BlueDeacon

An emphatic NO. The religious right was never anywhere without the secular right, which has grown only stronger over time, anyway, so this has no meaning -- they're simply piggybacking on a candidate that has a lot of non-religious support.

Wisconsin's statute was found to oppose its constitution.

Please entertain the possibility that complete strangers/brothers seek to make a contribution to your life and to dialogue--and may not just be trying to win a verbal contest.

If that were the case they wouldn't start out as contrarian, which a lot of these people do because they really feel extremely threatened with another viewpoint, especially on a religious blog.  Besides, I have conversations on such matters, mostly face-to-face of course, with folks who disagree with me; however, they have enough respect for me that they know I'm as committed to truth as they are.  Even there, a lot of those relationships I've tried to maintain with those on the "other side" end up falling apart because they just can't adjust their worldview to allow for truth from elsewhere.

And ultimately that's what these fights are about -- worldview.  Having your worldview challenged is extremely traumatic, possibly even more so than losing a limb or losing someone in death, which is why evangelism can be so difficult -- among other things, Jesus calls on people to change their worldview.  IMO and E, however, the right-wing worldview is an addiction because those who subscribe to it have no compunction about twisting truth, even Scripture, to justify its maintenance -- having been here awhile you've witnessed yourself how regularly this blog is savaged -- and, frankly, it makes no sense to cooperate with addicts.  (The Pharisees were similarly addicted to religion but missed the point of it.)  More to the point, the right-wing worldview doesn't even come from the church; it came into the church in the 1970s but has always had secular roots -- which begs another question:  Since when do non-believers tell the church how and what to think?

I understand why you may think that I'm simply being a jerk for going to the mat on a consistent basis.  But if you look at how many of these rows progress from talking about issues and getting personal, you will notice a pattern -- the righties WILL get personal really quickly, unwilling to concede defeat, because from that Manichean perspective the "other side" is the very embodiment of evil; that's the underlying message of Rush's three-day diatribe against Sandra Fluke.  Moreover, when Bill Maher called Sarah Palin that name I will not use here, you can bet the mortgage that she said something considerably more ignorant and deliberately provocative in the first place that he was reacting to, which is why there's no moral equivalence.

What does Bill Maher have to do with Rush Limbaugh?

I often read & comment on other forums, and I'm happy to call out rudeness on those if I see it. So this isn't personal.

At least one other person here has said that you yourself were being rude.  So I don't know how to take that.

And there's a specific reason why I do.

I couldn't care less about what you think jesse's motivation is for making his comment.

That's the problem right there, because this blog doesn't exist to buck up the conservative side -- which needs to stop being so thin-skinned.

Do you understand what "trolling" is?  Let me explain:  It's coming on a particular site to stir up trouble.  Keep in mind that I was already here when you arrived; you might say that this was my "home turf."

Except that your analogy isn't what's actually happening.  I can give you the history of the modern political right, but it would take too long and the information would be lost on you anyway.  The fact remains that the right began attacking the left in the 1960s and still does so today; only in the last decade has the left fought back.

That's not even the pot calling the kettle black.  I've been here a lot longer than you and this blog is closer to my beliefs, and you have the gall to call ME a troll?

But this exchange represents the kind of "incivility" I've been talking about -- anyone who calls out conservatives, especially for legitimate reasons, is somehow a jerk.  You know, it could be that "civility" isn't the problem here; idolatry is.

If you really want to go there, jesse3's trying to divert by saying, "They do it too!" because his side of the ideological fence is being forced to take responsibility for the way things are.  And that's the last thing it wants.

With all due respect, based on what you've said here consistently I consider you the kind of person I'm talking about.  I've noticed that you're often the first person here to throw a flaming arrow whenever someone makes a post that offends you.