I want to share something with you, my reader that has been on my chest for some time now. But before I begin, as I always do with rather serious matters, allow me to make a preface:
Whether you agree with what I am about to say or do not, I do not care. I still have the freedom to say what I wish and how I wish and your opinions cannot change that blessed freedom. Some things I will say may be offensive to some and although I do not intend the offense in any aggressive or vicious manner, I will not censor what I say just because it makes certain people feel “icky”. If deep down I believe something to be true, it is morally wrong for me to then be silent on the basis of a shaken tranquility of my neighbor. Truth is not always pleasant and the need for change does not always feel like a warm hug and a tender kiss. So if you are expecting this post to be filled with the blindfolded notion of “political correctness” and the self-contradictory concept “there are no absolutes”, then leave this blog and go back to your world of secularism, that religion which masks itself under the philosophical “neutral” as it parades around in its hypocritical anti-religious regime, spoon feeding you it’s lies as you allow it to tell you what and how to think.
___________________________
I have been noticing several disturbing things in America. Like the nature of all things “bad”, they tend to creep up on people in small increments, even over generations until what is “bad” is believed to be good and acceptable. In the words of a wise philosopher, what is unthinkable tomorrow is now thinkable today. To make this statement more explicit, what many people would think would never be seen as “commonplace” in our society, is now commonplace. To start with a couple: abortion and homosexuality. Not more than 50 years ago (I could hear some saying even less than that), such notions of human action were considered abominable. Now? The mass murdering of millions of children and the growing legislation for legalizing homosexual union witnesses to an entirely different scene. Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not one of those crazy “bible thumper” people that is condemning people. I have my beliefs, I believe they are justified and the beautiful freedoms in America allow me to express that. If you think I hate homosexuals just because I am against the act of homosexuality, then you are horribly mistaken. I have many gay friends and they are fantastic people. Take this into consideration: I have a family member who does drugs and I am completely against drugs. Do I somehow hate this relative just because I hate the action they are doing? On a similar note, I am just as much against pornography as I am against homosexuality (notice the “ity” at the end indicating the “action” and not the “person”). Which lends me to say that pornography is also a big issue that is so highly indulged in today, a fact which didn’t exist a few decades ago.
I could just anticipate a reader saying that that happened because so many where “Christians” or “religious” back then and that is why such actions were so aggressively condemned. Although I would agree with this, I still have to say “SO?” What kind of arrogant, blind-sighted people think that just because people condemn certain actions that stem from religious convictions have any less logic behind such beliefs, than someone who bases their sets of morals upon the ever shifting tides of cultural “opinion”?!
(Side tangent: Not to mention that “religious” people don’t always vote based on religious conviction but what they believe is good for society. I would say that homosexual marriage should not be promoted because it encourages a type of behavior that I believe unhealthy in the family structure where children need both mother and father figures for ideal psychological growth. Tell me, does that sound religious? Or does that sound like an answer based on psychological analysis of the prepubescent? Therefore I do conclude that when it comes to legislation the issue should not be based on religious convictions that result in the restriction of particular tastes of other people. It should be based on what is good for society. My facts say homosexuality has its flaws.)
But that is just my point. [Since I am not going to write some 50 page paper on this post with oodles of citations for the support, I will feel free to blurt out facts and if you wish me to back it up, I will post citations for you on the comment section] Liberals tend to have done a great job in making any religious notion that goes against their ideas as “intolerant”, “ignorant”, or “close-minded”. Yes, I said “Liberals”. And considering most of the media is liberal, they too have done a good job in delivering the punch home by making the “right” or “religious wing” (mainly Christianity) seem highly close-minded people. This is why I think many liberals (and if you are a liberal who does not fall in this category, then naturally I am not talking about you) are two-faced and deceptive. Instead of fighting fire with fire (aka, being fair), they deceive the public by making their opposing views titled “intolerant”, thus creating a lie by redefining a group incorrectly, which makes the liberals themselves the most hypocritical people. They claim to be opened-minded by accepting all these “new lifestyles and morals” (abortion, homosexuality, etc…take your pick), but somehow condemn the beliefs, lifestyles, and morals of conservatives and Christians. How in the world is that being tolerant of ALL views??? I disagree with their notions of morality, but I am “tolerant” (man!….being a conservative Christian myself, let me say that again….T O L E R A N T) of their views. So who is being hypocritical now? Who is really the close-minded, manipulative group?
The sad thing about all of this is people like me are being made out to be bad, outdated, and irrelevant. We are the “close-minded” people and the liberals are the ones who are “free thinkers” (except anything relating to conservatives or the right wing Christian group….or anything that opposes their views)….and thus a hindrance to society. Eventually, legislation begins to reflect that hindrance as key positions in politics are controlled by those liberals, and laws get instituted that are offensive to conservatives and Christians alike. Why did the Ten Commandments get taken out of the court in Alabama and not a question was raised about the Greek mythological figurines that line the wall? I believe it is a small example of how Liberals view the “Church and State” issue. It is EXACTLY that, “Church” and State not “religion” and State. Targeting a group like I am beginning to see in America is what you see in a country where Tyranny is growing. Certain group(s) are squeezed out until they are made the enemy. This brings me back to the legalizing of homosexuality in California. The majority of people still ruled that they did not want it…and the most disturbing thing happened….a few judges overturned it. I don’t care what topic it could have been over, the fact that the people had their power stripped from them and it was placed in the hands of the few “high powers” is Tyranny. THAT IS TYRANNY!
Our founding fathers understood tyranny well. The Second Amendment played and still does play a huge role in that. And it is to this topic that my post has been pointing at. In DC the courts ruled 5 to 4 in favor of the people. I am absolutely ecstatic our Second Amendment stands true and wasn’t manipulative redefined by the trickery of liberals…but to a certain extent it was. How sad is it that 4 voted against the people. Somehow these liberals actually thought that our founding fathers did not have in mind the concept of self-defense with a firearm. We have the right to bear arms! Not just for a militia but for our right to defend ourselves. It is criminal to keep someone from defending themselves. I can’t stress this enough, IT IS CRIMINAL TO KEEP SOMEONE FROM DEFENDING THEMSELVES! If the government takes away our guns, being law abiding citizens we will not have them and the robbers, rapists, and murderers who sneak into my house at night will. They will because they do not care about the law and they will find a way. So where does that leave me in protecting my wife? So where does that leave me when the government finally outlaws Christianity and decides to bust down my door and all I have is a knife? I’m sure they would still take me down easily if I had a gun but at least I have some chance. Our founding fathers knew this too. At the time, technology was equal all around and if the government decided to be tyrannical, the people had the same weapons to match the people who would wish to stifle their freedom. Governments had more fear of their people then. I strongly believe governments should fear their people and thus act the correct part of a servant. Therefore, having a firearm is so much more than a toy. It is more than a piece of metal. If the government decided to take away my guns, would I stand for it? The patriot in me says I would not and I would die fighting against that terrible act of tyranny. Of course, that is easy for me to say behind a computer screen and far removed from such a scenario. As such, I will not make some bold statement like that. But I can express what my heart would want and it wants to stand firm behind that symbol of protection. That symbol of freedom. The freedom to protect my family. The freedom to band together with the people and make a stand, no matter how frail against the modern weapons of our government, and say we will not succumb to fear and we will not allow our government to take our only chance of keeping our homes safe from evil men and the governments who would wish to do us evil!
Whether you agree with what I am about to say or do not, I do not care. I still have the freedom to say what I wish and how I wish and your opinions cannot change that blessed freedom. Some things I will say may be offensive to some and although I do not intend the offense in any aggressive or vicious manner, I will not censor what I say just because it makes certain people feel “icky”. If deep down I believe something to be true, it is morally wrong for me to then be silent on the basis of a shaken tranquility of my neighbor. Truth is not always pleasant and the need for change does not always feel like a warm hug and a tender kiss. So if you are expecting this post to be filled with the blindfolded notion of “political correctness” and the self-contradictory concept “there are no absolutes”, then leave this blog and go back to your world of secularism, that religion which masks itself under the philosophical “neutral” as it parades around in its hypocritical anti-religious regime, spoon feeding you it’s lies as you allow it to tell you what and how to think.
___________________________
I have been noticing several disturbing things in America. Like the nature of all things “bad”, they tend to creep up on people in small increments, even over generations until what is “bad” is believed to be good and acceptable. In the words of a wise philosopher, what is unthinkable tomorrow is now thinkable today. To make this statement more explicit, what many people would think would never be seen as “commonplace” in our society, is now commonplace. To start with a couple: abortion and homosexuality. Not more than 50 years ago (I could hear some saying even less than that), such notions of human action were considered abominable. Now? The mass murdering of millions of children and the growing legislation for legalizing homosexual union witnesses to an entirely different scene. Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not one of those crazy “bible thumper” people that is condemning people. I have my beliefs, I believe they are justified and the beautiful freedoms in America allow me to express that. If you think I hate homosexuals just because I am against the act of homosexuality, then you are horribly mistaken. I have many gay friends and they are fantastic people. Take this into consideration: I have a family member who does drugs and I am completely against drugs. Do I somehow hate this relative just because I hate the action they are doing? On a similar note, I am just as much against pornography as I am against homosexuality (notice the “ity” at the end indicating the “action” and not the “person”). Which lends me to say that pornography is also a big issue that is so highly indulged in today, a fact which didn’t exist a few decades ago.
I could just anticipate a reader saying that that happened because so many where “Christians” or “religious” back then and that is why such actions were so aggressively condemned. Although I would agree with this, I still have to say “SO?” What kind of arrogant, blind-sighted people think that just because people condemn certain actions that stem from religious convictions have any less logic behind such beliefs, than someone who bases their sets of morals upon the ever shifting tides of cultural “opinion”?!
(Side tangent: Not to mention that “religious” people don’t always vote based on religious conviction but what they believe is good for society. I would say that homosexual marriage should not be promoted because it encourages a type of behavior that I believe unhealthy in the family structure where children need both mother and father figures for ideal psychological growth. Tell me, does that sound religious? Or does that sound like an answer based on psychological analysis of the prepubescent? Therefore I do conclude that when it comes to legislation the issue should not be based on religious convictions that result in the restriction of particular tastes of other people. It should be based on what is good for society. My facts say homosexuality has its flaws.)
But that is just my point. [Since I am not going to write some 50 page paper on this post with oodles of citations for the support, I will feel free to blurt out facts and if you wish me to back it up, I will post citations for you on the comment section] Liberals tend to have done a great job in making any religious notion that goes against their ideas as “intolerant”, “ignorant”, or “close-minded”. Yes, I said “Liberals”. And considering most of the media is liberal, they too have done a good job in delivering the punch home by making the “right” or “religious wing” (mainly Christianity) seem highly close-minded people. This is why I think many liberals (and if you are a liberal who does not fall in this category, then naturally I am not talking about you) are two-faced and deceptive. Instead of fighting fire with fire (aka, being fair), they deceive the public by making their opposing views titled “intolerant”, thus creating a lie by redefining a group incorrectly, which makes the liberals themselves the most hypocritical people. They claim to be opened-minded by accepting all these “new lifestyles and morals” (abortion, homosexuality, etc…take your pick), but somehow condemn the beliefs, lifestyles, and morals of conservatives and Christians. How in the world is that being tolerant of ALL views??? I disagree with their notions of morality, but I am “tolerant” (man!….being a conservative Christian myself, let me say that again….T O L E R A N T) of their views. So who is being hypocritical now? Who is really the close-minded, manipulative group?
The sad thing about all of this is people like me are being made out to be bad, outdated, and irrelevant. We are the “close-minded” people and the liberals are the ones who are “free thinkers” (except anything relating to conservatives or the right wing Christian group….or anything that opposes their views)….and thus a hindrance to society. Eventually, legislation begins to reflect that hindrance as key positions in politics are controlled by those liberals, and laws get instituted that are offensive to conservatives and Christians alike. Why did the Ten Commandments get taken out of the court in Alabama and not a question was raised about the Greek mythological figurines that line the wall? I believe it is a small example of how Liberals view the “Church and State” issue. It is EXACTLY that, “Church” and State not “religion” and State. Targeting a group like I am beginning to see in America is what you see in a country where Tyranny is growing. Certain group(s) are squeezed out until they are made the enemy. This brings me back to the legalizing of homosexuality in California. The majority of people still ruled that they did not want it…and the most disturbing thing happened….a few judges overturned it. I don’t care what topic it could have been over, the fact that the people had their power stripped from them and it was placed in the hands of the few “high powers” is Tyranny. THAT IS TYRANNY!
Our founding fathers understood tyranny well. The Second Amendment played and still does play a huge role in that. And it is to this topic that my post has been pointing at. In DC the courts ruled 5 to 4 in favor of the people. I am absolutely ecstatic our Second Amendment stands true and wasn’t manipulative redefined by the trickery of liberals…but to a certain extent it was. How sad is it that 4 voted against the people. Somehow these liberals actually thought that our founding fathers did not have in mind the concept of self-defense with a firearm. We have the right to bear arms! Not just for a militia but for our right to defend ourselves. It is criminal to keep someone from defending themselves. I can’t stress this enough, IT IS CRIMINAL TO KEEP SOMEONE FROM DEFENDING THEMSELVES! If the government takes away our guns, being law abiding citizens we will not have them and the robbers, rapists, and murderers who sneak into my house at night will. They will because they do not care about the law and they will find a way. So where does that leave me in protecting my wife? So where does that leave me when the government finally outlaws Christianity and decides to bust down my door and all I have is a knife? I’m sure they would still take me down easily if I had a gun but at least I have some chance. Our founding fathers knew this too. At the time, technology was equal all around and if the government decided to be tyrannical, the people had the same weapons to match the people who would wish to stifle their freedom. Governments had more fear of their people then. I strongly believe governments should fear their people and thus act the correct part of a servant. Therefore, having a firearm is so much more than a toy. It is more than a piece of metal. If the government decided to take away my guns, would I stand for it? The patriot in me says I would not and I would die fighting against that terrible act of tyranny. Of course, that is easy for me to say behind a computer screen and far removed from such a scenario. As such, I will not make some bold statement like that. But I can express what my heart would want and it wants to stand firm behind that symbol of protection. That symbol of freedom. The freedom to protect my family. The freedom to band together with the people and make a stand, no matter how frail against the modern weapons of our government, and say we will not succumb to fear and we will not allow our government to take our only chance of keeping our homes safe from evil men and the governments who would wish to do us evil!
12 comments:
That about sums it up. Well done.
"Dangerous Radicals of the Religious Right" by Dave MacPherson is much needed. I found it on Yahoo. Omar
but, how do you really feel? i'm not sure if i know where you stand on the big issues...... :)
HAHAHA!
Fifty years ago, there were many professed Christians who believed that it was an abomination for white people to share schools, restaurants, drinking fountains, swimming pools, and other public accommodations with black people. My point is not to equate segregation with abortion or homosexuality, however, I am always skeptical of arguments based on some idealized notion of some past time when things were so much better than today because people were right-thinking. I don’t think it never existed.
If you go back one hundred years, there were almost no narcotics laws. People were allowed to make their own decisions about what they put in their bodies. Then certain people decided that it was government’s job to control behavior that those people found objectionable. Now we spend untold sums of money putting people in jail for drug offenses.
Attitudes have changed towards homosexuality and abortion, but I think that this may be a natural outgrowth of commonsense notions of minding one’s own business that have always been an inherent part of the American character. Moreover, I doubt that the general opinions on these questions were ever as uniform as your comments suggest.
I certainly respect your right to your opinion, but I don’t have a lot of confidence in your historical perspective.
Welcome back Vinny!
I do share some common ground with you about saying "anything" in the past must be better than now. But I personally believe there are many things today which are NOT better than they were 50 years ago. Sure, segregation was a problem that we do not deal with now. That is definite progress. Abortion and homosexuality, a different matter. But at the same time, the past can be a check for us in the present. Either for dodging mistakes...or recognizing where we have gone wrong. Hence the nature of learning history.
As for the narcotics, any study of American history in the early 19th century will witness to a massive problem in society of drug and alcohol abuse. We like to think of such times as nice and cozy, but America was a "drunken" nation. Although I'm sure I made it clear in my blog about how I feel about government interference, I'm sure we can both agree there are some points of intervention that is acceptable. Considering there were virtually no laws on the matter at the time, I witness evidence that suggests the legislation actually helping the society when the laws did come into play (alongside groups such as Alcoholic Anonymous which was started by Christians as well as various other organizations).
And like I said, I believe laws are about what can actually be beneficial to society. Abortion and homosexuality I do have issues with. However, (specifically homosexuality) I'm not going to go out and make some big issue over it. There are more pressing matters at hand then that, such as putting efforts into programs (obviously not laws) that help stabilize marriages and protect them from heterosexual adultery.
As for my lack of "historical perspective", I'm not for sure I understand.
On a lasting note, I do sometimes hesitate about how I feel about actual legislation that controls sexual preferences. It does seem to verge on some things I was raging about in my blog. So, I admit I may be wrong on that matter.
As for the narcotics, any study of American history in the early 19th century will witness to a massive problem in society of drug and alcohol abuse. We like to think of such times as nice and cozy, but America was a "drunken" nation.
These are the kind of points where I have questions about your historical perspective. I have read a fair amount of American history and I do not recall any mention of this period as being one of extraordinary inebriation.
Sorry for my long absence. Even now I don't have time to take the discussion further, but I realized an error in my post. I meant 20th century.
I figured that was what you meant as I sometimes make the same mistake. I thought about pointing it out, but it felt like nitpicking.
Blogging should be pleasurable, so if you feel like taking up the topic again, that's fine; if not, that's fine too.
although this may be petty but what is the difference between watching someone murdered in a movie or watching two people have sex? both are sins, correct? but watching movies about serial killers is fun but porn is wrong?
i have a uncle on my fathers side who has a set of twin sons. Both joined the military after high school and the proceeded to go to college. While one was away at college getting his masters in English he entertained many different ideas and actually was convinced that he was homosexual. He dated a few guys and was happy. Upon his arrival back home to visit with his father he told his father about his newly discovered feelings. His father then counseled him on what the bible says and how his feelings were wrong according to his faith. the son told his dad that he couldnt help how he was feeling and that it was just something he felt. His father then asked him to leave his house and told him that he was no longer his son. his twin sided with the father.
about a year later news trickled down from mutual friends that the son had met a woman, was engaged, and planning on starting a family. this was great news to the father and brother. After many attempts at trying to reach him, he finally responded with "you signed me off as being your son and brother, when i needed you most you made me feel like i was trash and disowned me. please never contact me again."
to do this day there is no contact between them. i know that he got his masters from Berkeley and is either a professor or teaching somewhere. i myself have tried to contact him but he refuses to respond.
i guess what i take from this is, isnt god supposed to be the one who is judging? a perfectly good family was destroyed because a father decided to play god and judge his son. i could see guiding him, helping him, making him aware of what he believed to be the repercussions of such a life style but to send him away is messed up.
if your brother came to you and told he you he was gay and that he had felt that way since he was a child and was done fighting it... ho would you feel about the issue then?
As for Anonymous #1, I am not for sure where you are getting at.
Anonymous #2:
You have some confusion going on between judgment and lack of compassion. You say that God is "supposed to be the one judging". First off, I completely agree with you. God does the judging. He determines what is right and what is wrong. However, Christians believe God has revealed what He declares is right and wrong, thus man is able to use that criterion (i.e., God's Word) to discern/judge ethical situations. Now the guy's father was wrong in that he judged without love and with a holier-than thou mindset which man is not to do. His lack of compassion made his "judgment" more like an executioner.
If the father was a Christian (hence perhaps this was why he believed homosexuality was a sin), then it would have been okay to express that belief with great care and love. Futhermore, he should NEVER have cast him out because of it! Homosexuality is a sin just like when I lust after a woman. Sin is sin.
So to answer your last question, I would tell my brother about how homosexuality is a sin and would help him in any way I could and would love him just as much as before.
I have talked to two different friends this last month (who are gay) and I had to tell them what I believed. Both times I did not like doing it (I don't enjoy hurting people's feelings), but I believed it was a sin and I would thus be showing a lack of love by not expressing that when they asked me about it. As for the other friend, I was in tears in fear that our friendship would be ruined by telling him what I believed.
Yes, truth is tough, but truth should be accompanied with gentleness and love, NEVER rejection.
My heart goes out to your cousin.
On a lasting note, I NEVER treated those friends before, during, or after the incident any differently by sharing what I did. Why should I treat them differently? Christ calls me not to condemn, but to love.
Post a Comment