nicely said. We have to keep out the free exchange of ideas at all costs. It just leads to the harder stuff: drugs, baby-killin', women and minorities being allowed to vote for whomever they darn well please, etc.
As for me, I even object to the "Free" in Free Republic. Makes those refer-tootin' hippies think they're a-gonna get a handout when they visit this site, or at least be allowed to voice their wackjob opinions. Should be in jail, if'n ya ask me, not smearin' their commie pinko fascist liberal dirt all over our good Christian site.
As V Frankel said:
There is NO freedom without responsibility.
It's a universal law about as sure as gravity though with a lot more delay built in. Without responsibility, sooner or later, there will be no freedom.
Of course, without the freedom to choose, there's no responsibility, either.
Nice spin. And now you are baiting KC.
BTW How many posters have you bagged this month?
i have given my opinion on how i would strategize this in an earlier post. but i am open to other suggestions.
i like your attitude of using the bill of rights -- i love beating others at their own game -- but pragmatically i would think that someone would have taken this to court by now if it would work.
abortion is a very painful issue for me. i am open to any and all suggestions on how to overturn roe vs. wade.
- I don't know what to say...I could never betray the protection of innocent human life for political gamesmanship...I have a 2 year old son, and I would feel as though I were betraying him and defiling the miracle of his birth.
I don't understand how anyone with a child can feel any differently!
i hate to correct a correction, but i think you got it right in the first place.
Have you ever really measured . . .
The rigidities, the degree of rigidity on your side of such arguments? There have been some studies doing that. Depending on how one defines, sets the criteria defining the sides, those on your side of such positions came out MUCH MORE SIGNIFICANTLY RIGID, dogmatic, and some other more serious variable that I've forgotten . . . something in the direction of more abusive, dangerous. . . . by a wide margin. No, I have other things more important to do than track down the book with the refs in it. If you are seriously interested in the truth, you can search it out yourself. One keyword could be "indiscrimminantly anti-religious."
i completely understand your point.
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.