DISQUS

DISQUS Hello! ETC: Everyday Thoughts Collected is using DISQUS, a powerful comment system, to manage its comments. Learn more.

Community Page

ETC: Everyday Thoughts Collected

Personal Blog of Randy Thomas
Jump to original thread »
Author

Letter From A Christian in 2012 - Focus Action Letter

Started by Randy · 8 months ago

Focus On The Family Action released this letter as a possible scenario of life in 2012 after the potential election of Obama as President. It’s a frightening prospect for conservative Christians to consider. Some would consider it fear mongering. I think it really raises important consid ... Continue reading »

87 comments

  • Brady

    8 months ago

    Jay (and kind of Randy too)- I'm not going to get into the middle of yall's discussion here, but I wanted to make one small point. Jay- you mentioned that you try to be as professional as possible when discussing things with Randy, which is a nice gesture.

    However, I've found (both online and in actual professional life now that I am old and in that world) that over email/online, a "professional" tone can often come off condescending or rude to the reader. He or she doesn't exactly know what your intentions are, so if you are arguing against someone and using a tone you think to be professional, the reader may see the argumentation and assume an attacking or confrontational tone since there is no inflection or tone of voice involved.

    I know I'm not immune to coming off mean or rude from time to time, but I think generally I don't (and I try hard not to). Maybe using a tone that leans more towards "friendly" than professional would work better when arguing/debating over the internet. That way your reader knows you are arguing/debating actual points of the conversation rather than taking shots at him or her personal.
    reply
  • B.T.Carolus

    8 months ago

    I've been thinking the same thing, because for two people who theoretically agree on a lot of things, Jay and Randy sure seem to fight...a lot. Maybe they're just looking to highlight their disagreements all the time, and it gets blown out of proportion?
    reply
  • Randy

    8 months ago

    I think we argue more often than not but I wouldn't say it is fair to say ... a lot. I can honestly say I am not looking to highlight disagreements. Blowing out of proportion? ... possibly.
    reply
  • Jay

    8 months ago

    Well, I really don't comment on things I agree about unless I have an additional point to make that I view to be worthwhile to a given discussion (and this goes for pretty much all blogs). That's probably why it looks like I'm out to highlight disagreements. I'm really not. I just don't see any reason to put down a "great post!" comment unless I have something to add or a question to ask.

    It's hard for me to be friendly online. I usually stick to trying to be professional and plainspoken. I suppose this can sound a little cold and condescending, so I see Brady's point. It's simply not my intention, and I don't really know how to take a more conversational approach to this, though I'm sure it would be beneficial.

    And yeah, Ellie, I think Randy and I do agree on most things (at least the essentials of the Christian faith, and even about what is and isn't godly sexuality). My disagreements with him are more about public policy or ideas about the current state of culture. Whatever personality or intellectual conflicts we might have are secondary to the fact that we're both brothers in Christ and are unified by our belief in Him.
    reply
  • Randy

    8 months ago

    Whatever personality or intellectual conflicts we might have are secondary to the fact that we're both brothers in Christ and are unified by our belief in Him.


    Agreed.
    reply
  • Randy

    8 months ago

    Very good point Brady. Duly noted and I personally think you are on to something.
    reply
  • Mensley

    8 months ago

    Honestly, I think this letter depicts pretty accurately where the ideology of the Left will take this country. However, I think they will have to do it incrimentally and that most of it probably couldn't happen in the span of an Obama presidency. But I could be wrong.

    In that case, though, God will use the hardships of the Body of Christ (as He always has) to show who the true Believers are. It's sad to see how many are falling away from truth simply because they will not stand to be held in contempt by the court of Public Opinion. That's not even real persecution.
    reply
  • Randy

    8 months ago

    Very good comment Mike. I have nothing to add but I completely agree. I also don't think that Obama could ruin the country in four years but he could propel us further down that road.
    reply
  • Julie

    8 months ago

    The state of Washington has a Physician Suicide initiative on the ballot (I-1000) this election year. The state of California is sneaking in a mild form of euthanasia onto their ballot. Sen Obama claimed that hearing the case of Terri Schaivo was the worst mistake he made in his career. Should we mention his feelings about infants born alive during abortions?

    Should some sort of universal health system come about or even an increase in gov funded health care, soon the fear of limited resources will pop up. Who will be the first denied care- or even life?

    This is what will happen by 2012.

    I remember a conversation I had with a Christian friend, a man who sincerely loves God, who really didn't understand what was wrong with letting 'Mrs. Schaivo die'- a woman alive and breathing (on her own, I might add) who may or may not have been in a persistant vegetative state, who had the misfortune of complete dependence on other human beings and their subjective ideas of right and wrong. I REALLY have to have conversations how murder is wrong with other Christians. Incidentally, do you know how many Terri Schaivos there have been and how many more there are?

    But homosexuality is far more sensational, and seems to be all but the theme of this letter. So, instead of noticing how euthanasia is sneaking into the state of California and PA suicide is boldly marching into another, let's just pay attention to the squeaky wheel of gay marriage.

    I'm sorry, Randy. Gay marriage is serious and should be dealt with. I'm just really frustrated with Christians' seemingly obsession wih sex, while we ignore those with no voice who can't throw themselves a parade every year, ignoring Luke 14:21's mandate to "'Hurry into the streets and narrow roads of the city and bring poor people here. Bring those whose bodies are diseased. Bring those who cannot walk and those who are blind.'"

    Why do you think we're meant to hurry? Time's short.

    Okay, I'm stepping off the self-righteous box now.
    reply
  • Randy

    8 months ago

    No worries. I think your anger is righteous and completely understand. Thank you for sharing your thoughts. They help bring perspective.
    reply
  • B.T.Carolus

    8 months ago

    Can I ask which proposition in California includes a mild form of euthanasia?

    Also, I'd just like to clarify that the reason prop 8 is on the ballot this year is that Christian groups (lead by state churches) realized that the court was probably going to strike down the DOMA (which it did) and so began working on the amendment. If that hadn't happened our attention probably would be on other things.
    reply
  • Julie

    8 months ago

    AB 2747 has been signed into law in California by Gov Schwarzenegger already and will be the law in January. If I had been keeping on top of that I would have known that. Sorry.

    AB 2747 mandates that people with a terminal illness be given end of life options. This includes allowing for the recommendation by a nurse or physician assistant of unnatural death via 'palliative sedation. One may opt for this and thus dehydrate to death. The bill was sponsered by Compassion & Choices, the new name for the pro-euthanasia Hemlock Society.
    reply
  • B.T.Carolus

    8 months ago

    Thanks, that's good to know.
    reply
  • Renee

    8 months ago

    Hi Randy,

    I read the letter and although it is theoretical, it is very possible that many of these events will wea ve their way through our lives, regardless of who becomes President. What came to my mind was Ephesians 5:15-16 "Be careful how you live - not as unwise, but wise, making the most of every opportunity, because the days are evil. Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the Lords' will is".

    Regardless, the Lord knows those who are His, and He will preserve and take care of His own, that's a promise. I just read Psalm 33, and it is of great comfort to me, especially as I watch our leaders scrambling to find answers to things that are too high for them! Our job: " Keep yourself in the love of God, as you wait for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ". (Jude 21).

    That's what I plan to do! Maranatha!
    reply
  • Randy

    8 months ago

    Hi Renee! very good scriptural reminder. That is a very good focal point to stay grounded in these tumultuous times.
    reply
  • JoeDallas

    8 months ago

    Good post, Randy! A lot of what Dobson describes in his letter is sadly probable, but no one can predict when or how some, most, or all of these things could happen. I also have to remember that God calls the Church to function as His body regardless of cultural/political trends. So while reading each point of Dobson's letter, I ask myself four questions:

    1. "If this happens will I fight it or adjust to it?"
    2. "How can I best continue to fulfill my responsibility to family and ministry if this happens?"
    3. "If I fight this, what price am I willing to pay?"
    4. "If I don't fight this, can I live with myself?"

    You might try taking each of the points raised in Doc's letter, then asking yourself those four questions. It's sure helped me put this all in perspective.

    Joe Dallas
    reply
  • Randy

    8 months ago

    Yay Joe! Those are great questions to get to the heart of the potential problems and prepare for the worst case scenario. That way, whether it does happen or not one can feel more secure in knowing the possibilities.
    reply
  • Matt_V

    8 months ago

    I read the letter in full the day it was released and chewed on it over the weekend. I love and support Focus. I have connections to people who either are or have been employed by them, and I know they've done awesome things in ministry. Even still, I feel like the whole thing was a gross error in judgement that misrepresents the heart of Christ. I'll be writing a facebook note this week and go into more detail at that point.
    reply
  • Randy

    8 months ago

    I look forward to reading your thoughts.
    reply
  • Matt_V

    8 months ago

    I read the letter in full the day it was released and chewed on it over the weekend. I love and support Focus. I have connections to people who either are or have been employed by them, and I know they've done awesome things in ministry. Even still, I feel like the whole thing was a gross error in judgement that misrepresents the heart of Christ. I'll be writing a facebook note this week and go into more detail at that point.
    reply
  • Randy

    8 months ago

    I look forward to reading your thoughts.
    reply
  • RThomasETC (Randy Thomas)

    8 months ago

    Letter From A Christian in 2012 - Focus Action Letter http://tinyurl.com/6kxkn8
    reply
  • KingdomGeek (KingdomGeek)

    8 months ago

    How might America change for Christians after 4-years of an Obama presidency? Interesting conjecture: http://tinyurl.com/6kxkn8
    reply
  • Jay

    8 months ago

    I stopped reading when they implied a connection between homosexuality and pedophilia in the Boy Scouts section. That's simply shameful, Randy, and yes, this is very definition of fear-mongering. Christians certainly should be concerned about an Obama presidency, especially when it comes to his Supreme Court nominations, but this is not the way to show one's concern.

    The idea that Christians are on the brink of being "stigmatized, run out of the public square and thrown into bankruptcy or jail because of their religious beliefs" is hyperbole. Surely things are becoming more challenging, but mostly because of cultural shift, not political ones. And even if everything in that letter came true (which I highly doubt even a fraction of it would), we still would be better off than the early Christians. Where do we get the idea that we aren't supposed to be stigmatized by the surrounding culture? We're Christians, for crying out loud.

    If the culture supports us, then we really need to examine ourselves and make sure we're doing what's right, because it's not supposed to support us.
    reply
  • Randy

    8 months ago

    I think more than a "fraction" of that is possible. A lot more actually. However, I would agree that we (The Body) have been through much much much worse. It isn't like we are on the precipice of being crucified upside down.

    At the same time, it doesn't mean we don't need to be loud about the threat to religious liberty where threatened. Hyperbole? ... eh ... not really sold on it. Again, regardless, there are important underlying issues to keep an eye on.
    reply
  • Jay

    8 months ago

    Well, one can be loud but one does not have to be slanderous. The implication that a homosexual person in the ranks of the Boy Scouts would automatically be a pedophile is the definition of slander, and that kind of statement really overshadows whatever good points the letter might have made. I would at least like you to respond to that, because right now it looks like you're implicitly supporting that viewpoint.
    reply
  • Randy

    8 months ago

    Well, Jay, you are just about as offensive as you perceive them to be. You draw a conclusion about them and then basically demand that I respond to your perception about their depiction.

    ... ok ...

    Anyone who reads my blog, and doesn't impose their worst assumptions about me (like you apparently do), knows that I would never equate homosexuality with pedophilia.

    Unfortunately pedophiles exist in both heterosexual and homosexual realms.

    Jay, you always seem to know better than me so perhaps you should just make your points into new blog posts at your own site.
    reply
  • Randy

    8 months ago

    ok... my last sentence above wasn't very nice so ... make your comments hear if you want. I apologize.

    That said, I do often feel like your judgments of me are condescending but it is my choice on whether I allow them through or respond to them.
    reply
  • Jay

    8 months ago

    I'm not judging you, Randy. I see what I see and I point it out in order to ask for clarification. I know you don't equate homosexuality with pedophilia, but the author of the letter you're promoting here seems to (or at the very least links them).

    Of course simply posting a letter doesn't mean you agree with everything that letter says. I'm not saying you should make a line-by-line analysis of what you agree and disagree with. That wasn't your post's intention and I appreciate that. However, considering your line of ministry (which admirably involves dispelling some of the more unhelpful attitudes about gays and lesbians amongst Christians) I think at least saying that you disagreed with the letter's insinuations about homosexuals in the Boy Scouts being pedophiles would have been helpful.

    Silence doesn't always equal consent, but in some cases, it can really look like it.
    reply
  • Randy

    8 months ago

    Thanks for expanding your thoughts. I still contend that the only way silence equals consent is if you impose assumptions and make judgments based on those assumptions.
    reply
  • Jay

    8 months ago

    That's true, which is why I asked you to clarify your position. People naturally make assumptions, and when one is silent, that leaves room for people to make assumptions that might not be correct.
    reply
  • Randy

    8 months ago

    You didn't just ask me to clarify ... you implied that I was "implicitly" supporting a stigmatizing stereotype.

    Next time try saying something like "Randy it looks like Focus is implying that homosexuality = pedophilia? ... do you agree with that?"

    My answer would have been, "I am not sure that is what they are implying but if they were ... no. I don't agree with that."

    Simple questions for clarification are just that ... simple. Assuming the negative and then trying to force someone to defend themselves (or be guilty through silence) against your negative assumptions is called manipulation. And that is as offensive as being implicated in stigmatizing a community I care deeply for.
    reply
  • Jay

    8 months ago

    When I said "implicitly," I was using a word incorrectly. I apologize for that. I meant to say "tacitly" or "passively." I guess my inner thesaurus was out to lunch at the time.

    If you didn't want someone to assume the negative, you could have put a disclaimer in the post stating your disagreement with Focus' stigmatizing implications. Or, if you didn't believe they were trying to be stigmatizing, you could have simply said so after my initial comment, instead of taking me to task for making an assumption and dragging this conversation out much longer than it needed to be.

    I hope this doesn't sound condescending to you. That isn't my intention. I don't go out of my way to make judgments about you nor do I think I'm better than you, and I try to keep my tone as professional as possible. I would appreciate that same courtesy in return.
    reply
  • Randy

    8 months ago

    How in the world am I supposed to write a post knowing what other people will assume? ... or imply? And even if I could figure out what cynical assessment someone else is going to make, why would I then allow that to drive what I want to say? ... or not say?

    And when you accuse me of impliciitly, passively or tacitly promoting a stigmatizing message ... do you really think I am supposed to allow that to go unchallenged?

    As for courtesy and professionalism, those are not two elements I get from you when you throw verbal bombs my way in reaction to someone else.
    reply
  • Jay

    8 months ago

    First, I never accused you of anything. I said that your silence on the issue LOOKED like tacit support. I didn't say it was. There's a difference. Calling for a response is not a "verbal bomb."

    This obviously is not going to go anywhere. I don't quite know how to disagree with you without offending you, since you seem to read everything I write as condescending even when I'm trying my best to be polite. If you have any tips on how you would like to be addressed, I'd appreciate it, because honestly you're the only blogger who responds to me this way, and my attitude is pretty much the same with everyone I come across online.

    That said, unless you have any tips, we've reached the end of our productivity here. Have a pleasant evening.
    reply
  • Randy

    8 months ago

    I already made suggestions on how to ask simple questions without implying that I have potentially ill motives.

    I honestly think you assume the worst of me and then expect that I have to answer to you about those assumptions.

    What other bloggers have to do with that ... not sure. That's what I get from you with almost every comment.

    If I am reading condescension into this, please forgive me ... I am trying to read it objectively and still come away with that observation.

    Good evening to you too.
    reply
  • Randy

    8 months ago

    Also, the threading limit isn't working. if you want to comment again you might start with a new comment thread by filling out the form at the bottom of the page.
    reply
  • sam

    7 months ago

    Jay,

    Obviously you didn't read the letter, carefully. Fof did not compare homosexuality with pedophilia, at all. All they said in that regards, was that the Boy Scouts closed their business, because The Boy Scouts didn't want gay scoutmasters to sleep in tents with other scouts. By rules, all scoutmasters share tents with their respective scouts, and in order to promote unit cohesion, scoutmasters of the opposite sex, are not allowed to share the same tents, assuming that majority of people are heterosexual. This is the reason why gay scoutmasters are not allowed to work for the Boy Scouts, likewise lesbians are disallowed for Girl Scouts.

    No implication of sex, or pedophilia.

    I think you are having biases against Focus on the Family.
    reply
  • B.T.Carolus

    7 months ago

    Sam
    There are no scoutmasters 'of the opposite sex' in the Boy Scouts, because it is boys (and men) only. There is no prohibition against lesbian involvement in the Girl Scouts. You are right, though, Jay is a little biased against Focus ;)
    reply
  • sam

    7 months ago

    Really? Openly lesbian women can be scoutmasters for the Girl Scouts?

    Anyway, my point was that they don't allow gays to be scoutmasters for the Boy Scouts because scoutmasters do many things together with other boys, including sharing the same tents, and it is expected for scoutmasters to be always psychologicall prepared, so they are not allowed in order to prevent any possible temptations.
    reply
  • B.T.Carolus

    7 months ago

    Yes, really. Hence if I ever have a daughter, she will not be a girl scout. Not because of a sex thing, but because the Girl Scouts are involved in pushing a feminist agenda, and she'll get enough of that without me signing her up for it. (not to mention, who wants to deal with selling those cookies?)

    Your second explanation is better.
    reply
  • Jay

    7 months ago

    There are scoutmasters of the opposite sex in Boy Scouts. The first one, Catherine Pollard, died two years ago. Here's the link: http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P2-2796791.html

    I also remember another one, Lillian Morris, was a contestant on my favorite TV show, Survivor. I'm sure there have been many, many others.

    So... pwnd? ;-)
    reply
  • B.T.Carolus

    7 months ago

    Interesting. I didn't know that.
    reply
  • Jay

    8 months ago

    I stopped reading when they implied a connection between homosexuality and pedophilia in the Boy Scouts section. That's simply shameful, Randy, and yes, this is very definition of fear-mongering. Christians certainly should be concerned about an Obama presidency, especially when it comes to his Supreme Court nominations, but this is not the way to show one's concern.


    The idea that Christians are on the brink of being "stigmatized, run out of the public square and thrown into bankruptcy or jail because of their religious beliefs" is hyperbole. Surely things are becoming more challenging, but mostly because of cultural shift, not political ones. And even if everything in that letter came true (which I highly doubt even a fraction of it would), we still would be better off than the early Christians. Where do we get the idea that we aren't supposed to be stigmatized by the surrounding culture? We're Christians, for crying out loud.



    If the culture supports us, then we really need to examine ourselves and make sure we're doing what's right, because it's not supposed to support us.

    reply
  • Renee

    8 months ago

    Hi Randy,


    I read the letter and although it is theoretical, it is very possible that many of these events will wea ve their way through our lives, regardless of who becomes President. What came to my mind was Ephesians 5:15-16 "Be careful how you live - not as unwise, but wise, making the most of every opportunity, because the days are evil. Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the Lords' will is".



    Regardless, the Lord knows those who are His, and He will preserve and take care of His own, that's a promise. I just read Psalm 33, and it is of great comfort to me, especially as I watch our leaders scrambling to find answers to things that are too high for them! Our job: " Keep yourself in the love of God, as you wait for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ". (Jude 21).



    That's what I plan to do! Maranatha!

    reply
  • JoeDallas

    8 months ago

    Good post, Randy! A lot of what Dobson describes in his letter is sadly probable, but no one can predict when or how some, most, or all of these things could happen. I also have to remember that God calls the Church to function as His body regardless of cultural/political trends. So while reading each point of Dobson's letter, I ask myself four questions:


    1. "If this happens will I fight it or adjust to it?"

    2. "How can I best continue to fulfill my responsibility to family and ministry if this happens?"

    3. "If I fight this, what price am I willing to pay?"

    4. "If I don't fight this, can I live with myself?"



    You might try taking each of the points raised in Doc's letter, then asking yourself those four questions. It's sure helped me put this all in perspective.



    Joe Dallas

    reply
  • Brady

    8 months ago

    Hey Randy- I responded to someone on my blog very briefly about a statement he made kind of along these lines. You can probably guess I disagree with this letter. My view of letters like this is that it's too easy to do. If we always make "sky is falling" type of claims, there really doesn't have to be proof to back them up. We can always point to the future and say, "well it hasn't happened yet, but it will...give it more time (again)." I'd simply rather argue actualities than theoreticals, especially when the theoreticals (to me) seem more based in fear than real precedent.
    reply
  • Randy

    8 months ago

    I understand what you are saying but there is something to be said about calling out the darkest possibilities to make sure that they don't happen. Does that make any sense?

    For example, if Fred Phelps were to run for any elected office, I would join you in protesting his ascendancy to any level of government. And while he is an ass with no shot at being elected to anything but head ass of Westboro, there was a time in history when he would have been a popular leader who would probably kill people like us.

    That's not a good example but ... people have done the forecasting of the worst to help prevent it on both sides. I have no idea that this is why Focus did this but do you get what I am saying?
    reply
  • Brady

    8 months ago

    Hey Randy. I get what you are saying, but with the Westboro example, it's easier for me to go there since they are already so far out there.

    With Obama, the stretch is a lot bigger imo. You might not agree on that point (well I'm sure you think it is a bigger stretch than Felps, just you still think it is less of a stretch to get from an Obama Presidency to the letter than I do).

    Anyway, I see the point, I just think the jump from a presidency to those conclusions is too big of a jump to make.
    reply
  • B.T.Carolus

    8 months ago

    I wonder if perhaps the letter would be more believable if it was from 2032 or 2050 or some point more radically out in the distance than four years from now. Although I'm sure we all realize that the issues it brings up are 'on the table' at least in a general way, I really have a hard time imagining our entire society will be turned on its head in only four years (not to mention, doesn't the letter kill off a supreme court justice, or something else possible but not likely?). But it isn't hard to imagine that changes Obama makes now could have that impact, spread over over twenty years. Only that makes for a much less effective letter.
    reply
  • Randy

    8 months ago

    I think more than a "fraction" of that is possible. A lot more actually. However, I would agree that we (The Body) have been through much much much worse. It isn't like we are on the precipice of being crucified upside down.


    At the same time, it doesn't mean we don't need to be loud about the threat to religious liberty where threatened. Hyperbole? ... eh ... not really sold on it. Again, regardless, there are important underlying issues to keep an eye on.

    reply
  • Randy

    8 months ago

    Hi Renee! very good scriptural reminder. That is a very good focal point to stay grounded in these tumultuous times.
    reply
  • Randy

    8 months ago

    Yay Joe! Those are great questions to get to the heart of the potential problems and prepare for the worst case scenario. That way, whether it does happen or not one can feel more secure in knowing the possibilities.
    reply
  • Jay

    8 months ago

    Well, one can be loud but one does not have to be slanderous. The implication that a homosexual person in the ranks of the Boy Scouts would automatically be a pedophile is the definition of slander, and that kind of statement really overshadows whatever good points the letter might have made. I would at least like you to respond to that, because right now it looks like you're implicitly supporting that viewpoint.
    reply
  • Randy

    8 months ago

    Well, Jay, you are just about as offensive as you perceive them to be. You draw a conclusion about them and then basically demand that I respond to your perception about their depiction?


    Anyone who reads my blog, and doesn't impose their worst assumptions about me like you do, knows that I would never equate homosexuality with pedophilia.



    Unfortunately pedophiles exist in both heterosexual and homosexual realms.



    Jay, you always seem to know better than me so perhaps you should just make your points into new blog posts at your own site.

    reply
  • Julie

    8 months ago

    The state of Washington has a Physician Suicide initiative on the ballot (I-1000) this election year. The state of California is sneaking in a mild form of euthanasia onto their ballot. Sen Obama claimed that hearing the case of Terri Schaivo was the worst mistake he made in his career. Should we mention his feelings about infants born alive during abortions?


    Should some sort of universal health system come about or even an increase in gov funded health care, soon the fear of limited resources will pop up. Who will be the first denied care- or even life?



    This is what will happen by 2012.



    I remember a conversation I had with a Christian friend, a man who sincerely loves God, who really didn't understand what was wrong with letting 'Mrs. Schaivo die'- a woman alive and breathing (on her own, I might add) who may or may not have been in a persistant vegetative state, who had the misfortune of complete dependence on other human beings and their subjective ideas of right and wrong. I REALLY have to have conversations how murder is wrong with other Christians. Incidentally, do you know how many Terri Schaivos there have been and how many more there are?



    But homosexuality is far more sensational, and seems to be all but the theme of this letter. So, instead of noticing how euthanasia is sneaking into the state of California and PA suicide is boldly marching into another, let's just pay attention to the squeaky wheel of gay marriage.



    I'm sorry, Randy. Gay marriage is serious and should be dealt with. I'm just really frustrated with Christians' seemingly obsession wih sex, while we ignore those with no voice who can't throw themselves a parade every year, ignoring Luke 14:21's mandate to "'Hurry into the streets and narrow roads of the city and bring poor people here. Bring those whose bodies are diseased. Bring those who cannot walk and those who are blind.'"



    Why do you think we're meant to hurry? Time's short.



    Okay, I'm stepping off the self-righteous box now.

    reply
  • Randy

    8 months ago

    No worries. I think your anger is righteous and completely understand. Thank you for sharing your thoughts. They help bring perspective.
    reply
  • Randy

    8 months ago

    ok... my last sentence above wasn't very nice so ... make your comments hear if you want. I apologize.


    That said, I do often feel like your judgments of me are condescending but it is my choice on whether I allow them through or respond to them.

    reply
  • Brady

    8 months ago

    Hey Randy- I responded to someone on my blog very briefly about a statement he made kind of along these lines. You can probably guess I disagree with this letter. My view of letters like this is that it's too easy to do. If we always make "sky is falling" type of claims, there really doesn't have to be proof to back them up. We can always point to the future and say, "well it hasn't happened yet, but it will...give it more time (again)." I'd simply rather argue actualities than theoreticals, especially when the theoreticals (to me) seem more based in fear than real precedent.
    reply
  • Jay

    8 months ago

    I'm not judging you, Randy. I see what I see and I point it out in order to ask for clarification. I know you don't equate homosexuality with pedophilia, but the author of the letter you're promoting here seems to (or at the very least links them).


    Of course simply posting a letter doesn't mean you agree with everything that letter says. I'm not saying you should make a line-by-line analysis of what you agree and disagree with. That wasn't your post's intention and I appreciate that. However, considering your line of ministry (which admirably involves dispelling some of the more unhelpful attitudes about gays and lesbians amongst Christians) I think at least saying that you disagreed with the letter's insinuations about homosexuals in the Boy Scouts being pedophiles would have been helpful.



    Silence doesn't always equal consent, but in some cases, it can really look like it.

    reply
  • Randy

    8 months ago

    Thanks for expanding your thoughts. I still contend that the only way silence equals consent is if you impose assumptions and make judgments based on those assumptions.
    reply
  • Ellie

    8 months ago

    Can I ask which proposition in California includes a mild form of euthanasia?


    Also, I'd just like to clarify that the reason prop 8 is on the ballot this year is that Christian groups (lead by state churches) realized that the court was probably going to strike down the DOMA (which it did) and so began working on the amendment. If that hadn't happened our attention probably would be on other things.

    reply
  • Mensley

    8 months ago

    Honestly, I think this letter depicts pretty accurately where the ideology of the Left will take this country. However, I think they will have to do it incrimentally and that most of it probably couldn't happen in the span of an Obama presidency. But I could be wrong.


    In that case, though, God will use the hardships of the Body of Christ (as He always has) to show who the true Believers are. It's sad to see how many are falling away from truth simply because they will not stand to be held in contempt by the court of Public Opinion. That's not even real persecution.

    reply
  • Julie

    8 months ago

    AB 2747 has been signed into law in California by Gov Schwarzenegger already and will be the law in January. If I had been keeping on top of that I would have known that. Sorry.


    AB 2747 mandates that people with a terminal illness be given end of life options. This includes allowing for the recommendation by a nurse or physician assistant of unnatural death via 'palliative sedation. One may opt for this and thus dehydrate to death. The bill was sponsered by Compassion & Choices, the new name for the pro-euthanasia Hemlock Society.

    reply
  • Ellie

    8 months ago

    Thanks, that's good to know.
    reply
  • Randy

    8 months ago

    You didn't just ask me to clarify ... you implied that I was "implicitly" supporting a stigmatizing stereotype.


    Next time try saying something like "Randy it looks like Focus is implying that homosexuality = pedophilia? ... do you agree with that?"



    My answer would have been, "I am not sure that is what they are implying but if they were ... no. I don't agree with that."



    Simple questions for clarification are just that ... simple. Assuming the negative and then trying to force someone to defend themselves (or be guilty through silence) against your negative assumptions is called manipulation. And that is as offensive as being implicated in stigmatizing a community I care deeply for.

    reply
  • Randy

    8 months ago

    I understand what you are saying but there is something to be said about calling out the darkest possibilities to make sure that they don't happen. Does that make any sense?


    For example, if Fred Phelps were to run for any elected office, I would join you in protesting his ascendancy to any level of government. And while he is an ass with no shot at being elected to anything but head ass of Westboro, there was a time in history when he would have been a popular leader who would probably kill people like us.



    That's not a good example but ... people have done the forecasting of the worst to help prevent it on both sides. I have no idea that this is why Focus did this but do you get what I am saying?

    reply
  • Randy

    8 months ago

    Very good comment Mike. I have nothing to add but I completely agree. I also don't think that Obama could ruin the country in four years but he could propel us further down that road.
    reply
  • Jay

    8 months ago

    When I said "implicitly," I was using a word incorrectly. I apologize for that. I meant to say "tacitly" or "passively." I guess my inner thesaurus was out to lunch at the time.


    If you didn't want someone to assume the negative, you could have put a disclaimer in the post stating your disagreement with Focus' stigmatizing implications. Or, if you didn't believe they were trying to be stigmatizing, you could have simply said so after my initial comment, instead of taking me to task for making an assumption and dragging this conversation out much longer than it needed to be.



    I hope this doesn't sound condescending to you. That isn't my intention. I don't go out of my way to make judgments about you nor do I think I'm better than you, and I try to keep my tone as professional as possible. I would appreciate that same courtesy in return.

    reply
  • Randy

    8 months ago

    How in the world am I supposed to write a post knowing what other people will assume? ... or imply? And even I could figure out what cynical assessment someone else is going to make, why would I then allow that to drive what I want to say? ... or not say?


    And when you accuse me of impliciitly, passively or tacitly promoting a stigmatizing message ... do you really think I am supposed to allow that to go unchallenged?



    As for courtesy and professionalism, those are not two elements I get from you when you throw verbal bombs my way in reaction to someone else.

    reply
  • Jay

    8 months ago

    First, I never accused you of anything. I said that your silence on the issue LOOKED like tacit support. I didn't say it was. There's a difference. Calling for a response is not a "verbal bomb."


    This obviously is not going to go anywhere. I don't quite know how to disagree with you without offending you, since you seem to read everything I write as condescending even when I'm trying my best to be polite. If you have any tips on how you would like to be addressed, I'd appreciate it, because honestly you're the only blogger who responds to me this way, and my attitude is pretty much the same with everyone I come across online.



    That said, unless you have any tips, we've reached the end of our productivity here. Have a pleasant evening.

    reply
  • Randy

    8 months ago

    I already made suggestions on how to ask simple questions without implying that I have potentially ill motives.


    I honestly think you assume the worst of me and then expect that I have to answer to you about those assumptions.



    What other bloggers have to do with that ... not sure. That's what I get from you with almost every comment.



    If I am reading condescension into this, please forgive me ... I am trying to read it objectively and still come away with that observation.



    Good evening to you too.

    reply
  • Randy

    8 months ago

    Also, the threading limit isn't working. if you want to comment again you might start with a new comment thread by filling out the form at the bottom of the page.
    reply
  • Brady

    8 months ago

    Jay (and kind of Randy too)- I'm not going to get into the middle of yall's discussion here, but I wanted to make one small point. Jay- you mentioned that you try to be as professional as possible when discussing things with Randy, which is a nice gesture.


    However, I've found (both online and in actual professional life now that I am old and in that world) that over email/online, a "professional" tone can often come off condescending or rude to the reader. He or she doesn't exactly know what your intentions are, so if you are arguing against someone and using a tone you think to be professional, the reader may see the argumentation and assume an attacking or confrontational tone since there is no inflection or tone of voice involved.



    I know I'm not immune to coming off mean or rude from time to time, but I think generally I don't (and I try hard not to). Maybe using a tone that leans more towards "friendly" than professional would work better when arguing/debating over the internet. That way your reader knows you are arguing/debating actual points of the conversation rather than taking shots at him or her personal.

    reply
  • Ellie

    8 months ago

    I've been thinking the same thing, because for two people who theoretically agree on a lot of things, Jay and Randy sure seem to fight...a lot. Maybe they're just looking to highlight their disagreements all the time, and it gets blown out of proportion?
    reply
  • Randy

    8 months ago

    I think we argue more often than not but I wouldn't say it is fair to say ... a lot. I can honestly say I am not looking to highlight disagreements. Blowing out of proportion? ... possibly.
    reply
  • Randy

    8 months ago

    Very good point Brady. Duly noted and I personally think you are on to something.
    reply
  • Brady

    8 months ago

    Hey Randy. I get what you are saying, but with the Westboro example, it's easier for me to go there since they are already so far out there.


    With Obama, the stretch is a lot bigger imo. You might not agree on that point (well I'm sure you think it is a bigger stretch than Felps, just you still think it is less of a stretch to get from an Obama Presidency to the letter than I do).



    Anyway, I see the point, I just think the jump from a presidency to those conclusions is too big of a jump to make.

    reply
  • Jay

    8 months ago

    Well, I really don't comment on things I agree about unless I have an additional point to make that I view to be worthwhile to a given discussion (and this goes for pretty much all blogs). That's probably why it looks like I'm out to highlight disagreements. I'm really not. I just don't see any reason to put down a "great post!" comment unless I have something to add or a question to ask.


    It's hard for me to be friendly online. I usually stick to trying to be professional and plainspoken. I suppose this can sound a little cold and condescending, so I see Brady's point. It's simply not my intention, and I don't really know how to take a more conversational approach to this, though I'm sure it would be beneficial.



    And yeah, Ellie, I think Randy and I do agree on most things (at least the essentials of the Christian faith, and even about what is and isn't godly sexuality). My disagreements with him are more about public policy or ideas about the current state of culture. Whatever personality or intellectual conflicts we might have are secondary to the fact that we're both brothers in Christ and are unified by our belief in Him.

    reply
  • Randy

    8 months ago

    Whatever personality or intellectual conflicts we might have are secondary to the fact that we're both brothers in Christ and are unified by our belief in Him.



    Agreed.

    reply
  • Ellie

    8 months ago

    I wonder if perhaps the letter would be more believable if it was from 2032 or 2050 or some point more radically out in the distance than four years from now. Although I'm sure we all realize that the issues it brings up are 'on the table' at least in a general way, I really have a hard time imagining our entire society will be turned on its head in only four years (not to mention, doesn't the letter kill off a supreme court justice, or something else possible but not likely?). But it isn't hard to imagine that changes Obama makes now could have that impact, spread over over twenty years. Only that makes for a much less effective letter.
    reply
  • sam

    7 months ago

    Jay,


    Obviously you didn't read the letter, carefully. Fof did not compare homosexuality with pedophilia, at all. All they said in that regards, was that the Boy Scouts closed their business, because The Boy Scouts didn't want gay scoutmasters to sleep in tents with other scouts. By rules, all scoutmasters share tents with their respective scouts, and in order to promote unit cohesion, scoutmasters of the opposite sex, are not allowed to share the same tents, assuming that majority of people are heterosexual. This is the reason why gay scoutmasters are not allowed to work for the Boy Scouts, likewise lesbians are disallowed for Girl Scouts.



    No implication of sex, or pedophilia.



    I think you are having biases against Focus on the Family.

    reply
  • B.T.Carolus

    7 months ago

    Sam
    There are no scoutmasters 'of the opposite sex' in the Boy Scouts, because it is boys (and men) only. There is no prohibition against lesbian involvement in the Girl Scouts. You are right, though, Jay is a little biased against Focus ;)

    reply
  • sam

    7 months ago

    Really? Openly lesbian women can be scoutmasters for the Girl Scouts?


    Anyway, my point was that they don't allow gays to be scoutmasters for the Boy Scouts because scoutmasters do many things together with other boys, including sharing the same tents, and it is expected for scoutmasters to be always psychologicall prepared, so they are not allowed in order to prevent any possible temptations.

    reply
  • B.T.Carolus

    7 months ago

    Yes, really. Hence if I ever have a daughter, she will not be a girl scout. Not because of a sex thing, but because the Girl Scouts are involved in pushing a feminist agenda, and she'll get enough of that without me signing her up for it. (not to mention, who wants to deal with selling those cookies?)


    Your second explanation is better.

    reply
  • Jay

    7 months ago

    There are scoutmasters of the opposite sex in Boy Scouts. The first one, Catherine Pollard, died two years ago. Here's the link: http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P2-2796791.html


    I also remember another one, Lillian Morris, was a contestant on my favorite TV show, Survivor. I'm sure there have been many, many others.



    So... pwnd? ;-)

    reply
  • B.T.Carolus

    7 months ago

    Interesting. I didn't know that.
    reply

Add New Comment

Returning? Login