The old German gathering was called the Moot.
Nowadays lawyers and theologians declare that a point is “moot,” which means that they will allow us to discuss it.
To the old Germans and to a free-born American, EVERYTHING is “moot.”
That is the way this blog should be.
When I criticized pro-lifers, HS gave us the point of view of one who has been deep within the pro-life movement for years, but did not get furious at me or at the other critics.
I get slightly insulted when someone says, “Well, I don’t agree with everything you say…”
Who the hell do they think they’re talking to? That is like saying, “Please, don’t have a childish tantrum.” It is an insult to my entire tradition, from old Germany to being a free-born American.
And let’s get another thing straight. The chairman of a Baptist Convention some time ago said that God does not hear the prayers of Jews. The Convention apologized.
To a modern American, you have the right to discuss religion so long as you don’t take your doctrines too seriously.
When the Founding Fathers set up freedom of speech, they meant that people had the right to disagree SERIOUSLY.
According to modern Free Speech doctrine, you are allowed to say anything you want to, but you can’t say something that might offend somebody.
A SLAVE has the right to say anything he wants to as long as it doesn’t offend anybody. There is a word for the person who can tell you you are not allowed to have an opinion that offends him. He is called your master.
I want to compliment those who comment on this blog for keeping this firmly in mind.
#1 by H.S. on 03/23/2005 - 12:48 am
Thank you, Bob.
I received this following personal email comment (also a pro-lifer) to your blog entry, and the above line in particular:
For every thing, there is a season. We choose our battles, we choose our tactics. But America has become a nation of trained whiny-wimps who quickly react to control others by demonstrably “taking offense.” Bob has discussed this in WOL and uses his own counter-measures on these offenders. You are right, Bob.
Using a master (material possessions and wealth) as an example of the principle Jesus said: “No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will cling to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and money.”
I see Bob as the stronger, a hate and love man. “Respectables” are the cling (maybe not tightly) and despise (but never reject) types, the lukewarms. Either way, you cannot serve two masters.
Jesus Christ called Himself “Master” as did His apostles and disciples. He stated that slaves would not be treated better or differently than their Master when they are conformed to him and love him and obey him. He is the Master of all creation. Therein lies the RUB — those under the master are not allowed to voice or act on opinions and beliefs that offend Him with impunity. He “offends” everyone — that’s His right of ownership. That can never be a moot point for any of creation.
He also gravely warns me, “Who are you to judge another’s slave? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand.”
In America people would rather SLAVE to the MASTER, PC. The public schools and universities are crammed full.
No person can serve two masters.
I, for one, seriously desire to know what truly offends, and pleases Him.
#2 by Bob Whitaker on 03/24/2005 - 2:25 am
HS, when I finally figure something out and boil it down, I realize that Jesus said it better and shorter.
This makes me feel very good. It means I am thinking along the right track.