User login
Recent blog posts
- Three Dawkins Quotes
- A(nother) rational response to rationailty
- How to survive in today's recession...
- Einstein's Buddhism?
- Isaac Newton, a Creationist?
- Judge Jones III, may I approach the bench?
- Michael Behe's response to science journal (peer review continued...)
- Enough with the "Peer Review" argument already
- Michael Behe, ID, and "intellectual dishonesty"
- Grace, Blood and the idea of a proxy sacrifice
BattleCry had a right to
BattleCry had a right to assemble. I didn't know that anyone (including the group protesting) questioned that. That is why I didn't say anything about it.
You state that this is about apologetics, but then state this is not isolated by showing examples of people wearing fur and driving SUVs. These are not defining Christian attributes. This seems to me to be marrying a political ideology and religious viewpoint.
And it is isolated. It may happen daily, but out of 300 million people in the US alone, how many are affected by this on a daily basis? 1 percent (that would be 3 million)? No. A one hundredth of 1 percent (or 30 thousand... on a daily basis? Most likely not)? And even then, it is only words. Can't we as Christians weather a few bad words?
Now, how many people in that same population are "food insecure" (at risk of going hungry)? 11.2 percent according to the USDA, or over 30 million. I'm sorry, but you can lump all the verbal assaults be they anti-religious, anti-left, anti-right, etc. and you won't come close to this number.
Again, was the left-wing group wrong: yes. Was BattleCry in the clear: yes. But it was just words. It just seems to me sometimes we make mountains out of molehills so much so that we can no longer see the mountains.