Regarding Eric's viewpoints, & his blog...
Sorry for the length; trying to be thorough.
Did I ever say "I'm conservative" or "right wing"? I gave you this list of my key political views (which have long been obvious from my posts)...The whole purpose of linking to it is so that my full views could be seen. I've even excerpted parts of it in the past in pertinent topics.
Kudos for putting it out there. It was my first time to read it; though that's not anyone's fault...I just had never know it was there.
However, I would say that now that I have read your blog, I would consider you a
great deal more left-leaning than I previously thought.
And it's not "dislike" for the other side, it's dislike for many of their views.
After reading your blog--I would assert it's a dislike for virtually
all conservative views. And frankly, you're not exactly even-handed in the treatment of conservatives versus liberals. Race is an excellent example. Time and time again, you give left-leaning racists a free pass. Not so for the stereotypical "southern white redneck racist."
Why can't sin be sin, no matter
which side is engaging in it?
It seems you're the only ones allowed to dislike anything, and you're the ones who go after the people, not just the views.
A point to concede: You are usually quite polite and measured in your responses. But politeness does not equal consistency. You tend to avoid ad-hominems. Congrats. But you do not give equal treatment to opposing sides for similar behaviors (see the "racism" point above; also, you often times reduce a Christian viewpoint on issues down beyond its true component. You seem to worry so much about "anti-intellectualism" that you are scared to side with Christian viewpoints on much of anything.
But I'm not making ad-hominems...
Once again, differentiating between style and substance: Often times, ad hominems are synonymous with venomous personal attacks. And no, you tend to shy away from that.
However...in your blog, you very seamlessly move from a hyper-fundamental issue ("Amy Grant isn't the antichrist," KJVO controversy) to a mainstream political issue (gun control, welfare reform, abortion)--and you
lump "the right" on those issues in with the hyper-fundamentalists on other issues. This "guilt by association" is pretty clever. Factually incorrect...but clever. Misleading to the reader...but clever. Intellectually dishonest....but clever.
Some of Eric's positions I felt I should deal with...
Conservative vs. Liberal:
•Liberals and Conservatives are sinful humans and neither has a monopoly on the truth. Both take parts of truth that suits them, and ignore the rest.
But...liberals put their faith almost
exclusively in government to rectify society's ills. Conservatives put more faith in the individual. The latter isn't foolproof, but it sure is better.
Who's right?
•Truth is from God's word (and proper citing of claims you make about another person), not a party platform
Yes...but if a party platform happens to get an issue right, what's wrong with acknoledging such?
Abortion & Homosexuality:
•More conservative-to-libertarian on abortion...They are biblically wrong, but government should not be so involved in promoting or restricting them.
Sickening. You have absolutely no ground to stand on with regard to abortion.
Your argument fails on the Constitutional front: (remember "life, liberty, pursuit of happiness?" That first one is kind of important!)
Your argument fails on the moral front: You can dress up your terms all you want--"conservative to libertarian"--but you simply are not willing to stand up for the most helpless of our society, and that is about as unChristian a political view as exists. It still amazes me that anyone would feel that a mother's taking the life of her baby is a "personal decision." Baloney.
Your argument fails on the societal front: I can think of nothing more destructive and destabilizing to a civilized society than the murder of the children by the parents and their doctors--the two entities with the highest charge of protecting said lives.
Your gay rights arguments did not raise my ire as much, because there is less of a helpless victimhood there. But Biblically, it's still wrong. There is
no doubt it will destabilize and ruin our society and culture. And make no mistake: Lives
are at stake...but I would say the bulk of our laws should be more on restricting the indoctrination that is taking place. And like it or not...the slippery slope is there. The door is open for all manner of immorality to not only exist, but to be legitimized by the government, and celebrated in our schools.
The economy:
•The economy is being drained by a combination of government waste on all levels, as well as corporate greed, and global financial shifting; and very little of it going to the poor or other groups such as minorities, contrary to apparent conservative assumptions
What is unsaid, but implied, is the idea that "everyone ought to have the same." Poppycock.
We as Christians are called on to give. We are called on to help those in need. And there is precedent for Christians,
voluntarily and of their own initiative and action, living lives of "extreme" sharing.
But nowhere is there precedent for forced govermental confiscation and redistribution. It doesn't work. It hasn't worked. It won't work.
****
For those who say, "you can't legislate morality..."
Horsefeathers. Legislation is our
recognition of a moral standard. Bad morality can be legislated...but one cannot have a code of laws that is fundamentally amoral. Why else would we outlaw killing, unless there was some higher moral law that made it wrong?
(Of course, in Eric's view, if you are an unborn baby, this does not apply, apparently...government 'shouldn't get involved,' I guess, in matters of right & wrong, life & death... :tear: ).
