We can work together
Nov. 6th, 2004 12:05 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
greybetaAllow me to thank zoethe for inspiring this post. I consider myself a moderate Republican and a social conservative.
The hot topic of choice that has been beat to death has been why the Democrats failed to win an election that they should have won and how they got blindsided by the evangelical vote. In hindsight, it becomes clear why Bush pounded the social issues. They actually mattered more than the economy or Social Security or Iraq.
We owe it all to a college dropout masterminding the Republican strategy.
It has been said that Kerry had more “presidential” qualities, and his plans supposedly made more sense than Bush. After the first debate, I bought into the thinking that Kerry was going to win. But my thinking changed after the third debate, the one where Kerry was supposed to clean up on domestic issues.
As I saw it then, Kerry wasn’t resonating with America. Support of Kerry boiled down to one argument: Change. People desperate for change labored long and hard to bring out the vote in record numbers.
That change will inevitably come in four years.
Shortly after Kerry’s concession, Democrats became saddened and raged at the same time. The two biggest complaints I saw were:
1. Oh my God, I’m surrounded by homophobes
2. Not only that, but I’m living next to a bunch of God-fearing bigots
Curious, I began to question them. I'm proud to say that I found people willing to discuss controversial ideas in a civil manner. I really did learn a lot, and I thank everyone for being patient with me.
As we all have been told, the Left’s current rhetorical strategy on social issues alienates moderates.
For one thing, I noticed that the Left has fallen out of touch with the moderate evangelicals. The Bible or Jesus without fail has the Left conjuring up the image of Jerry Falwell. Arguments that say “God said so” aren't reasonable for the Left. And the Far Left forbids someone to have faith in an incoherent book written by mere men.
As far as I know, Christians would say God’s purpose for their life would be to be more like Jesus everyday. Their life purpose would be to know God and make Him known. Their core beliefs are Jesus is the only way to heaven, Bible is the absolute Truth, and how they behave matters. And the key to making this all work is to have faith in God.
So when a Christian enters an argument, he or she will often use Scripture to back up their claims. Of course, this is usually followed by people attempting to disprove the Bible. That approach doesn’t work because Christians have accepted God’s Word as part of their faith. Calling such a belief bigotry will surely convince Christians to change their views.
So it can be said that reason alone shall not suffice. Yet, it seems that liberals must have the superiority of argument. They can have that if they’re willing to give up the votes of the more centrist Christians.
Liberals have to realize that people can think liberalism is wrong and those same people can still work toward liberal ideals.
Just because I don’t approve of a homosexual lifestyle doesn’t exclude me from supporting civil unions. Yes, there was a time when I couldn’t fathom why homosexuals should ever have the right to be married. But, through discussing that issue with some of my more patient liberal friends, I’ve changed my mind (or flipflopped, as some might say).
Look, I’m going to take the idea that homosexuality is wrong to my deathbed. Nobody is going to change that. But I can become convinced that denying hospital visitation and inheritance rights to homosexuals goes against the ideas of Christianity.
There’s always going to be bigots. There’s also always going to be hope.
The hot topic of choice that has been beat to death has been why the Democrats failed to win an election that they should have won and how they got blindsided by the evangelical vote. In hindsight, it becomes clear why Bush pounded the social issues. They actually mattered more than the economy or Social Security or Iraq.
We owe it all to a college dropout masterminding the Republican strategy.
It has been said that Kerry had more “presidential” qualities, and his plans supposedly made more sense than Bush. After the first debate, I bought into the thinking that Kerry was going to win. But my thinking changed after the third debate, the one where Kerry was supposed to clean up on domestic issues.
As I saw it then, Kerry wasn’t resonating with America. Support of Kerry boiled down to one argument: Change. People desperate for change labored long and hard to bring out the vote in record numbers.
That change will inevitably come in four years.
Shortly after Kerry’s concession, Democrats became saddened and raged at the same time. The two biggest complaints I saw were:
1. Oh my God, I’m surrounded by homophobes
2. Not only that, but I’m living next to a bunch of God-fearing bigots
Curious, I began to question them. I'm proud to say that I found people willing to discuss controversial ideas in a civil manner. I really did learn a lot, and I thank everyone for being patient with me.
As we all have been told, the Left’s current rhetorical strategy on social issues alienates moderates.
For one thing, I noticed that the Left has fallen out of touch with the moderate evangelicals. The Bible or Jesus without fail has the Left conjuring up the image of Jerry Falwell. Arguments that say “God said so” aren't reasonable for the Left. And the Far Left forbids someone to have faith in an incoherent book written by mere men.
As far as I know, Christians would say God’s purpose for their life would be to be more like Jesus everyday. Their life purpose would be to know God and make Him known. Their core beliefs are Jesus is the only way to heaven, Bible is the absolute Truth, and how they behave matters. And the key to making this all work is to have faith in God.
So when a Christian enters an argument, he or she will often use Scripture to back up their claims. Of course, this is usually followed by people attempting to disprove the Bible. That approach doesn’t work because Christians have accepted God’s Word as part of their faith. Calling such a belief bigotry will surely convince Christians to change their views.
So it can be said that reason alone shall not suffice. Yet, it seems that liberals must have the superiority of argument. They can have that if they’re willing to give up the votes of the more centrist Christians.
Liberals have to realize that people can think liberalism is wrong and those same people can still work toward liberal ideals.
Just because I don’t approve of a homosexual lifestyle doesn’t exclude me from supporting civil unions. Yes, there was a time when I couldn’t fathom why homosexuals should ever have the right to be married. But, through discussing that issue with some of my more patient liberal friends, I’ve changed my mind (or flipflopped, as some might say).
Look, I’m going to take the idea that homosexuality is wrong to my deathbed. Nobody is going to change that. But I can become convinced that denying hospital visitation and inheritance rights to homosexuals goes against the ideas of Christianity.
There’s always going to be bigots. There’s also always going to be hope.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-11-12 09:30 pm (UTC)This is an example of the "No True Scotsman" logical fallacy.
You can read about it here:
http://www.brainyencyclopedia.com/encyclopedia/n/no/no_true_scotsman.html
no subject
Date: 2004-11-12 09:43 pm (UTC)