Letter From A Christian in 2012 - Focus Action Letter

October 27, 2008 by Randy
Filed under Abortion, Activism, Big Brother, Christianity, Church, Civil Rights, Culture War, Current Affairs

Comments

Focus On The Family Action released this letter as a possible scenario of life in 2012 after the potential election of Obama as President. It’s a frightening prospect for conservative Christians to consider. Some would consider it hyperbolic fear mongering. Regardless, I think it raises important considerations.

What do you think? Do you think it is possible that America could become a place where Christians are forced into silence, stigmatized, run out of the public square and thrown into bankruptcy or jail because of their religious beliefs?

Related posts (automatically generated)

Tags: Abortion, Activism, Big Brother, Christianity, Church, Civil Rights, Culture War, Election '08, Focus On The Family, Gay, Homosexuality, Life, marriage, People, Politics, Prayer, Public Policy, Religion, Worldview, Writing

Viewing 43 Comments

Matt_V 10/27/2008 07:55 PM 1 point
Please login to rate.

Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.

I read the letter in full the day it was released and chewed on it over the weekend. I love and support Focus. I have connections to people who either are or have been employed by them, and I know they've done awesome things in ministry. Even still, I feel like the whole thing was a gross error in judgement that misrepresents the heart of Christ. I'll be writing a facebook note this week and go into more detail at that point.

reply edit reblog flag record video comment

1 /people/Matt_V/ /people/Matt_V/following/

Randy 10/27/2008 07:58 PM 1 point
Please login to rate.

Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.

I look forward to reading your thoughts.

reply edit reblog flag record video comment

10 /people/RThomasETC/ /people/RThomasETC/following/ http://randythomas.org 737385716 RThomasETC rthomasetc

Jay 10/28/2008 11:36 AM 1 point
Please login to rate.

Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.

I stopped reading when they implied a connection between homosexuality and pedophilia in the Boy Scouts section. That's simply shameful, Randy, and yes, this is very definition of fear-mongering. Christians certainly should be concerned about an Obama presidency, especially when it comes to his Supreme Court nominations, but this is not the way to show one's concern.

The idea that Christians are on the brink of being "stigmatized, run out of the public square and thrown into bankruptcy or jail because of their religious beliefs" is hyperbole. Surely things are becoming more challenging, but mostly because of cultural shift, not political ones. And even if everything in that letter came true (which I highly doubt even a fraction of it would), we still would be better off than the early Christians. Where do we get the idea that we aren't supposed to be stigmatized by the surrounding culture? We're Christians, for crying out loud.

If the culture supports us, then we really need to examine ourselves and make sure we're doing what's right, because it's not supposed to support us.

reply edit reblog flag record video comment

http://www.collegejay.blogspot.com

Randy 10/28/2008 06:03 PM 1 point
Please login to rate.

Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.

I think more than a "fraction" of that is possible. A lot more actually. However, I would agree that we (The Body) have been through much much much worse. It isn't like we are on the precipice of being crucified upside down.

At the same time, it doesn't mean we don't need to be loud about the threat to religious liberty where threatened. Hyperbole? ... eh ... not really sold on it. Again, regardless, there are important underlying issues to keep an eye on.

reply edit reblog flag record video comment

10 /people/RThomasETC/ /people/RThomasETC/following/ http://randythomas.org 737385716 RThomasETC rthomasetc

Jay 10/28/2008 09:47 PM 1 point
Please login to rate.

Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.

Well, one can be loud but one does not have to be slanderous. The implication that a homosexual person in the ranks of the Boy Scouts would automatically be a pedophile is the definition of slander, and that kind of statement really overshadows whatever good points the letter might have made. I would at least like you to respond to that, because right now it looks like you're implicitly supporting that viewpoint.

reply edit reblog flag record video comment

http://www.collegejay.blogspot.com

Randy 10/28/2008 10:08 PM 1 point
Please login to rate.

Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.

Well, Jay, you are just about as offensive as you perceive them to be. You draw a conclusion about them and then basically demand that I respond to your perception about their depiction.

... ok ...

Anyone who reads my blog, and doesn't impose their worst assumptions about me (like you apparently do), knows that I would never equate homosexuality with pedophilia.

Unfortunately pedophiles exist in both heterosexual and homosexual realms.

Jay, you always seem to know better than me so perhaps you should just make your points into new blog posts at your own site.

reply edit reblog flag record video comment

10 /people/RThomasETC/ /people/RThomasETC/following/ http://randythomas.org 737385716 RThomasETC rthomasetc

Randy 10/28/2008 11:19 PM 1 point
Please login to rate.

Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.

ok... my last sentence above wasn't very nice so ... make your comments hear if you want. I apologize.

That said, I do often feel like your judgments of me are condescending but it is my choice on whether I allow them through or respond to them.

reply edit reblog flag record video comment

10 /people/RThomasETC/ /people/RThomasETC/following/ http://randythomas.org 737385716 RThomasETC rthomasetc

Jay 10/29/2008 03:26 PM 1 point
Please login to rate.

Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.

I'm not judging you, Randy. I see what I see and I point it out in order to ask for clarification. I know you don't equate homosexuality with pedophilia, but the author of the letter you're promoting here seems to (or at the very least links them).

Of course simply posting a letter doesn't mean you agree with everything that letter says. I'm not saying you should make a line-by-line analysis of what you agree and disagree with. That wasn't your post's intention and I appreciate that. However, considering your line of ministry (which admirably involves dispelling some of the more unhelpful attitudes about gays and lesbians amongst Christians) I think at least saying that you disagreed with the letter's insinuations about homosexuals in the Boy Scouts being pedophiles would have been helpful.

Silence doesn't always equal consent, but in some cases, it can really look like it.

reply edit reblog flag record video comment

http://www.collegejay.blogspot.com

Randy 10/29/2008 03:54 PM 1 point
Please login to rate.

Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.

Thanks for expanding your thoughts. I still contend that the only way silence equals consent is if you impose assumptions and make judgments based on those assumptions.

reply edit reblog flag record video comment

10 /people/RThomasETC/ /people/RThomasETC/following/ http://randythomas.org 737385716 RThomasETC rthomasetc

Jay 10/29/2008 04:44 PM 1 point
Please login to rate.

Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.

That's true, which is why I asked you to clarify your position. People naturally make assumptions, and when one is silent, that leaves room for people to make assumptions that might not be correct.

reply edit reblog flag record video comment

http://www.collegejay.blogspot.com

Randy 10/29/2008 06:54 PM 1 point
Please login to rate.

Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.

You didn't just ask me to clarify ... you implied that I was "implicitly" supporting a stigmatizing stereotype.

Next time try saying something like "Randy it looks like Focus is implying that homosexuality = pedophilia? ... do you agree with that?"

My answer would have been, "I am not sure that is what they are implying but if they were ... no. I don't agree with that."

Simple questions for clarification are just that ... simple. Assuming the negative and then trying to force someone to defend themselves (or be guilty through silence) against your negative assumptions is called manipulation. And that is as offensive as being implicated in stigmatizing a community I care deeply for.

reply edit reblog flag record video comment

10 /people/RThomasETC/ /people/RThomasETC/following/ http://randythomas.org 737385716 RThomasETC rthomasetc

Jay 10/29/2008 08:44 PM 1 point
Please login to rate.

Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.

When I said "implicitly," I was using a word incorrectly. I apologize for that. I meant to say "tacitly" or "passively." I guess my inner thesaurus was out to lunch at the time.

If you didn't want someone to assume the negative, you could have put a disclaimer in the post stating your disagreement with Focus' stigmatizing implications. Or, if you didn't believe they were trying to be stigmatizing, you could have simply said so after my initial comment, instead of taking me to task for making an assumption and dragging this conversation out much longer than it needed to be.

I hope this doesn't sound condescending to you. That isn't my intention. I don't go out of my way to make judgments about you nor do I think I'm better than you, and I try to keep my tone as professional as possible. I would appreciate that same courtesy in return.

reply edit reblog flag record video comment

http://www.collegejay.blogspot.com

Randy 10/29/2008 09:03 PM 1 point
Please login to rate.

Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.

How in the world am I supposed to write a post knowing what other people will assume? ... or imply? And even if I could figure out what cynical assessment someone else is going to make, why would I then allow that to drive what I want to say? ... or not say?

And when you accuse me of impliciitly, passively or tacitly promoting a stigmatizing message ... do you really think I am supposed to allow that to go unchallenged?

As for courtesy and professionalism, those are not two elements I get from you when you throw verbal bombs my way in reaction to someone else.

reply edit reblog flag record video comment

10 /people/RThomasETC/ /people/RThomasETC/following/ http://randythomas.org 737385716 RThomasETC rthomasetc

Jay 10/29/2008 11:31 PM 1 point
Please login to rate.

Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.

First, I never accused you of anything. I said that your silence on the issue LOOKED like tacit support. I didn't say it was. There's a difference. Calling for a response is not a "verbal bomb."

This obviously is not going to go anywhere. I don't quite know how to disagree with you without offending you, since you seem to read everything I write as condescending even when I'm trying my best to be polite. If you have any tips on how you would like to be addressed, I'd appreciate it, because honestly you're the only blogger who responds to me this way, and my attitude is pretty much the same with everyone I come across online.

That said, unless you have any tips, we've reached the end of our productivity here. Have a pleasant evening.

reply edit reblog flag record video comment

http://www.collegejay.blogspot.com

Randy 10/29/2008 11:55 PM 1 point
Please login to rate.

Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.

I already made suggestions on how to ask simple questions without implying that I have potentially ill motives.

I honestly think you assume the worst of me and then expect that I have to answer to you about those assumptions.

What other bloggers have to do with that ... not sure. That's what I get from you with almost every comment.

If I am reading condescension into this, please forgive me ... I am trying to read it objectively and still come away with that observation.

Good evening to you too.

reply edit reblog flag record video comment

10 /people/RThomasETC/ /people/RThomasETC/following/ http://randythomas.org 737385716 RThomasETC rthomasetc

Randy 10/29/2008 11:56 PM 1 point
Please login to rate.

Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.

Also, the threading limit isn't working. if you want to comment again you might start with a new comment thread by filling out the form at the bottom of the page.

reply edit reblog flag record video comment

10 /people/RThomasETC/ /people/RThomasETC/following/ http://randythomas.org 737385716 RThomasETC rthomasetc

sam 11/10/2008 09:27 PM 1 point
Please login to rate.

Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.

Jay,

Obviously you didn't read the letter, carefully. Fof did not compare homosexuality with pedophilia, at all. All they said in that regards, was that the Boy Scouts closed their business, because The Boy Scouts didn't want gay scoutmasters to sleep in tents with other scouts. By rules, all scoutmasters share tents with their respective scouts, and in order to promote unit cohesion, scoutmasters of the opposite sex, are not allowed to share the same tents, assuming that majority of people are heterosexual. This is the reason why gay scoutmasters are not allowed to work for the Boy Scouts, likewise lesbians are disallowed for Girl Scouts.

No implication of sex, or pedophilia.

I think you are having biases against Focus on the Family.

reply edit reblog flag record video comment

B.T.Carolus 11/10/2008 11:51 PM 1 point
Please login to rate.

Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.

Sam
There are no scoutmasters 'of the opposite sex' in the Boy Scouts, because it is boys (and men) only. There is no prohibition against lesbian involvement in the Girl Scouts. You are right, though, Jay is a little biased against Focus ;)

reply edit reblog flag record video comment

8 /people/BTCarolus/ /people/BTCarolus/following/ http://btcarolus.wordpress.com 547232123 Sister of Venice 35

sam 11/11/2008 12:22 AM 1 point
Please login to rate.

Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.

Really? Openly lesbian women can be scoutmasters for the Girl Scouts?

Anyway, my point was that they don't allow gays to be scoutmasters for the Boy Scouts because scoutmasters do many things together with other boys, including sharing the same tents, and it is expected for scoutmasters to be always psychologicall prepared, so they are not allowed in order to prevent any possible temptations.

reply edit reblog flag record video comment

B.T.Carolus 11/11/2008 12:29 AM 1 point
Please login to rate.

Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.

Yes, really. Hence if I ever have a daughter, she will not be a girl scout. Not because of a sex thing

Letter From A Christian in 2012 - Focus Action Letter

Related posts (automatically generated)

Add New Comment

Viewing 43 Comments