Stones Cry Out

i am intrigued by his core idea...but left a lot to be explored...he didn't even go into "can the democratic party take abortion off the platform and survive? can it survive as a schizo?" things like that. He stayed so far left that he is right, it is irrelevant...now for the nuances.

I was actually more interested by his "kissing" post...as I am recently married at 28 years. I knew a slew of adherents to the josh harris book in my college years. but maybe that is outside the scope of SCO. very interesting topic in the younger circles of faith...how far IS too far????

maybe that is a debate for BHT folks really.

I think the guy was simply advocating conversatism and denouncing liberalism as a bad idea.

what about classical liberals? i'm one of those. think "liberterian". I can defend that on the abortion issue as well (liberterians support the "right to choose"...I would reckon that the liberty belongs with the baby...the right/liberty to LIVE)

anyway...to us polisci majors, there is always a part of us that hates the fact that the left is called "liberal" in this country when in much of europe they rightly refer to it as socialism, not liberalism. Thanks Rush Limbaugh. Liberal is now such a dirty word that we forget that we once had a great one in the classical sense...the one that meant liberty, freedom, and smaller government.
(of course, that's how the democrats usurped it in the past...when they fought for the liberty of minorities and the poor...their "progressive" ideas advanced liberalism in the classical sense...years ago).

Oh for heaven's sake. Liberal has maintained its current meaning for fifty years. It's not Rush Limbaugh's fault. Blame FDR and LBJ. I know all about the classical liberal approach, but fighting over classical semantics at this point is meaningless. We have definitions in this country. Conservative and Liberal. Let's stick with them.