I would actually agree. The media had a fit anytime religion is involved, no matter what the religion (take note: both Dubya and Lieberman were attacked last fall for daring to be honest about their religious beliefs).
Well, I thought my little note at the top of the last post was pretty clear – I was trying to slowly maneuver things back to the main topic. Since you are making a second effort I will at least partly try to answer your questions.
I said:
You responded:
I could give dozens upon dozens of examples, but let me just pick one. I grew up watching TV in the 1970s. The taboo of premarital sex had already begun to be broken in the late 60s, but there were still many who considered it taboo. Subtle changes began to take place.
Admittedly things had been ridiculously extreme in the other direction in the 50s (married couples sleeping in separate beds), but in the late 60s / early 70s, slowly but surely, it became more acceptable to see unmarried couples heading into a room and then cut to them cuddling in bed later.
As the 70s turned into the 80s and 90s, you can easily see how this blatant display of sexuality has gotten more and more brazen. We’ve gone from unmarried couples cuddling in the bedroom to married couples committing adultery, showing as graphic a sex scene as possible on network tv, and pixilating out body parts so you can practically show soft porn. It’s very subtle if you don’t watch for it. And what is entertaining to me is that there ARE people out there who would have listed the exact same list I just gave you, and actually call it progress!
My point: this is an outright attack on the Christian principle that sexuality was created by God to be enjoyed by a husband and wife. This idea has been ridiculed and attacked as “old fashioned” in every way imaginable. Now, there is a counter-revolution underway with the “True Love Waits” campaign, but my point is that this subtle shift didn’t occur by accident. Again, I don’t believe there was a Chief Humanist somewhere overseas directing orders on all this, but I do believe there was a very deliberate orchestration of these events in the spiritual realm.
I could give dozens more similar examples but that gives you an idea of what I mean.
Regarding those who believe in a one world govt, you said:
Fair point. But stop and think, if you believed this and thought it would hurt you politically, you wouldn’t have to advertise that it’s what you believe. Once you’re in power, you can make subtle changes that, in the long haul, can aim you toward your goal.
As for those who want to destroy Christianity and throw Christians in jail, you simply asked “Who?” I can’t give you a name DB. All I can point to, again, is the subtle changes in society over the past 30 years. I can’t point to a person as being behind it … again , I think it’s a spiritual force behind it.
Examples: When I was in Atlanta, I heard about a Christian being told he could not bring his Bible to work, even if all he wanted to do was read it on his own during lunch hour. There are countless stories of believers who are treated with intense hostility and outright hatred because of their beliefs, by co workers, bosses, and others. Again, it’s a subtle, slow process. The subtle shift in moral beliefs is part of it.
Okay, I hope that at least partly answered your questions. As for pld, Cervaise, and Kimstu, I’ll have to return later and try to respond, but in a nutshell … headlines mean nothing. Read the stories. For example, the John Ashcroft piece. Maybe it’s a very accurate story, but in most cases I’ve seen reporting that just parrots the Democrat party line against Ashcroft. That’s what I meant by my comment that “the front page” is the humanist section. It purports to be neutral, but in reality, many times, it pushes an agenda. Perhaps unwittingly. Obviously there are exceptions to the rule. Sometimes they really do report it accurately! It happens. But my point is that much (not all) of the news today is obviously slanted in a direction.
;j (Why can’t I combine these icons?)