|
|
|
feed·back (fėd'bāk'), n., the return of information about the result of a process or activity; an evaluative response: asked the students for feedback on the new curriculum. -- dictionary.com Here's what people had to say about... "Liberals simply must face facts"
While Mark E. Dixon made a good faith effort to rationalize his new thoughts on liberals, he failed to make the mark on several points ("Liberals simply must face facts," June 28). Dixon makes the generalization, "Liberals...resist any notion of an ultimate truth that might demand a personal commitment and, thereby, limit someone's freedom." I guess from this one could then say conservatives replace truth with personal bias in a deliberate attempt to restrict individual freedom. Respect for the Southern Baptist boycott on Disney? Why would anyone applaud any group that opposes treating all people as equals? And lastly, conservatives' concerns about same-sex marriage have been addressed time and time again. There simply is no sound rational basis for prohibiting same-sex marriage. The crime rate will not soar because of it, substance abuse will not increase in popularity, and the national debt will not change. And, for heaven's sake, there will not be a mass conversion of large numbers of heterosexuals to homosexuality. Perhaps the committee members in Dixon's church already know these facts and no longer feel a need to debate them over and over. It seems to me liberals are very able to discuss the need to change society's rules. Unfortunately, these discussions often fall on the deaf ears of conservatives who can't let go of their feelings and think rationally. John McFadden, Bala Cynwyd
A missed point John McFadden's July 3 letter in response to Mark E. Dixon's article "Liberals simply must face facts" (Inquirer, June 28) completely misses Dixon's point. It was Dixon's church that was working to come up with a policy on gay marriages, and thus its goal was to formulate a policy worded in the context of the church's belief system. What Dixon was objecting to was that other members of the committee were willing to disregard their church's belief system and the Bible rather than work to create a policy that conformed to them. I see this as part of an underlying conviction that many liberals share with conservatives: that defining traditional Christianity and interpreting the Bible is the province of conservative whites in nuclear families. When liberals, and even liberal churches, hand over to conservatives all claim to traditional Christianity, Jesus and the Bible, we not only leave ourselves open to "slippery slope" arguments, as Dixon points out, but we also allow ourselves to be robbed of something precious and vital. If liberal congregations choose to support such difficult positions as gay rights without staking our claim on the Bible and our own religious traditions, we risk losing the right to call ourselves Christians. There are enough conservatives who are already trying to push us out of God's house. If we walk out ourselves, we have only ourselves to blame. Ellen Spampinato, Wayne
 Mark
E. Dixon
757 Upper Gulph Road
Wayne, PA 19087-2022
USA
610-971-0649
dixon_mark@verizon.net
|
Liberals already faced facts