I think Gina's point is about demographics and Reverend Longcrier seemingly representing most voices of a certain voting bloc instead of a minority (used in the broader sense of the word).

You seem to have a problem with most arguments made on this blog regarding abortion and homosexuality -- do you suggest these behaviors are compatible with a Christian worldview, or simply that the arguments themselves are lacking?

Comments

[Sy Hoekstra]

Wow, a post about me! I would have missed it completely if it wasn't for Alyce mentioning it to me. But anyway, I've already said why I thought Gina's point was sort of unimportant, but it doesn't matter much. No, I don't think that Christianity and homosexuality or abortion are compatible. Though I suppose the homosexuality thing is more open to questioning than abortion. I do have a problem with Christians trying to outlaw gay marriage. I've just never heard good arguments for it. It's usually some form of a slippery slope argument about how we're losing our family values, as if homosexuals were causing our increase in divorce rates, and not as if they were both the symptoms of some deeper issue. That is of course not the only argument, but I'm not convinced by many others either. And I do have a problem with the tone used to address homosexuality and abortion. It just seems like a lot of the bloggers here don't mind degrading those who oppose them on these issues through sarcasm, insults, and condecention. basically, it's hard for abortionists to consider your viewpoint when their angry that you've called them a nazi. That's all. Hope I'm not sounding rude though.

[Gina Dalfonzo]

Sy, I'll be straightforward with you. It troubles me that you've accused us more than once of being insulting, degrading, condescending, etc., because those are things I would never want The Point to be. I venture to think that all of us on the blogging team would agree on this.

Could you give me some examples of times when we have acted this way? I would like to look at them and see if the posters in question were really being offensive and unfair, or if it's possible that what they said was misunderstood.

Please bear in mind, though, that Christians are not necessarily always called to refrain from rhetorical techniques such as sarcasm, as long as they can use them without disrepect for the person whom they're addressing. (Disrespect for IDEAS, of course, is another story. All human beings have worth and deserve respect. Not all ideas do.)

As for the abortionist/Nazi comparison, at bottom, it's a simple comparison between people who killed many helpless victims in the 1940s, and people who have killed many helpless victims (I'm guessing you might agree that this is what aborted children are) since "Roe v. Wade." Now, a case can be made that this might not be an effective comparison at all times and under all circumstances, and I think most of us here would certainly be willing to listen to and respect that argument.

[Sy Hoekstra]

Ms. Dalfonzo, I'll give an answer to your post next week as I won't have internet access for the next 5 or so days, and I don't have time now. It should be noted though that I don't feel that all of the bloggers are degrading in that way. Those who are only are on certain hot button subjects, mainly homosexuality and abortion. Also, I understand that we are not called to refrain from rhetorical techniques such as sarcasm, and that people inherrantly deserve respect while ideas do not. And it's really hard for me to get my mind around the idea that the abortionist/Nazi comparison is just a matter of statistics about numbers of inocent deaths. If it were that simple, Christians would be thousands of times worse than Nazis. The number of inocent lives ended by Christians over the years and today will never be fully known, and I wouldn't want to know them.

[jason taylor]

"if it were that simple, Christians would be thousands of times worse than Nazis. The number of inocent lives ended by Christians over the years and today will never be fully known, and I wouldn't want to know them."

Actually that is a false comparison. For one thing to be thousands of times worse then the nazis would require murdering at least six billion innocent people which until recently was more the worlds population. Which is rather a macabre point but does remind one that it is best not to let hyperbole run away.
Also there is another point to be consider. Most of the innocent people who were killed by Christians were killed for some other reason then because it was thought Christianity commanded them to. Michael Coreleone murdered people because they were part of rival clans, not because he wished to show his loyalty to the Church.
By contrast killing innocent people was an inate part of naziism.