Wouldee, I don't think that did come out just right. I only have a few minutes here so I did a quick run through. I will have to review your response more closely. But on the surface it sounds like a lot of works intended to speak for all sides, without any "particular" opinion or solution.

I think a mediator attemts to bring some understanding to the table of the whys and wherefores of each of the views. So if you don't mind, can you speak for one side at a time. It may serve to clearify better the issues of that side.

Don't mistake my comment, I'm not asking for your choice, only for your view of each side individually.

There are Christians, who are upset for being equaled to others of that same label. There are also Christians whose morals are inextrcably tied to their religious conviction, but only when it serves their 'collective' purpose. As in holding one sin above another, because it is the only and possibly last foothold of the Christian morals that hold this country captive under thier 'moral' law.

It is simply not possible for a society as diverse as ours to include religious moral stucture in thier laws. The nature of such of thing is hypocracy at it finest. For even other Christians stand to loose from such a venture.

I would most appreciate an explanation of exactly how you think taking religious moral our of the nataions law is harming in any way the religious faction? For I percieve in that argument we might come to a better understanding of those you call the "silent majority". What have they to loose?

REDY,

Certainly.

We cannot legislate morality.

Mutual respect and dignity must be the supreme concern in any civil society.

My observation about the possibly present composition of the fluidity of our American political landscape is merely an intuitive observation and indefensible for any subset to claim as even remotely true.

The fact remains that not all present observations about our political landscape can display the conclusive definition of its unharmonious state of being.

My observation about neglectfully addressing the needs and concerns of any particular subset of citizenry defined as a quantified minority does require direct complicity from the presence of the silent majority to be rectified in amendment.

Educating and enlightening awareness for the need of mutual respect and dignity for all of mankind requires the will of sufficient numbers of any so inclined to establish a lawful criteria that guarantees that princple's adherence by civil society.

To accomplish such a feat of collective will requires the will to recognize many alliances and concurrances are necessarily incumbent upon the concept.

FOR EXAMPLE: Christians and homosexuals must bridge their differences between themselves and speak in concert as one to establish that mutual respect and dignity are an inalienable right under our constitution and tat protections must be legislated in the form of Amendment to safeguard preservation of the principle ethic.

But at no time, can the morality of such an ethic remain subjective to itself. The ethical principle of mutual respect and dignity must be the morality itself.

Bridge that and the world changes....
ignore that and the world remains as it is.


Hope that helps.

Redy;

As to the comments and clarifications of my post - I think we may be closer to agreement, than not - however as to these:



I cannot control your acceptance of who are "Christians" and who are not. Therefore, when I hear Mitt Romney (who I consider a member of a Cult - and NOT a Christian) make claims as a "Christian" I disreguard them. I think there is plenty of enough evidence about the Morman church available to disprove it's claim of Christianity to not have to educate those who blindly accept is as such because the secular media deems it so.
So I do NOT feel any responsibility to scream about psuedo-christians outside of my proximity making claims that supposedly represent the Christian cause. I can only express to you to examine those making the claim and if their actions are not Christian - than don't attribute their claims to be either. So I am not condoning the misrepresentation - and that is why I am asking YOU not to attribute this to Christianity. I have done my part - now I need you to do yours.



However, because you are willing to accept the secular conclusions that bring about these statistics, and do not spend time in discerning the accuracy of said stats (and after all - why would you) you assume that Christians accept them. I assure you - we do not. There's NO WAY this country is represented as 70 to 75 % Christian! There are absolutely no statistics on how many people LEAVE the religions they are accounted for (I am listed 5 times in different religions as being part of their "fold") so to even begin to accept these numbers is just absurd. And I am not a "fundamentalist" so already I've been mis-represented in my mis-representation.

Eljay, for whatever it's worth, I think your one of the most respectable level-headed people on here.

I think your ideas are sound, and you seem to be extremely reasonable and fair. I would say, IMHO, that you set an excellent example of what a Christian should be.

MY MUSINGS

Matthew 22:14. For many are called, but few are chosen.

Quoted by Matthew as the last words of Jesus, when likening The Kingdom of heaven to a wedding to which many were invited and didn't RSVP. So, rabble and strangers were offered attendance, and some for the most selfish or apparently mundane reasons accepted the invitation. Well, as it happened, one was ejected for improper attire and the ejected guest offered nothing in defence for the lack thereof. Perhaps a word to being obedient to an invitation to the wedding would have sufficed to not being thrown back out in the cold. That remains to be known as of late.


The point being, many that say they are Christians are unattired guests. The greater point being that the rightful attendees had ignored the invitation altogether, and that the actual attendees were less than acquainted with the marriage parties.

The conclusion to the matter is that those that can claim Christianity as their way of life may be actually representative of a very small proportion of society at large. So miniscule in fact that they may actually be a quantitative minority within the borders of the USA.

A tithe is a representation of monetary assets attributable to the needs of the Church community.

A tithe in census may be a consistent quantification of authentic Christian souls in America.

In any case, Christian influence over the representative governance may very well be a convenient excuse for those seeking redress for perceived or actual damages in this civil society.


MY MUSE IS NOT AS OBSCURE AS IT MAY SEEM!!!!!!!!!!!

He walks through...

looking here...

looking there...

in places o high...

in places o low...

in the closets...

under beds...

behind the couch...

Where in the world is that unicycle?

Wouldee,
"FOR EXAMPLE: Christians and homosexuals must bridge their differences between themselves and speak in concert as one to establish that mutual respect and dignity are an inalienable right under our constitution and tat protections must be legislated in the form of Amendment to safeguard preservation of the principle ethic."

Yes indeed!

Eljay - You are quite correct on many levels. When the statistics are put together they don't take into account what one believes, only that s/he claims to be Christian. That was exactly the point I was attempting to make you see, and now I think you have. So let me please continue.

Culterally, we are a nation who's "news" is broadcast over the local network services. We all know there is less than little information gained through that media. Those who read the paper, pick and choose the topics that interest them. So the small blurbs that might extend some knowledge of the political plight of the GLBT, is overlooked.

In general the masses, those who could effectually counter the efforts of fundamentalist Christian organizations, are not even educated enough to understand the severity of the problem. However, those fundmentalists seem to have an endless flow of funds with which they publish propaganda, articles, pamphlets and spew catchey and bigoted phrases that infect those who have a strong moral attachment to their Christian faith, many are not fundmentalists, many do not even have a church affiliation, and most only hear the fundamentalist side and then attach it to prior 'uneducated' bias often due to limited exposure/experience with the daily lives of those most affected, the GLBT.

I will speak on behalf of many Christians, because all they know is what they hear, and see and what they hear and see comes directly from the garbage distributed by that fundie factor.

This is why I take EVERY opportunity to 'impress' critical thinking on those who have been swayed by disinformation. That is why I attempt to make people understand that what they are attempting to protect, is not their faith, but their reputation. Their faith is not at risk. Their ability to exercise their faith is not at risk.

What is at risk is the fundamental breakdown of laws, ethics and Constitutional value. Those are the things that serve to "Bridge" (as Wouldee says) the diveristies among the citicens of this country. Regligion, ethnicity, heritage, color, culture are all things that can rip this nation apart, but for the laws and ethics that maintain the integrity of the Constitutional value.

Eljay - we have had some great rhetoric, and I really do know your position and I honestly I can understand where it stems from. So please accept my apology for 'using' your words to make certain points in this open forum.

And let me, finally, add that there is only one case in which I use the label Christian as a cover all, and it's in regards to the issues we have discussed. I only do this for one reason, to attempt to make others think more 'critically'.

To understand that we are a country of labels, and no matter what the label is, all who fall under that label are still entitled to the same carriage of justice and equality and on an individual level to some quality of respest, because we are not the label, we are individuals. As individuals we are entitled to our diversity, because it is the law and equality of those laws that serve to bind us to one another as a nation.

With respect, Eljay, I thank-you,once again, for allowing me to use your words in a private conversation, for all to hear in this forum.

Redy;

You are welcome to utilize anything I might say - and certainly to call me on any consistancies you might see. I do see your point, and have to admit that in the particular area where I live and work (Boston & Massachusetts) it is just not representative of what is happening around the country as far as the GLBT movement is concerned, and what the issues are. I was well aware of the protests here when the Gay marriage issue was before the legislature - with both sides represented in large numbers. Needless to say, it was not peaceful. But I think that - like the civil rights movement of the 60's & 70's, that time will tend to balance the issue out - and as the voices of the radicals on both sides of the issue quiet down, the "happy middle ground" will emerge, and the rest of the country will follow with what proves to be non-threating to "both sides" of the issue (as it were). When this happens - the rest of the country will fall into place and it will just be a footnote in the history books. But the radicals are always going to be there - again, on both sides, but the sanity of the majority of those who feel that basic civil rights are what is in order, will prevail - and it will no longer be an issue. I can understand your place in it - because your life is greatly effected. For me - the GLBT community, of which I am a part of because they are a majority of the people who work in my profession - are not suffering the reprecussions of what is happening across the country, so most of the issues that you refer to are not part of the media here, and the rallying cry of the radicals on both sides is merely a faint echo of the past.

It's behind you !!!!

creativesoul ... have you been playing with my unicycle?

(*really* wants to borrow the unicycle for a quick spin but is afraid of being called a thread-jacker.... hates to cause disharmony without good cause...)

(Attempts to be serious:)

Re: Redy wrote: "we are a country of labels, and no matter what the label is, all who fall under that label are still entitled to the same carriage of justice and equality and on an individual level to some quality of respest, because we are not the label, we are individuals."

I love the way you have phrased this.

I have always resented when people tried to squeeze me into labels. They still do it. I still resent it.

Yet we must needs use labels for one another constantly... every description is a label... really- what are words but labels? But we must use them with one another, and ourselves, with caution and an understanding of exactly how imprecise they are and how (hopefully) flexible and changable (fluid?) we are...