Reply #89: I take issue with your oversimplified generalizations...

[IrateCitizen]

and outright mischaracterizations.

For example:

You cite "religion" as a mainstream value, and then chastise people on these boards for being hostile to it. It certainly has a bit of credence, because I have found myself shouted down by some of the more militant atheists and agnostics here. But I also belong to a Unitarian Universalist fellowship, and I could almost guarantee to you that the overwhelming majority of people who are members at our church are either Democrats, Greens, or even socialist/communist!

Secondly, you equate opposition to the current US occupation of Iraq, along with denouncement of the military as an institution (which is to be differentiated from denouncing individual members of the military), as calling all military folks "baby killers". But, once again, how is calling out militarism and imperialism as wrong somehow going against "mainstream values"? Most people I know -- especially those outside of the military -- wouldn't be too fond of such actions. The problem is that most just don't know what exactly is being done in their names.

Thirdly, you equate opposing the death penalty with being "pro criminal". Don't even try to deny it, you've done it repeatedly. Personally, I find the death penalty morally repugnant -- it is nothing less than state-sanctioned premeditated murder. And as a "religious" person, I find it odd as to how you could reconcile support of it with the teachings of Christ. But that's yours to figure out. The reality of it is, if people are asked if they support the death penalty, KNOWING THAT THE POSSIBILITY EXISTS THAT AND INNOCENT PERSON COULD BE PUT TO DEATH, support for it drops immensely. Please tell me how that is opposing "mainstream values".

Fourthly, your constant invocation of 1968 and 1972 grow tiresome. They have no application to today. Do you not realize the immense changes that society went through during less than 10 years prior to 1972? Just try and picture it, if you can -- and think back to a similar amount of change taking place since 1992. The entire country was in a state of immense turmoil between the 1950's and 1970's -- on that is almost inconceivable to those of us who didn't live through it.

In conclusion, Carlos -- of course you think you have valid points. We all think we have valid points. But the problem that you display repeatedly is that you are not willing to even CONSIDER another viewpoint that somehow challenges your own.

And therein lies the problem. I've tried to get through to you on it -- as have many others here -- but we all have just failed spectacularly.