Thursday, September 29, 2005

Confessions of a child of the Sixties

I just saw a pretty good show about the 60's. It was on PBS, and it covered a lot of international student events that one doesn't often see, such as the massacre of students in Mexico City in Oct. of 68, and the May '68 in Paris. The old image are still evocative for me. I wonder if these young people today (I sound like a real old foggy) will know or understand what it means to me to see the wild umkept hair of Bob Dylan and hear that sand paper whine screeching out "the Time they are a'Chang'n?" Or to see the jet black hair of Joan Baez and hear the most hauntingly beautiful voice of that decade. Those two images alone encapsulate the whole sixties thing for me. I literally cried at the images of MLK's funeral, Bobbie Kennedy dying on the floor of the kitchen, thousands of people spontaneously lining the tracks on the journey taking his body back to Washington. Scenes of the Police riot in Chicago the summer of '68. It's hard to relate what scenes of that time do to me. I was a child but I sat glued to the TV the whole time and watched the police beat the crap of people just wanting to stop a war (while they alternated with the story of the Russians invading Checoslovokia, it was not wasted on me that hese two events were two versions of the same thing, the iron curten version and our version). They beat reporters, they beat passers by, and all the while the naive crowd of idealistic politicos chanting "the whole world is watching, the whole world is watching." Of, how could I not mention images of Woodstock? While young people revaled in wild abandon, stoned out of their minds, great music, trying to make their dreams concrete in reality and settling for the greatest party the east coast ever saw.

I guess anyone under 35 would be mystified by my attachment to all of this. But in my youth these images said to me "you are part of something, something is happening, your generation is gong to end things that have been wrong for thousands of Years.' I never got to take part in it. I longed to grow up and become a protester and be part. I did join other protest movements, I was a political activist for most of a decade. But I never got to do it in the 60s. I only went to one actual anti-veitnam protest. But somehow, I was part of it. It was my generation, my time, my older siblings so to speak and I was part of it in my heart and I supported them everyday fervently. It was exciting to know that I was part of a history making epoch that change humanity, hopefully for the better, forever.

I think we did change it for the better, also for the worst. I think Dylan was ahead of us all really, because he knew better than to attach himself to an ideology or a party line. So many of us were caught up on that and sold out our dreams, ironically, in the attempt to secure them and to live out their meaning. We sold them out by taking ourselves too seriously. Over the decades one learns to forget, to keep quite, the younger people dot' want to hear it, they can't relate to it. They dont' know what it is. They don't know what my music meant to me. They could never understand why their music sickens me. They could never understand what mine does for me. They don't care, and I don't care. But then I have to hand it to them, its their time. Every new generation must fight its own daemons and define itself against what came before and where it wants to wind up. So I let them have their time. I try not to be the old curmudgeon who railed against my long hair, and just let them have their thing, whatever I think of it.

But it's not so easy because it opens up a long and deep wound that's been there since my conversion to Christ. The ultimate dilemma: I see the show, I know that's who I am. I'm the child of those days. I am the veteran of those Chicago streets, even though I wasn't there physically, I was there in spirit. I am the remnant of that movement. I am the result, the product, the artifact of that time. And that spirit of those days tells me I am my own seeker. I am still looking for myself, and I wont find it in the group. young people can't understand it at all; the kids of today have come full circle, they are creatures of the group; but not me. I will not find myself among the group. I am liberal, will always be liberal. My most sacred basic core values include setting captives free, stopping war, protesting injustice, supporting equality between all people. That's who I am and I can't sell that out.

But I am also a child of God. I found Jesus, I know he's real. I know the power is real. i can't ever deny that, or deny what he did in my life. Whatever psychological theory or psychologizing fad comes along to explain my conversation exoeruebce, however a product of my dopamine one thinks it to be, I know it was real and that it was more than just chemicals in my head, and I can't ever Denny that. But that belief, that relationship, that finding of God is not done in a vacuum. It's a social thing and it comes with a history. I don't always approve of that history. Nevertheless, the history of the social side of the faith I embrace. I can't ignore it set myself apart form it. Therefore, I belong to the church and I have to belong to the church, but that is very probemlatic.

I don't always like the church. I sometimes spend a great deal of my time laughing at large segments of the church. I am sometimes embarrassed by large segments of the chruch.Not so much because so many Christians supported right wing causes, since there are also a lot of left wing Christians, but because as a true faith I should be seeking reconciliation with these guys. I should figure that our mutual faith is more important and should bring us together more than my half and baked and dimly conceived value system sets us apart. But sometimes I can't do that. Sometimes that value system is awfully clear to me. The conservatives were so frightened by the sixties. Those who were set in fear by that decade see no distinctions between any of the elements that mark that time. Beetle hair cuts just lead inexorably to orgies in the streets. The Turtles song "so Happy Together" leads with utter finality to the nations current drug problem, such that any aspects of the sixties scares the pants off of them and must be attributed to Satan. These are the guys who play records backwards to hear those evil hidden satanic messages like "we go GA lm NOC." How diabolic can you get!

These guys are all over the church. These guys think they own Christianity, and anyone who doesn't toe their party line is just hood wincked by Satan. Most of the time I try to treat them with benign neglect, but how can I really ignore them when, if they had their way, they would crush out of existence ever vestige, not only of the time I hold so dear (my youth) but also the values, the very core meaning that that time holds for me? How can I Ignore them when they hate and fear everything I'm about? Somehow I have faith that Christ really does unite us, but it's hard sometimes to get through an election while I watch otherwise intelligent rational fellow Christians turn beautiful organizations into right-wing political groups; I really do know that they don't want to hear any counter views. I see them build fenses around their doctrines so that their pet interpritations of doctrine become sacred and one dare not disagree.

Eventually it begins to ware on my actual faith. I start to consider alternatives. Then, after so much argument and dispute about religious matters, I just think "what's it all for?" I have been tempted to chuck the Nicene creed. I defiantly think "If I had to follow the OT, say Jesus hadn't come before this century, I would rather be a pagan." But what I do? I try to retreat to rationality and faith. I say, "what is the real source of my discomfort with OT, with Nicene creed?" I rethink the doubt and consider the options within a framework of keeping the faith. I realize most of the time its an emotional reaction, not a doctrinal crisis, but a theological crisis nonetheless. But the stark contrast is always there; I am a child of the sixties and so much of the church will always be the anti-Semites. On the other hand I know there is something good about that. Something about being able to see through the mistakes, the over stamtetns, the sentimentalities of youth.

Once I met a cult leader who was trying to impress me enough to get me into his cult. He told me "I am the ideals of your youth." I told him, "then you really are a fool." He took his groupies and left the place immediately. Whale I can't renounce the values, I understand that the way they played out in terms of emotion and sentiment was largely a problem with being young. For example, I'm glad the left take over rally. I want more restraint on capitalism, but I really don't want a worker's state. I think the system we have now could be so fine if people cared about clearing up the abuses of power. The kind of radical weather underground stuff I admired in Junior high was just insanity. While no singer has ever come along to truly replace Joan Baize and no song writer could replace Dylan, the subsequent generations have had their guys, some of them have been great; one of them is even a Dylan.

So finally I guess I have to just realize that this is just one of those irresolvable tensions that I'm going to have to live with. I just happened to be in the right place at the right time; right to be marked forever without he curse of the 60s. But while we have changed the world for the better, in many ways, I can understand why the more convective elements in the church are so afford of it. After all, that same movement that spawned liberation movements of all stripes changed the values of the country such that Americans and first world people will never look at sin the same way again. The church is forced re define sin, and to ponder problems of reconciliation with sinners in new ways. No generation before ours understood itself as made up of sensual individuals. Sentuanlity was a curse and something to keep quite. I don't think people will ever see it that way again. That is both good and bad. Good because God made us to be sensual people, and no where in his word does he say that's bad. But it is bad by soncqeunce because people not only want to throw off the surplus guilt of feeling sinful for having sexual urges, but also throw off the concept of sin and just do as they please.

The Sixties was like the garden of Eden all over again. If you eat this fruit, you will know good from evil, and knowing means you will experience both good and evil, you learn fits hand what's its all about; starting with estagement form God, and culminating in estrangement from each other, and from nature and the world around you, and even from the motive force of your being (labor becomes a curse). The first couple ate it, and so did we (although I guess we smoked it). Both times, all hell broke loose. I can understand why such a large segment of the church wants to go back to the good old days when kids were named things like Beaver, Wally, and Lumpy, and no problem of youth was so great that a good apology to Miss Launders wouldn't fix everything. I guess I'll just take this dilemma to the grave with me. It's my Mark of Cain form our own little fall in the sixties.

27 comments:

metanoia said...

yeah, i know what you mean... well sort of, i'm a little young to be a Sicties flowerchild, but still the right wing American church seems pretty far off on many issues, religious and social, to me. i really dunno what to say to them or about it anymore. Gaps seem to widen all the time.

J.L. Hinman said...

yea that's the way it goes

Anonymous said...

Grab a cup o’ joe Meta, I think some respectful dialog among friends might be helpful here. While I agree with some of your conclusions that certain high profile conservative leaders are out on a limb (by themselves and laughable) that doesn’t illegitimize the conservative movement. Your statement is reflective of the general attitude that I have experienced from liberal Christians in various places. It makes me think that there is no dialog going on between liberals and conservatives except for TV cariciturizations. And the way in which liberals craft their case (including your blog statement) is, in essence, putting conservatives outside of “church tradition“ as defined by liberal Christianity. If you do that then you have demonized conservatives, putting them out of the church in a sense. I’m finding this to be a serious and growing problem; it isn’t only the conservatives who’ve politicized the church!

Meta: “My most sacred basic core values include setting captives free, stopping war, protesting injustice, supporting equality between all people. That's who I am and I can't sell that out.”

Meta, could it be, that we believe in the same things? But conservatives have come to a different conclusion as to the means of establishing those Christian ideals? Are you inferring that conservative Christians don’t believe in these things and that they are sellouts of the most basic core values of Christianity?

Meta: “how could I not mention images of Woodstock? While young people revaled in wild abandon, stoned out of their minds, great music, trying to make their dreams concrete in reality and settling for the greatest party the east coast ever saw.”

Could it be, that conservatives also saw the Woodstock generation…and came to the conclusion that the resulting reality wasn’t so great? Especially for families?

Meta: “guess anyone under 35 would be mystified by my attachment to all of this. But in my youth these images said to me "you are part of something, something is happening, your generation is gong to end things that have been wrong for thousands of Years.' …Those who were set in fear by that decade see no distinctions between any of the elements that mark that time. Beetle hair cuts just lead inexorably to orgies in the streets. The Turtles song "so Happy Together" leads with utter finality to the nations current drug problem, such that any aspects of the sixties scares the pants off of them and must be attributed to Satan. These are the guys who play records backwards to hear those evil hidden satanic messages like "we go GA lm NOC." How diabolic can you get!”

Did that generation change things really? Or did they merely create a moral chaos in which to indulge the wildest senses? Are conservatives really afraid or did they merely conclude that the movement didn’t live up to it’s responsibility? Instead, it talked about justice and peace, it railed against the war machine but turned a blind eye to actually freeing people from foreign governments and dictators who hoard their countries resources for personal profit and commit the most vile, inhuman crimes, against their own people.

Meta: “but how can I really ignore them when, if they had their way, they would crush out of existence ever vestige, not only of the time I hold so dear (my youth) but also the values, the very core meaning that that time holds for me? How can I Ignore them when they hate and fear everything I'm about?”

Meta:“I am a child of the sixties and so much of the church will always be the anti-Semites”

So am I a child of the sixties. Do conservatives really scare you that much Meta that you must demonize us? Don’t we hold the same values of Justice? We disagree how to get there and much of that is based on the 60’s failure.

Meta: “I want more restraint on capitalism, but I really don't want a worker's state. I think the system we have now could be so fine if people cared about clearing up the abuses of power.”

People do care. Even “semite-hating, moralist, right-wing” conservatives, believe it or not. All “isms” like capitalism are concepts that describe barter between people. It isn’t capitalism that’s bad, but the abuse of it and unlike socialism and communism it has mechanisms that eventually correct the abuses… by catching the abusers and jailing them,…eventually, even if that works more slowly than you‘d like. When you see abusers jailed it means the system is working! Not that it doesn’t work. When the government becomes the abuser, as in socialist and communist societies then you’re left with no mechanism of correction other than revolution or collapse. Afterall, socialism and communism are not immune to abuse, just ask Sholtzenitzen.

Meta: “I can understand why the more convective elements in the church are so afford of it. After all, that same movement that spawned liberation movements of all stripes changed the values of the country such that Americans and first world people will never look at sin the same way again. The church is forced re define sin, and to ponder problems of reconciliation with sinners in new ways. No generation before ours understood itself as made up of sensual individuals. Sentuanlity was a curse and something to keep quite. I don't think people will ever see it that way again. That is both good and bad. Good because God made us to be sensual people, and no where in his word does he say that's bad. But it is bad by soncqeunce because people not only want to throw off the surplus guilt of feeling sinful for having sexual urges, but also throw off the concept of sin and just do as they please.”

If we redefine sin, what’s the point? Do as you please.

Meta, I hope you take this in the spirit of openess. I consider you a fellow believer in Christ and never demonized your deeply held political beliefs, though you are liberal and we disagree. However, evangelicals are not the only politicizing movement here. The liberal establishment has politicized the church to the point of practically putting the evangelicals outside the church with their language not because of doctrinal issues but because conservatives have reached a different political conclusion. That’s not right in my opinion.

Anonymous said...

One more point....

The heart of the matter is the issue of demonizing any group of people. You have a masters in history... you know the end result of that kind of political tactic. And the college kids are sucking it up. I know, some recent grads go to my church and they've been taught that the evangelicals are apostate having "sold out" to the powers that be.

J.L. Hinman said...

you have a good point, but I saw these things way before the PC thing. Way back in the early 80s. I'm not talking about how bad the are, I'm just talking about how estranged I feel from them sometimes.

J.L. Hinman said...

Grab a cup o’ joe Meta, I think some respectful dialog among friends might be helpful here. While I agree with some of your conclusions that certain high profile conservative leaders are out on a limb (by themselves and laughable) that doesn’t illegitimize the conservative movement. Your statement is reflective of the general attitude that I have experienced from liberal Christians in various places. It makes me think that there is no dialog going on between liberals and conservatives except for TV cariciturizations. And the way in which liberals craft their case (including your blog statement) is, in essence, putting conservatives outside of “church tradition“ as defined by liberal Christianity. If you do that then you have demonized conservatives, putting them out of the church in a sense. I’m finding this to be a serious and growing problem; it isn’t only the conservatives who’ve politicized the church!


>>>I am talking about my own feelings in relation to them. Conservatives want to pretend that they have a monopoly on the christian tradition and forget how recent their tradition began.

Meta: “My most sacred basic core values include setting captives free, stopping war, protesting injustice, supporting equality between all people. That's who I am and I can't sell that out.”

Meta, could it be, that we believe in the same things? But conservatives have come to a different conclusion as to the means of establishing those Christian ideals?

>>>of course!


Are you inferring that conservative Christians don’t believe in these things and that they are sellouts of the most basic core values of Christianity?


>>>I'm sure they beileve in them, but when push comes to shuve they often don't stick up for them, or they don't also see when they are at issue.

Meta: “how could I not mention images of Woodstock? While young people revaled in wild abandon, stoned out of their minds, great music, trying to make their dreams concrete in reality and settling for the greatest party the east coast ever saw.”

Could it be, that conservatives also saw the Woodstock generation…and came to the conclusion that the resulting reality wasn’t so great? Especially for families?


>>>of course they did, that was my whole piont. Everything we did scared the pants off of them and they never got over it. So they see liberal plots in everything.



Meta: “guess anyone under 35 would be mystified by my attachment to all of this. But in my youth these images said to me "you are part of something, something is happening, your generation is gong to end things that have been wrong for thousands of Years.' …Those who were set in fear by that decade see no distinctions between any of the elements that mark that time. Beetle hair cuts just lead inexorably to orgies in the streets. The Turtles song "so Happy Together" leads with utter finality to the nations current drug problem, such that any aspects of the sixties scares the pants off of them and must be attributed to Satan. These are the guys who play records backwards to hear those evil hidden satanic messages like "we go GA lm NOC." How diabolic can you get!”

Did that generation change things really? Or did they merely create a moral chaos in which to indulge the wildest senses?


>>>>ahahahaahaha, there just wasnt anything good about was there? Everything we did was bad and the whole outcome was evil. But of course we can sweet little Dickie and his suberversin of the constitution and the secret wars in Loas and Cambodia, why that's just not even wrong at all!




Are conservatives really afraid or did they merely conclude that the movement didn’t live up to it’s responsibility?


?>>>No I concluded that it didn't lives up to its responsiblities! they are scared the way David Crsoby said.




Instead, it talked about justice and peace, it railed against the war machine but turned a blind eye to actually freeing people from foreign governments and dictators who hoard their countries resources for personal profit and commit the most vile, inhuman crimes, against their own people.


>>>what? that's what the right did. Persident Tue, Reos mont, Christiani. Somosa!

Meta: “but how can I really ignore them when, if they had their way, they would crush out of existence ever vestige, not only of the time I hold so dear (my youth) but also the values, the very core meaning that that time holds for me? How can I Ignore them when they hate and fear everything I'm about?”

Meta:“I am a child of the sixties and so much of the church will always be the anti-Semites”

So am I a child of the sixties. Do conservatives really scare you that much Meta that you must demonize us?


>>>only after they steal two elections in a row.



Don’t we hold the same values of Justice? We disagree how to get there and much of that is based on the 60’s failure.


>>>I dont' think I've ever seen many conservatives stick up for justice without breaking ranks and working agsint the government. where are they to speak out abuses within any republican administration?

Meta: “I want more restraint on capitalism, but I really don't want a worker's state. I think the system we have now could be so fine if people cared about clearing up the abuses of power.”

People do care. Even “semite-hating, moralist, right-wing” conservatives, believe it or not. All “isms” like capitalism are concepts that describe barter between people. It isn’t capitalism that’s bad, but the abuse of it and unlike socialism and communism it has mechanisms that eventually correct the abuses… by catching the abusers and jailing them,…eventually, even if that works more slowly than you‘d like. When you see abusers jailed it means the system is working! Not that it doesn’t work. When the government becomes the abuser, as in socialist and communist societies then you’re left with no mechanism of correction other than revolution or collapse. Afterall, socialism and communism are not immune to abuse, just ask Sholtzenitzen.

Meta: “I can understand why the more convective elements in the church are so afford of it. After all, that same movement that spawned liberation movements of all stripes changed the values of the country such that Americans and first world people will never look at sin the same way again. The church is forced re define sin, and to ponder problems of reconciliation with sinners in new ways. No generation before ours understood itself as made up of sensual individuals. Sentuanlity was a curse and something to keep quite. I don't think people will ever see it that way again. That is both good and bad. Good because God made us to be sensual people, and no where in his word does he say that's bad. But it is bad by soncqeunce because people not only want to throw off the surplus guilt of feeling sinful for having sexual urges, but also throw off the concept of sin and just do as they please.”

If we redefine sin, what’s the point? Do as you please.

Meta, I hope you take this in the spirit of openess. I consider you a fellow believer in Christ and never demonized your deeply held political beliefs, though you are liberal and we disagree. However, evangelicals are not the only politicizing movement here. The liberal establishment has politicized the church to the point of practically putting the evangelicals outside the church with their language not because of doctrinal issues but because conservatives have reached a different political conclusion. That’s not right in my opinion.

>>>I'm sure I would consider you the same if I knew who you are. But I think I was pretty fair. I admitted that all of that was my perosnal feelings, that my ideals were foolish in many ways, that I took myself too serilusly when I was young, that the whole left too itself too seriously.


guess I need more about how wonderful conservative types are.

J.L. Hinman said...

some of my best freinds are conservative republican evangelicals. here are their names and addresses:

No I'm not giving that!

Anonymous said...

">>>>I'm just talking about how estranged I feel from them sometimes."

Me too Meta, I feel estranged from liberals because they want to demonize my politics and illegitimize my tradition with how "recent" it is. When in fact, it's at least 2000 years old; unless you're suggesting it's not biblically based. I hope not.

">>>I'm sure they beileve in them, but when push comes to shuve they often don't stick up for them, or they don't also see when they are at issue."

Or maybe they just don't see eye to eye with liberals on them and what that means (the most basic core values of Christianity). You know those issues are never simplistic. Maybe conservatives see defending the innocent and freeing the helpless as more morally Just than protesting the war for instance.

ME>>>Could it be, that conservatives also saw the Woodstock generation…and came to the conclusion that the resulting reality wasn’t so great? Especially for families?

META">>>of course they did, that was my whole piont. Everything we did scared the pants off of them and they never got over it. So they see liberal plots in everything"

What we saw was the devastating effects on families which you can statistically trace back to the 60's. You're not a parent, you haven't experienced what it's done.


">>>>ahahahaahaha, there just wasnt anything good about was there? Everything we did was bad and the whole outcome was evil. But of course we can sweet little Dickie and his suberversin of the constitution and the secret wars in Loas and Cambodia, why that's just not even wrong at all!"

You're ranting. I understand that republicans can be corrupt too. And that some good came out of the 60's, but IMO the good wasn't good enough. The bad that came out of it was far more devastating culturally.


">>>only after they steal two elections in a row."

Now who's seeing plots in everything?


">>>I dont' think I've ever seen many conservatives stick up for justice without breaking ranks and working agsint the government. where are they to speak out abuses within any republican administration?"

Then you're simply not listening or you don't talk to thinking conservatives. FYI, many of us are not at all happy with the "big government" agenda of the current administration, that is, those of us who are true conservatives and not blind republican hacks. Only the most niave would think everythings on the up 'n up, but I have no illusions about the Clinton era either. Don't swallow everything you hear on the radio.

">>>I'm sure I would consider you the same if I knew who you are."

I'm sure you would know who I am but now I'm not sure I want to ruin it by telling you. I'm saddened that politics might ruin that.


">>>But I think I was pretty fair. I admitted that all of that was my perosnal feelings, that my ideals were foolish in many ways, that I took myself too serilusly when I was young, that the whole left too itself too seriously."

I don't think you've been fair at all. You've been repeating the liberal mantra of conservative plots and Bbbbig Bbbbaad Bbbbush capitalists; Conservatives are just EEEEEeeeeeeevil! Out to destroy everything good and democratic and free! Fundies... all of them!


">>>guess I need more about how wonderful conservative types are."

Maybe you should befriend some of us so you don't think were monsters. No one is claiming perfection. In all human institutions there's corruption. Pick your corruption.

What saddens me is that liberals cannot or will not acknowledge that conservatives have a legitimacy that is founded upon thoughtful philosophical, moral, and philanthropic dialog. They don't want to understand us, they're just mad. All they want to do is demonize us by claiming we steal elections, etc.

And we're the ones who see plots! Ha.

Wish I could talk to you on this stuff Meta, but until you quit the mantra I don't think we can have a productive discussion.

Anonymous said...

Oh yeah, and I think is was a Clinton era court that "stole" the election in 2000! He had 8 years and Reagan's 2 appointees turned out to be closet liberals! So much for that conspiracy.

J.L. Hinman said...

so typical of the say conservatives think. No sense of proportion. The florida election they had to actualy scuttle people's votes. What you are talking about is just a matter of things not working out.

J.L. Hinman said...

">>>>I'm just talking about how estranged I feel from them sometimes."

Me too Meta, I feel estranged from liberals because they want to demonize my politics and illegitimize my tradition with how "recent" it is. When in fact, it's at least 2000 years old; unless you're suggesting it's not biblically based. I hope not.


>>>>republican poliitcs is not 2000 yers old. If you mean Christianity, that is not synonimous with Republican polotics.

">>>I'm sure they beileve in them, but when push comes to shuve they often don't stick up for them, or they don't also see when they are at issue."

Or maybe they just don't see eye to eye with liberals on them and what that means (the most basic core values of Christianity). You know those issues are never simplistic. Maybe conservatives see defending the innocent and freeing the helpless as more morally Just than protesting the war for instance.


>>>Yea, right. Do we drop naplam on civilians or not, what complex issue. Bombing hospitalism in Hanni, I just figure it out.




ME>>>Could it be, that conservatives also saw the Woodstock generation…and came to the conclusion that the resulting reality wasn’t so great? Especially for families?


>>>>that's the easy thing to conclude. if they weren't so uptight they wouldn't have to make a big thing out of eveyr little song.

META">>>of course they did, that was my whole piont. Everything we did scared the pants off of them and they never got over it. So they see liberal plots in everything"

What we saw was the devastating effects on families which you can statistically trace back to the 60's. You're not a parent, you haven't experienced what it's done.


>>>that's just bull shit! bull shit! you think the divorce rate wasn't high int he 60s? It wasn't the hippies that taguoht buisnessmen to drink to drink Martini's and hat they could get out of marraige whenever they wanted, and they could screw their secretarires when no one was looking. Its' not the liberal chruch that has the high divorce rate. the fundies divorce rate is thought the roof, the libera's divorce rate is lowwer than the secular counter parts. It's that materilist house in the suburbs, go along get along, money is all that matters, that's what eroded the family.


">>>>ahahahaahaha, there just wasnt anything good about was there? Everything we did was bad and the whole outcome was evil. But of course we can sweet little Dickie and his suberversin of the constitution and the secret wars in Loas and Cambodia, why that's just not even wrong at all!"

You're ranting. I understand that republicans can be corrupt too. And that some good came out of the 60's, but IMO the good wasn't good enough. The bad that came out of it was far more devastating culturally.


>>>How can you possibly weight that? Only because you feel uncomfortable. there's no way you can put the negative factors of sexual liscenciousness with the civil rights movment. That alone is the worth the whole decade. The drug problem. Ever heard of Oliver Norht? He had Reagan's blessing and sold cocaine to every major city in the country. Check out the contra Cocaine connection.


">>>only after they steal two elections in a row."

Now who's seeing plots in everything?


>>>read the decenting opinion in the supreme court case for 2000 election. He practically calls it stolen.


">>>I dont' think I've ever seen many conservatives stick up for justice without breaking ranks and working agsint the government. where are they to speak out abuses within any republican administration?"

Then you're simply not listening or you don't talk to thinking conservatives. FYI, many of us are not at all happy with the "big government" agenda of the current administration, that is, those of us who are true conservatives and not blind republican hacks.




>>>hahahaah, so you can't think about the issues of what the government does to opress people without putting in it terms of "big government." Big government is not the problem. Government bombing mass populations in far away places is the problem.



Only the most niave would think everythings on the up 'n up, but I have no illusions about the Clinton era either. Don't swallow everything you hear on the radio.


>>>>try research

">>>I'm sure I would consider you the same if I knew who you are."

I'm sure you would know who I am but now I'm not sure I want to ruin it by telling you. I'm saddened that politics might ruin that.



>>>I think I have good idea who you are.

">>>But I think I was pretty fair. I admitted that all of that was my perosnal feelings, that my ideals were foolish in many ways, that I took myself too serilusly when I was young, that the whole left too itself too seriously."

I don't think you've been fair at all. You've been repeating the liberal mantra of conservative plots and Bbbbig Bbbbaad Bbbbush capitalists; Conservatives are just EEEEEeeeeeeevil! Out to destroy everything good and democratic and free! Fundies... all of them!


>>>>that's bs. Don't let your conservative peranoia run away with you.


">>>guess I need more about how wonderful conservative types are."

Maybe you should befriend some of us so you don't think were monsters. No one is claiming perfection. In all human institutions there's corruption. Pick your corruption.


>>>>I am your friend. I never said anyone was a monster.

What saddens me is that liberals cannot or will not acknowledge that conservatives have a legitimacy that is founded upon thoughtful philosophical, moral, and philanthropic dialog. They don't want to understand us, they're just mad. All they want to do is demonize us by claiming we steal elections, etc.


>>>aw come on. I have an image to uphold. OK I'll make a deal with you I promise that when the revolution comes, you wont be first up agains the wall.



And we're the ones who see plots! Ha.


>>>I am not peranoid. that's just a rumar started by my enemies.

Wish I could talk to you on this stuff Meta, but until you quit the mantra I don't think we can have a productive discussion.

>>>that's the way you reguard people's feelings. You can't abide another view point being stated as forceufully as you would state your own.

Anonymous said...

>>>>republican poliitcs is not 2000 yers old. If you mean Christianity, that is not synonimous with Republican polotics

Very funny. That's why I mentioned politics separately from tradition (Christian tradition)! And the liberal interpretation isn't the only viable one!

>>>Yea, right. Do we drop naplam on civilians or not, what complex issue. Bombing hospitalism in Hanni, I just figure it out.

I think the Democrats had a few of their own. Kosovo, Sudan, Khartoum, Iraq,... So they BOTH suck, it's politics not Christianity.

>>>>that's the easy thing to conclude. if they weren't so uptight they wouldn't have to make a big thing out of eveyr little song.

Not everybody does (take a big dump on little dumps)

>>>that's just bull shit! bull shit! you think the divorce rate wasn't high int he 60s? It wasn't the hippies that taguoht buisnessmen to drink to drink Martini's and hat they could get out of marraige whenever they wanted, and they could screw their secretarires when no one was looking.

Naw, the hippies just popularized the drug culture and not even committing to marriage! See? Insant Low divorce rates!!


>>>How can you possibly weight that? Only because you feel uncomfortable. there's no way you can put the negative factors of sexual liscenciousness with the civil rights movment. That alone is the worth the whole decade.

Okay. You're right, one of the major good things was civil rights. Maybe it was worth the decade.

>>>>The drug problem. Ever heard of Oliver Norht? He had Reagan's blessing and sold cocaine to every major city in the country. Check out the contra Cocaine connection.

Yeah, He ought to go to jail for that! Oh wait, He did!

>>>hahahaah, so you can't think about the issues of what the government does to opress people without putting in it terms of "big government." Big government is not the problem. Government bombing mass populations in far away places is the problem.

Actually, big government IS the problem that's why we're arguing over who should control it. It has politicized everything. And I repeat, Democrats bombed mass populations in far away places too.

>>>that's the way you reguard people's feelings. You can't abide another view point being stated as forceufully as you would state your own.

I just did.

Anonymous said...

I really enjoyed the dialog (?) between Meta and anonymous. I agree more with anonymous but Meta is very cool -

(from one of Meta's right-wing conservative friends) Yes, he does have them.

Joe - so who is anonymous?

J.L. Hinman said...

I really enjoyed the dialog (?) between Meta and anonymous. I agree more with anonymous but Meta is very cool -

(from one of Meta's right-wing conservative friends) Yes, he does have them.

Joe - so who is anonymous?


>>>hey I don't know who you are. but the fact that you know my real name leads me to guess.

I'm thinking the other anaonymous is either BK or Layman fromt he CADRE.

Anonymous said...

Not! You've guessed wrong. Meta is very cool to have two right-wing conservative friends! Who shall remain nameless!! ;)

J.L. Hinman said...

hmmmmmm, Dorcas?

Anonymous said...

No.

And No.

And No, and no, and no and no and no no no no no no no no no no no no

and NO!

There, does that cover everyone on your guessing list? I won't answer any more, you'll just have to wonder and when we get to Glory I let you know.

J.L. Hinman said...

TL?
Jeannie?
Heywood Hale Brune?
Mary Astor?
Nora Chalres?
Bob Dylan?
give me a hint, are you in ECA? Male or female?

Anonymous said...

None of the above. Well, except for the gender; I'm not hermaphroditic (there's your hint). ;D

J.L. Hinman said...

are you Maxx?

J.L. Hinman said...

None of the above. Well, except for the gender; I'm not hermaphroditic (there's your hint). ;D

that lets out a certain segment of my readers ;-)

SingingOwl said...

So, you think I'm a right-wing conservative, eh? Whatever would make you think that? ;-)

Dorcas

J.L. Hinman said...

no I don't! I was guess at names. Notice I also included nora chalres, Bob Dylan, and Mary astor.

btw I sent you an email

SingingOwl said...

P.S.

Good grief! I'm reading the post, and the comments, and all of a sudden I catch myself humming. "What am I humming," you ask?

"We've Got to Get Back to the Garden" by Crosby, Stills and Nash (and Young too, maybe?)

Subliminal messsages. No doubt.

Just call me a right-wing conservative child of the sixties!

HA!

Metacrock, it might amuse you to learn that I just took a political profile online...and it says I'm best described as a Liberal Democrat with a highly developed sense of right and wrong.

I'm soooo confused.

J.L. Hinman said...

I don't think you are conservative. If Anonymous is in ECA she will see the joke, becasue you are not conservative.

Anonymous said...

...And you said Republicans never break ranks!! (Mier nomination)....


Remaining Nameless and non-hemaphroditic.

J.L. Hinman said...

I am a man, my God have mercy on my soul (Martin Luther)