Religious Right Wants to Change Everything? Take away Freedom? Be like the morality police or the Taliban??

Christians today are accused of threatening freedom. It is a very new extent of freedom we oppose--it is licentiousness --and it started in the 60's with the free love movement of the hippies, the 1973 abortion decision, the Sexual revolution with the idea that the pill and abortion meant that women could now have the freedom that men allegedly had --to have sex and "not get caught."

But both men and women DID get caught --new headlines --HERPES and AIDS. GRID, the Gay Related Immune Disease crossed over into the straight population --"and so the band played on" --while people died in droves from their sexual liberty. And acquired life-long, painful, recurrent herpes.

Moreover, fathers were considered unnecessary as long as Uncle Sam would pay more for each new baby on the condition that there was no man in the house. So our welfare burden of LBJ's Great Society became astronomical.

THEN THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT AND PRO-LIFE CATHOLICS PULLED TOGETHER AS SOCIAL CONSERVATIVES TO REVERSE THE DAMAGE --AND TRY TO PUT THE LID BACK ON PANDORA'S BOX.

Our critics say we want to take away freedom and CHANGE things. No, we want to restore common sense and traditional values to the public square and the private lives of our citizens. We want to see the Sexual Revolution of the 70's and 80's reversed --so that there are fewer new cases of STD's, fewer kids thinking gay thoughts, less access to porn in the homes of youth --which porn is addicting, soul-corrosive and ruining marriages.

AS I've said before, we want a more wholesome nation, a safer one --not unduly restrictive of diversity, not punitive --but not unduly tempting people into "sex-periments," such that they, in their youth, get into life-threatening disease and decisions that will make them lonely and miserable in old age.

The best solution: a change in our hearts --such that we want what God wants.

"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible

An example of Hate Speech which Incites

A local Toledo blog rightly objected to a Kansas church that pickets military funerals to make a political statement --a statement that
God is punishing america for her homosexuality by allowing our troops to die.

Then he said:

"There have been many posts on this blog by such a skewed-thinking evangelical. Folks like that are dangerous to our society as well as to our democracy. They are in the same category as the Taliban of Afghanistan or the 'religious' authorities in Iran."

This really is "hate speech" that would incite violence toward evangelicals like me --far more dangerous than anything I have ever said.

People can disagree and say, "NO, you're wrong!" or "I disagree and here's why, " on any topic --without it being "hate speech." But when you call Geo. Bush a Nazi, and call evangelicals the Taliban or Iranian religious authorities, you are suggesting, however subtly, that it's ok to hate them, wage war against them, in fact, to do away with them because they would kill you first and deprive you of your liberty --(like the Nazis, Taliban or Iranian leadership.)

Just because people disagree about what is right or wrong, doesn't give us license to hate either side.

American politics needs to get back on a high road of cordiality and respect for differing views.

The Religious Right --not like the Taliban!

Liberal Democrat of the Politics in Mudville blog said I was like the Taliban in my views. To this I replied as follows:

So how are my ideas like the Taliban's? I don't believe in shooting adulterers, honor killings, or covering women from head to foot in burkas. I believe in equal rights for women without erasing the good differences between the sexes. I bare no resemblance to Osama and his followers and their views. I don't believe in forcing conversions by the sword or any other way. You seem to share with the Taliban an intolerance for friendship or discussion with people who disagree with you. To be in your life, people have to agree with you? I don't personally know of any Christians who are eagerly awaiting armageddon-or a last battle between Israel and the world --in order to see Christ's return. Not all Christians agree about end-times sequence, as the prophecies are not that easy to understand. We do find it noteworthy that the descendents of Jacob continue to be at war with the descendents of Ishmael --by both Christian and Islamic interpretation. All 3 peoples of the Book claim the Abraham heritage --Christians by their faith in Christ claim the Jewish heritage as their own --or rather as the heritage of the whole human race as regards the Creator-God, man's fall in sin and redemption through Christ. Christians see themselves as ingrafted members of the family tree --or as adoptees into the family of God by repentance for sin and faith in Jesus --chosen people as all are chosen who choose to believe in Christ and be His disciples.I won't tell you you have to agree with me or believe what I believe in order to be my neighbor/friend/ or to receive kindness from me. I won't tell you (as you did me) to go sit in the desert and see what happens to you when Christ returns before you believe and receive Him as your Savior. I'm not wishing any evil on you, nor do I resent you --although perhaps you are like the teachers I described whom I resented for trying to undermine my faith and values in my children in public school classrooms. More than resentment, I just wanted them to SEE that this was inappropriate to do to taxpayers' children. Methinks your protestations come from anger over the possibility that the Christian right just might be right. otherwise, why does it make you so mad?? You can go on enjoying and living your daily life. I didn't poke into your blog until a friend googled me to find my My Space and instead found you had written an irritated, erroneous article about me on Nov. 30 after my blade letter --your error was in the first paragraph. I didn't blame media for what you said I did.I don't think your blogs on the religious right should go unchallenged, do you? Yes, you probably do.As for religious zealots wanting their views to be the law of the land--the views of the religious right WERE the law of the land--generally accepted as common decency. There was a general respect for the Bible and its ten C's and Jesus by our forefathers whether or not they were merely Deists or Christians. Leftists, on the other hand, have succeeded in changes that are not good for the country. Consider the Blade article today about the homeless young adults who outgrow the foster care system and have no sense of family anywhere. Drugs and immorality are chiefly responsible for the destruction of the home --such that too many are raised in foster care --too many have parents who divorced and thus will be at over 90% risk of divorce themselves. Liberals believe that all lifestyles(except ones backed by Christian belief, i guess) are equally moral, as regards sex. I saw DeBoer's article in the Blade today, naming a gay friend who is going to carry a gun now to protect himself from people who would harrass him when he is dressed "in drag" he said. She didn't bat an eye at his interest in dressing in drag and carrying a gun to protect himself from teens who would harrass him. So that's what we have to look forward to --immature teens shot because they saw something bizarre and made fun of it. Our youth may be safer in Iraq.Functional families are still the best social service agency in the world. We are designed to go in male-female couples, to marry and then give birth to children, and when possible, to provide those children with male and female role models in a mother and father.Liberals think we can break the rules of centuries, not learning from the past --the fall of Rome and Sodom and every other family or institution that collapsed from moral rot within.There is hope...and it lies in the right --not the wrong.