Sep 25 2008
How Liberals try to Act Conservative Part 4
I guess I need to adjust a little here and say these aren’t actually always liberals try to act conservative; some are just plain untruths that liberals tell. Also now is a good time to point out, those who disagree with my particular point of view like to pick out bits and pieces of what I write and try to make what I write say something else. I’m ok with this because I know the truth and so do they but it’s the best they can do because they can’t really argue the merits of what I’m saying. The other thing that lets me know they really can’t argue with the merits of what I’m saying is when they try to tell me what “my religion” or Christianity is really all about. I’m all for being shown the truth when I’m in error but when confronted over the truth the whole Bible should be a guide, not one passage or part of one passage that those who don’t know the context love to quote, such as “judge not”. It’s even funnier when those who don’t even claim to be the same religion as I am try to tell me what my beliefs really are.
Enough of that though, back to the list.
Lie
7) I’m x religion and I have family values but those values and my religion shouldn’t have any role in government (separation of church and state).
Truth
That’s a weird one because every politician and must who quote the old separation of Church and state nonsense are usually smart enough to know that such a phrase is found no where in the constitution but they figure the average American doesn’t know that, However when they argue with someone who knows better they just sound silly, unfortunately there are enough people in power who take this unconstitutional phrase and make it constitutional law to suit their own agenda. What really gets me though is when politicians say their religion will play no role in their judgement making when in office. This is ridiculous because if your religion means anything to you it should play a role in all of your thought processes and it should help you make good choices in office. This comment might make sense if we were a strict democracy and all the laws were passed by majority rules polls and the politicians were just their to execute those decisions. After all that is what a true democracy is. However, we have a republic as our type of government which means we send representatives to make informed choices for us. If your faith, which should be the most important thing in your life has no effect on the most important things you are doing for the people you represent than it seems your faith is hollow.
Lie
Gay marriage/ gay issues/ hate crimes is about equal rights or civil rights.
Truth
People who call themselves gay have the exact same tights everyone else has. Anyone has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. In addition marriage is not a government granted right. Marriage is first a part of God’s plan for men and women to be married one to another of the opposite sex. Governments and companies have given married couples certain privileges because they see the benefits that married couples and families bring to society and the workplace. Part of that is because family is the building block of any society and you must have families to continue and thrive. However that does not devalue single people as they are also very important and bring different benefits. Also in our society married couples pay more in taxes so it is not all one sided in being beneficial. I’m not for civil unions but if it was really just about equal rights many activists would only push for civil union type deals where they get the exact same benefits. However many want it to be called marriage because they went to be considered acceptable to everyone in society including those who disagree with them.
3 Responses to “How Liberals try to Act Conservative Part 4”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Not A Member? Register for Free!
I’m gonna tell you straight up that the bible is about compassion. God is love, a love that surpasses all understanding. The bible is a guide, it’s a history book, and it shows you how to live a good life. Politicians should use the lessons taught in the bible when they think about their policies. I never said that separation of church and state was a constitutional law, and I’ve never used it to push an agenda, I merely said that it could not be stressed enough. The whole point of the phrase is that we should be open and accepting of other people’s religions and cultures. Not just become a christian nation with christian politics. Open, accepting, compassionate. All things the bible teach anyway, so what’s the beef?
I don’t like how you classify liberals, maybe you should stick to classifying conservatives, because you obviously understand them a lot better. Most of the points you bring up here aren’t even the important issues to us, they’re just hot-button issues for the right to use (Look at how these liberal commies with their dang nammit hippie drug using gay rights agenda and their liberal media bla bla raise taxes for everyone bla this bla that) If you don’t get us, that’s fine, whatever. Don’t try to tell us what we’re all about though. And don’t think we bother trying to act conservative either. If you look at the average IQ of liberal and conservative states, it’s strange how the liberal ones are almost all higher than the conservative ones. We don’t need to dumb down our politics for your group, we’re trying to catch the rest of the country up.
If marriage is so holy (divorce rates and cheating in this country aside) then give the church the option to marry the gay couple. If they don’t want to for religious reasons then they shouldn’t be forced to. It should be available though, because seriously if the sanctity of marriage is your only defense? That’s already long gone. If two people love each other, then to me it doesn’t matter. Let them be happy. I can’t find one reference in the bible that would prompt hate and misunderstanding to get in the way of love.
Oh and btw, me and threedegrees could dissect every sentence you type if you want. I wouldn’t challenge us by saying we only look at bits and pieces.
Cheers!
Yeah, I was gonna leave this one alone simply because there are more important things going on in the world at large, and by proxy, my life; however, since my dawg decided to drop some, um, whaddaya callit, oh yeah, SCIENCE on ya…Larry, I hope you’re seated. Wait, of course you are.
First off, let me reiterate (since you seem to forget) that I grew up in the Church. I can quote scripture with the best of them, and have an understanding of more tenets of faith than any one man should. Ya see, I’m married to an anthropologist, and we read. A lot. Not only do I have a personal understanding of the Christian mythos, I have an educated understanding of over twenty different supernatural belief systems. They all boil down to sociological, environmental, and historical (in respect to the era of their inception) based ways to answer questions. Yes, Christianity, particularly the New Testament, speaks of love. Christ, however, as a living extension of God takes on all aspects of God. If you remember, God wasn’t all that nice. God is responsible for more slaughter in the Old Testament than all of his adversaries put together. His son makes a point of telling everyone that he is his father’s son. Perhaps that literal interpretation of the Bible, as well as some of the more outdated themes of Deuteronomy, are what’s causing the Fundamental Evangelicals to behave like it’s 99 A.D., you know, like the Muslims.
Making marriage political effectively makes it a government granted right. When the Federal Government steps in to define what constitutes marriage, brother, that’s political. How you fail to recognize that is beyond me. A civil union is the modern day equivalent of calling a black person 3/5 of a human being. Which segues nicely into your lumping hate crimes into the “lie” that hate crimes aren’t about civil or equal rights. Tell me, then, please what are hate crimes about? Or are they just a liberal myth?
I don’t recall anyone saying that separation of church and state was Constitutional law. The argument stems from Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists, and James Madison’s (accurate) belief that excessive fundamentalist beliefs would cloud out reason and logical judgment on the part of the legislate. Skwguitar has a very valid point when he raises the question of your motivations behind this little exercise in “hot button” (read, “irrelevant”) issues that are largely used as scare tactics to rally a largely unemphatic base until they hear a word or phrase that makes them hit the panic button. And yes, we can go sentence by sentence, if you like.
I just want to set one thing straight. I’m not writing to or against any particular person who reads or doesn’t read my blog.
> Comment:
> Yeah, I was gonna leave this one alone simply because >there are more important things going on in the world at >large, and by proxy, my life; however, since my dawg >decided to drop some, um, whaddaya callit, oh yeah, >SCIENCE on ya…Larry, I hope you’re seated. Wait, of >course you are.
> First off, let me reiterate (since you seem to forget) >that I grew up in the Church. I can quote scripture with >the best of them, and have an understanding of more >tenets of faith than any one man should.
Ok. I did not grow up in the church, so I have a differnt viewpoint
> Ya see, I’m married to an anthropologist, and we read. >A lot. Not only do I have a personal understanding of >the Christian mythos, I have an educated understanding >of over twenty different supernatural belief systems.
>I have a personal relationship with Jesus.
> They all boil down to sociological, environmental, and >historical (in respect to the era of their inception) >based ways to answer questions. Yes, Christianity, >particularly the New Testament, speaks of love.
If I really felt that Christ boiled down to sociological, environmental and so on, my religion would indeed be a religion and although it may sound cliché to say so, my relationship in following Jesus is just that, a relationship not a religion so it’s not about rules.
> Christ, however, as a living extension of God takes on >all aspects of God. If you remember, God wasn’t all that >nice. God is responsible for more slaughter in the Old >Testament than all of his adversaries put together.
God is Holy and he created everyone. He can do as He chooses. He also sees and knows the heart and we are all guilty of sin, so God Himself has the right to do as He sees fit.
> His son makes a point of telling everyone that he is >his father’s son. Perhaps that literal interpretation of >the Bible, as well as some of!
Christ is God, not just an extension. He says that “I and the Father are one”, “He who has seen Me has seen the Father”, he always existed “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was God…” Although He was clear about who He was and is, I don’t think I would say he made a point out of telling everyone.
> the more outdated themes of Deuteronomy, are what’s >causing the Fundamental Evangelicals to behave like it’s >99 A.D., you know, like the Muslims.
>
> Making marriage political effectively makes it a >government granted right. When the Federal Government >steps in to define what constitutes marriage, brother, >that’s political. How you fail to recognize that is >beyond me. A civil union is the modern day equivalent of >calling a black person 3/5 of a human being.
All people are people including gay or straight, black or white. Marriage is a union and not a person.
> Which segues nicely into your lumping hate crimes into >the “lie” that hate crimes aren’t about civil or equal >rights. Tell me, then, please what are hate crimes >about? Or are they just a liberal myth?
Crimes are crimes most of them involve hate in some fashion so we don’t need to say hate crime because it is already so, it is redundant, we don’t need to mark special crimes as hate crimes it’s redundant. And we don’t need special penalties for those crimes, if you commit rape you should be punished according to how rape is punished and if you commit murder you should be punished according to how murder is punished and so forth. Now if you commit murder against a gay person it is no different, you should be punished just the same as if you killed a straight person. It doesn’t matter what evil thought was going through the murderers head when he killed someone, it only matters if he is guilty and if so he should be punished.
>
> I don’t recall anyone saying that separation of church >and state was Constitutional law.
Many do.
> The argument stems from Jefferson’s letter to the >Danbury Baptists,
correct. Where he basically tells them, not to worry that Government will not impose a universal denomination and that government will not tell relgions what they can and can’t do.
> and James Madison’s (accurate) belief that excessive >fundamentalist beliefs would cloud out reason and >logical judgment on the part of the legislate.
Incorrect. Madison was against anyone saying I’m religous so vote for me and he was against the government imposing religion on people, not that religion should play no role in government.
> Skwguitar has a very valid point when he raises the >question of your motivations behind this little exercise >in “hot button” (read, “irrelevant”) issues that are >largely used as scare tactics
Who am I scaring? I think you two guys are about the only ones who read me blog. And I really do appreciate the time you take to write even though we disagree. However regardless of who reads it I will continue to write, not to scare anyone but to share my thoughts. I believe most people who can ready this pretty much have a mind of their own and nothing I say will scare them unless they are already scared.
> to rally a largely unemphatic base until they hear a >word or phrase that makes them hit the panic button. And >yes, we can go sentence by sentence, if you like.
>
Feel free to post whatever you like. I have and will continue to let all comments be accepted unless they are crude in language or attack someone personally.
Thanks for your post.