POLL: Charge of the Other Side of Netroots

Every once in a while, you get so immersed in your conservative circles, like Huck's Army, the F3 Coalition, the Huckabee Alliance, and the like that you forget that there's another side to the "netroots" coin. Obviously, I never really get a chance to forget about it, because I hear about MoveOn.org all the time. But I rarely see it personally.

Well, I got to see just a little bit of it in action recently with my latest poll. Someone commented on a popular liberal blog about my poll, and voila!

I asked: Which of the following best summarizes your reaction to the recent events relating to marriage in California?

The response:

A incredibly lopsided 242 (89%) said that "California's finally gotten it right. Now for the rest of the country."

The second-place group, consisting of 24 (8%), said that it "Just goes to show how much we need a federal marriage amendment."

A couple people each said that it "Just goes to show had bad activist courts can be" and that it's "Just a blip on the screen; stick with states' rights," neither attaining one percent of the vote.

With one vote, "Just goes to show how far-left California is" came in last.

You all may be interested in what my reaction was. Well, as the administrator of the poll, I have the luxury of not limiting myself to one answer. Needless to say, I do not agree with the 89% majority. I also don't think that it's proof of how liberal Californians are, although I think many of them are very liberal. This was a court decision, overriding the will of the people, who had already chosen to protect marriage and who will have an opportunity to do it again this November with a state constitutional amendment on the ballot.

Although I understand the point of view which urges us to stick to states' rights, I, as a proponent of a federal marriage amendment, do not concur, and I fear that this may be more than a blip on the screen in the long run if strong action is not taken.

I'm split somewhat evenly between seeing the need for a marriage amendment and recognizing the extent and effect of activist courts. Of course, the former is remedial action which one can take, whereas the latter is more just a realization.

Please vote in the next poll!

POLL: Credentials, Of Course!

Okay, time to get some of these old polls out of the way, and get a new one up and running.

First, I asked: In your opinion, what is the primary factor which McCain should take into account when selecting a running mate?

Overwhelmingly, you responded that Conservative Credentials were of the utmost importance. 37 (77%) of you chose that option.

Executive Experience came in a distant second with 7 (14%) votes. Yet, that was a solid second, for Youth/Freshness came in third with only 3 (6%) votes. State/Region captured a single (2%) vote. Neither Race/Ethnicity nor Gender garnered a solitary vote.

Decadence, Morality, and Homosexuality

Also posted here and here.

Someone really has to start keeping me from reading my local newspaper's main section. I'm fine as long as I restrict myself to the sports section, the comics, and the features. But when I delve into the opinion columns and the readers' letters, I likely won't come out without being fired up.

Most of the time, I write a response in my head, and that is enough to satisfy me. But, today, I decided to actually write a rebuttal. I'll post it here and a couple of other places, then perhaps submit it to my newspaper.

First, the original letter:

...America has become decadent.
It has become decadent when the personal, private and harmless activities of two consenting adults are grounds for immorality.
It has become decadent when one faith out of millions blelives that it has a monopoly on whom we may love.
It has become decadent when citizens believe their faith should override all others, ignoring the freedom of thought upon which this country was built.
And it has become decadent when fools cannot follow the teachings of their own religion: "Judge not, lest ye be judged" -- Matthew 7:1.

~Mr. C. Payton

Did that get you riled up? Here's my response:

~~
I suppose that the scathing "decadent" contributor on July 22 believes that his morality (if you can even call it that) should rule the day, for all legislation comes from a foundation of morality. He seems to feel very strongly on the issue of right and wrong, yet he gives no basis for his determinations. Is he depending on the "divine" wisdom or omniscience of his own mind? If so, that's "just his opinion or preference, just truth for him," as a relativist might say, and he might as well keep it to himself. Otherwise, he is the one exhibiting arrogance when he dares to pound the gavel on an issue with the arm of his own conjecture.

He certainly is not consulting the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God," as the Founders did, for he skewers reliance on God and turns a blind eye to the obvious, common-sense, self-evident realization of that which is natural and that which is not. Our ancestors would go so far as to call homosexuality a "crime against nature."

We've reached an astounding level of illogic in this country when it is considered decadence to hold yourself and society to a standard of decent behavior, while following your own selfish passions no matter where they lead is deemed what? Virtue?

I fail to see where Christians are suppressing freedom of thought. I do see gay activists trying to restrict freedom of speech, the press, religion, and conscience through overreaching "hate speech" legislation, as well as employee "non-discrimination" measures. Not to mention how they endeavor to revolutionize the definition of marriage and family for everyone.

There's an erroneous notion prevalent today that to be a tolerant person means to be a political pushover for your opponents. Now, while this is a very advantageous concept for those opposing you, it is utterly ridiculous, and I will not yield to it.

Matthew 7:1 is a condemnation of hypocrisy and a caution to pride in oneself, not a prohibition on biblical discretion. Just read the following verses to see what I mean. We are to be careful when judging others, but it is irrational to claim that we aren't even allowed to judge conduct, especially when the Bible is so clear on a specific matter. Or else, there's no point to a law system and much of the Bible--Old Testament and New--is negated.
~~

Here are two things which I would like to point out but chose not to include in the letter, for the sake of its length and flow:

1.) The original writer makes the faulty assumption that something is not immoral if it is "personal, private, and harmless." First of all, he's taking the liberty to define morality for himself, as I alluded in my response. The "private and harmless" concept, from the biblical commandment to "love your neighbor as yourself," may form the basis for much of our civil justice system, but it does not decide what morality is and is not.

2.) He also makes the mistake of assuming that the sanctioning of homosexuality by our government would not have far-reaching effects on our society.