A friend fwd this to me. I expected a "political" slant to the discussion. I'm completely OK with the fundamental religious or Biblical presentation on family and other topics, but I worry that Conservative activism has become too fundamental & Bible based. And that this fundamentalism is driving the "criticism" of it. It seems the more resistance liberals & non-believers offer, the more religious advocates shift to fundamentalism, and then the more radicalized & crazy Liberal critics become in opposition. Ask yourself, how did political leaders approach these questions in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s? How would President Kennedy or President Reagan have worded this presentation? It just seems that discussions have turned to more fundamentalist views in recent years (with abortion & many other top Christian topics too), and that Democrats & critics respond with more radicalized views & statements. Can't these points be better made today in just simple language instead of citing fundamental doctrine?
Here's the thing. Everything we do is guided first by the Word of God. No subject or realm of reality is separate from the sovereign rule of the Creator or his law. When we try to divorce the political discussion (or parenting, education, work, or any other subject) from this reality the results are chaos. And this is exactly what we see in our "secular" culture.
It was the term "secular" that I was trying to recall. In related discussions, the focus is said to be secular vs Christian, or secular vs Islam. The term "agnostic" would apply to discussions without adoption of any particular religion. My point of concern is that too many PUBLIC SQUARE discussions look to fundamentalism and the adoption of Christianity, while an equal number of the discussions (participants) are pushing atheism and non-traditional viewpoints. A traditional viewpoint is not necessarily pushing Christianity. However, if there is a Christian holiday such as Easter, it is disrespectful to make EQUAL & co-occuring announcements about the Trans Day of Rememberence day. There is nothing "disinclusive" about prioritizing, announcing, and celebrating a Christian holiday like Easter, when there are but two Christian holidays (Christmas & Easter) celebrated by more than half of all Americans. And similarly, Islam, atheist, and LBGTQ groups should be free to celebrate their special days. But, problems when groups such as LBGTQ use government to promote & adopt their celebrations, and they use aggressive tactics to push their agendas on society at large. I think this has led to Christian groups responding with more fundamentalist doctrine critical of the progressive groups. For this reason, I think it best that discussions & celebrations be kept "secular," unless it is specifically intended for a particular religion or group. Here also is where the term "traditional" is applicable, as it means honoring established past practices & customs. The trashing of America, and using deliberate misinformation to cite false accounts of history by some of these groups should not be permitted. This has become a huge problem with progressives in recent years in the PUBLIC SQUARE, which today largely means SOCIAL MEDIA. There should also be laws against using deliberate "misinformation" and "censorship" in the PUBLIC SQUARE, as the public square plays an important role in the documentation of TRUTH. The above which I wrote should be adopted as rules for participation in the PUBLIC SQUARE.
A friend fwd this to me. I expected a "political" slant to the discussion. I'm completely OK with the fundamental religious or Biblical presentation on family and other topics, but I worry that Conservative activism has become too fundamental & Bible based. And that this fundamentalism is driving the "criticism" of it. It seems the more resistance liberals & non-believers offer, the more religious advocates shift to fundamentalism, and then the more radicalized & crazy Liberal critics become in opposition. Ask yourself, how did political leaders approach these questions in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s? How would President Kennedy or President Reagan have worded this presentation? It just seems that discussions have turned to more fundamentalist views in recent years (with abortion & many other top Christian topics too), and that Democrats & critics respond with more radicalized views & statements. Can't these points be better made today in just simple language instead of citing fundamental doctrine?
Here's the thing. Everything we do is guided first by the Word of God. No subject or realm of reality is separate from the sovereign rule of the Creator or his law. When we try to divorce the political discussion (or parenting, education, work, or any other subject) from this reality the results are chaos. And this is exactly what we see in our "secular" culture.
It was the term "secular" that I was trying to recall. In related discussions, the focus is said to be secular vs Christian, or secular vs Islam. The term "agnostic" would apply to discussions without adoption of any particular religion.
My point of concern is that too many PUBLIC SQUARE discussions look to fundamentalism and the adoption of Christianity, while an equal number of the discussions (participants) are pushing atheism and non-traditional viewpoints. A traditional viewpoint is not necessarily pushing Christianity. However, if there is a Christian holiday such as Easter, it is disrespectful to make EQUAL & co-occuring announcements about the Trans Day of Rememberence day. There is nothing "disinclusive" about prioritizing, announcing, and celebrating a Christian holiday like Easter, when there are but two Christian holidays (Christmas & Easter) celebrated by more than half of all Americans. And similarly, Islam, atheist, and LBGTQ groups should be free to celebrate their special days. But, problems when groups such as LBGTQ use government to promote & adopt their celebrations, and they use aggressive tactics to push their agendas on society at large. I think this has led to Christian groups responding with more fundamentalist doctrine critical of the progressive groups. For this reason, I think it best that discussions & celebrations be kept "secular," unless it is specifically intended for a particular religion or group. Here also is where the term "traditional" is applicable, as it means honoring established past practices & customs. The trashing of America, and using deliberate misinformation to cite false accounts of history by some of these groups should not be permitted. This has become a huge problem with progressives in recent years in the PUBLIC SQUARE, which today largely means SOCIAL MEDIA. There should also be laws against using deliberate "misinformation" and "censorship" in the PUBLIC SQUARE, as the public square plays an important role in the documentation of TRUTH. The above which I wrote should be adopted as rules for participation in the PUBLIC SQUARE.