Kindness and the trans 'agenda'

[Electric Skeptic]

This whole trans thing...on the one hand we have someone very concerned that words like 'mother' and 'father' will no longer have an 'objective referent'. On the other hand we have someone having apoplexy over the idea that some words like 'male' and 'female' and 'man' and 'woman' might acquire new meanings. Then there's the complete refusal to accept that a concept defined in all dictionaries and applicable to everybody even exists because it might give credence to the entire thing.

It's terrible, I know. Yes, if you go along with the 'trans agenda', you might have to, once in a while, ask a question to be completely clear on something ("Mum and I went to this great restaurant..." "Wait...which mum?" "Oh, Suzy - bio." "Okay, go on..."), just like you already do with the myriad other words in English which don't have an 'objective referent' and so can require clarification. Yes, you might have to accept that 'male' and 'female' and 'man' and 'woman' can refer to both biological sex and gender, just like all of the other words in the English language which have multiple (even opposite!) meanings. Yes, you might have to deal with a new concept, just like you deal with all the other new concepts life throws at us. So what? You already deal with all of that (clever you!) in relation to other words and concepts every day. There's nothing special about accommodating these linguistic quirks.

The difficulties claimed about those things aren't the issue. Everybody knows that we can all deal with those things easily enough. They're not the root of the problem. You know what is? The fact that the idea is a liberal one; the fact that it might mean change that they don't control. Any liberal idea, no matter what it is, no matter the motives, no matter what good it might do, is to be disparaged, denigrated, shunned and ridiculed. It's to have a condescending label (like 'woke') attached, any positives it might have simply ignored and the idea itself discarded without even thinking about it. That's the attitude of the conservative so-called 'Christians', and its been their attitude for literally centuries. It's petty, and it's small-minded, and it's hateful, and it's mean, and it's what the conservative so-called 'Christians' are all about.

To go along with the 'trans agenda' would help some people deal with a problem with which most of us will never be burdened, and it would harm nobody. In this world where everybody has so many problems, why not do something that will help at least some people deal with one of theirs? Why not just be kind and do it? Why not?

Because conservative so-called 'Christians' care a lot less about being kind to others than they do about attacking and insulting the liberal left. One might be excused for thinking that they don't care about being kind to others at all.

These conservative so-called 'Christians' need to take a long, hard look at the face they're showing all of us.

Because it's ugly. It's very ugly.

 

[Backup]

This whole trans thing...on the one hand we have someone very concerned that words like 'mother' and 'father' will no longer have an 'objective referent'. On the other hand we have someone having apoplexy over the idea that some words like 'male' and 'female' and 'man' and 'woman' might acquire new meanings. Then there's the complete refusal to accept that a concept defined in all dictionaries and applicable to everybody even exists because it might give credence to the entire thing.

It's terrible, I know. Yes, if you go along with the 'trans agenda', you might have to, once in a while, ask a question to be completely clear on something ("Mum and I went to this great restaurant..." "Wait...which mum?" "Oh, Suzy - bio." "Okay, go on..."), just like you already do with the myriad other words in English which don't have an 'objective referent' and so can require clarification. Yes, you might have to accept that 'male' and 'female' and 'man' and 'woman' can refer to both biological sex and gender, just like all of the other words in the English language which have multiple (even opposite!) meanings. Yes, you might have to deal with a new concept, just like you deal with all the other new concepts life throws at us. So what? You already deal with all of that (clever you!) in relation to other words and concepts every day. There's nothing special about accommodating these linguistic quirks.

The difficulties claimed about those things aren't the issue. Everybody knows that we can all deal with those things easily enough. They're not the root of the problem. You know what is? The fact that the idea is a liberal one; the fact that it might mean change that they don't control. Any liberal idea, no matter what it is, no matter the motives, no matter what good it might do, is to be disparaged, denigrated, shunned and ridiculed. It's to have a condescending label (like 'woke') attached, any positives it might have simply ignored and the idea itself discarded without even thinking about it. That's the attitude of the conservative so-called 'Christians', and its been their attitude for literally centuries. It's petty, and it's small-minded, and it's hateful, and it's mean, and it's what the conservative so-called 'Christians' are all about.

To go along with the 'trans agenda' would help some people deal with a problem with which most of us will never be burdened, and it would harm nobody. In this world where everybody has so many problems, why not do something that will help at least some people deal with one of theirs? Why not just be kind and do it? Why not?

Because conservative so-called 'Christians' care a lot less about being kind to others than they do about attacking and insulting the liberal left. One might be excused for thinking that they don't care about being kind to others at all.

These conservative so-called 'Christians' need to take a long, hard look at the face they're showing all of us.

Because it's ugly. It's very ugly.

They start with hate, fear, and sexual obsession and try to justify it

 

[Janice Bower]

This whole trans thing...on the one hand we have someone very concerned that words like 'mother' and 'father' will no longer have an 'objective referent'. On the other hand we have someone having apoplexy over the idea that some words like 'male' and 'female' and 'man' and 'woman' might acquire new meanings. Then there's the complete refusal to accept that a concept defined in all dictionaries and applicable to everybody even exists because it might give credence to the entire thing.

It's terrible, I know. Yes, if you go along with the 'trans agenda', you might have to, once in a while, ask a question to be completely clear on something ("Mum and I went to this great restaurant..." "Wait...which mum?" "Oh, Suzy - bio." "Okay, go on..."), just like you already do with the myriad other words in English which don't have an 'objective referent' and so can require clarification. Yes, you might have to accept that 'male' and 'female' and 'man' and 'woman' can refer to both biological sex and gender, just like all of the other words in the English language which have multiple (even opposite!) meanings. Yes, you might have to deal with a new concept, just like you deal with all the other new concepts life throws at us. So what? You already deal with all of that (clever you!) in relation to other words and concepts every day. There's nothing special about accommodating these linguistic quirks.

The difficulties claimed about those things aren't the issue. Everybody knows that we can all deal with those things easily enough. They're not the root of the problem. You know what is? The fact that the idea is a liberal one; the fact that it might mean change that they don't control. Any liberal idea, no matter what it is, no matter the motives, no matter what good it might do, is to be disparaged, denigrated, shunned and ridiculed. It's to have a condescending label (like 'woke') attached, any positives it might have simply ignored and the idea itself discarded without even thinking about it. That's the attitude of the conservative so-called 'Christians', and its been their attitude for literally centuries. It's petty, and it's small-minded, and it's hateful, and it's mean, and it's what the conservative so-called 'Christians' are all about.

To go along with the 'trans agenda' would help some people deal with a problem with which most of us will never be burdened, and it would harm nobody. In this world where everybody has so many problems, why not do something that will help at least some people deal with one of theirs? Why not just be kind and do it? Why not?

Because conservative so-called 'Christians' care a lot less about being kind to others than they do about attacking and insulting the liberal left. One might be excused for thinking that they don't care about being kind to others at all.

These conservative so-called 'Christians' need to take a long, hard look at the face they're showing all of us.

Because it's ugly. It's very ugly.

Well, you sound very anti-conservative and arrogant. So go look in the mirror, you unkind person.

 

[Authentic Nouveau]

Because conservative so-called 'Christians' care a lot less about being kind to others than they do about attacking and insulting the liberal left. One might be excused for thinking that they don't care about being kind to others at all.

These conservative so-called 'Christians' need to take a long, hard look at the face they're showing all of us.

Because it's ugly. It's very ugly.

So you insult and attack Conservative Christians that are rational and don't buy your drivel.

Your ugly insults not withstanding.

 

[Crazy Ivan]

This whole trans thing...on the one hand we have someone very concerned that words like 'mother' and 'father' will no longer have an 'objective referent'. On the other hand we have someone having apoplexy over the idea that some words like 'male' and 'female' and 'man' and 'woman' might acquire new meanings. Then there's the complete refusal to accept that a concept defined in all dictionaries and applicable to everybody even exists because it might give credence to the entire thing.

It's terrible, I know. Yes, if you go along with the 'trans agenda', you might have to, once in a while, ask a question to be completely clear on something ("Mum and I went to this great restaurant..." "Wait...which mum?" "Oh, Suzy - bio." "Okay, go on..."), just like you already do with the myriad other words in English which don't have an 'objective referent' and so can require clarification. Yes, you might have to accept that 'male' and 'female' and 'man' and 'woman' can refer to both biological sex and gender, just like all of the other words in the English language which have multiple (even opposite!) meanings. Yes, you might have to deal with a new concept, just like you deal with all the other new concepts life throws at us. So what? You already deal with all of that (clever you!) in relation to other words and concepts every day. There's nothing special about accommodating these linguistic quirks.

The difficulties claimed about those things aren't the issue. Everybody knows that we can all deal with those things easily enough. They're not the root of the problem. You know what is? The fact that the idea is a liberal one; the fact that it might mean change that they don't control. Any liberal idea, no matter what it is, no matter the motives, no matter what good it might do, is to be disparaged, denigrated, shunned and ridiculed. It's to have a condescending label (like 'woke') attached, any positives it might have simply ignored and the idea itself discarded without even thinking about it. That's the attitude of the conservative so-called 'Christians', and its been their attitude for literally centuries. It's petty, and it's small-minded, and it's hateful, and it's mean, and it's what the conservative so-called 'Christians' are all about.

To go along with the 'trans agenda' would help some people deal with a problem with which most of us will never be burdened, and it would harm nobody. In this world where everybody has so many problems, why not do something that will help at least some people deal with one of theirs? Why not just be kind and do it? Why not?

Because conservative so-called 'Christians' care a lot less about being kind to others than they do about attacking and insulting the liberal left. One might be excused for thinking that they don't care about being kind to others at all.

These conservative so-called 'Christians' need to take a long, hard look at the face they're showing all of us.

Because it's ugly. It's very ugly.

I mean, the real issue is that it’s truly lunacy to think that just because a male identifies as a woman, that they are actually one.

You don’t think a human is truly a squirrel just because they identify as one, right?

Honestly, what’s the difference? Every single argument you just made (such as they are) can be used in this example too. But you don’t grant them this. Which apparently makes you a terrible, awful, hateful person.

If I met Lia Thomas in person I’d be polite and refer to Lia as a “she”, but that wouldn’t make her a woman. And of course it’s insanity to construct social policy around this delusion you folks have.

 

[Eightcrackers]

This whole trans thing...on the one hand we have someone very concerned that words like 'mother' and 'father' will no longer have an 'objective referent'. On the other hand we have someone having apoplexy over the idea that some words like 'male' and 'female' and 'man' and 'woman' might acquire new meanings. Then there's the complete refusal to accept that a concept defined in all dictionaries and applicable to everybody even exists because it might give credence to the entire thing.

It's terrible, I know. Yes, if you go along with the 'trans agenda', you might have to, once in a while, ask a question to be completely clear on something ("Mum and I went to this great restaurant..." "Wait...which mum?" "Oh, Suzy - bio." "Okay, go on..."), just like you already do with the myriad other words in English which don't have an 'objective referent' and so can require clarification. Yes, you might have to accept that 'male' and 'female' and 'man' and 'woman' can refer to both biological sex and gender, just like all of the other words in the English language which have multiple (even opposite!) meanings. Yes, you might have to deal with a new concept, just like you deal with all the other new concepts life throws at us. So what? You already deal with all of that (clever you!) in relation to other words and concepts every day. There's nothing special about accommodating these linguistic quirks.

The difficulties claimed about those things aren't the issue. Everybody knows that we can all deal with those things easily enough. They're not the root of the problem. You know what is? The fact that the idea is a liberal one; the fact that it might mean change that they don't control. Any liberal idea, no matter what it is, no matter the motives, no matter what good it might do, is to be disparaged, denigrated, shunned and ridiculed. It's to have a condescending label (like 'woke') attached, any positives it might have simply ignored and the idea itself discarded without even thinking about it. That's the attitude of the conservative so-called 'Christians', and its been their attitude for literally centuries. It's petty, and it's small-minded, and it's hateful, and it's mean, and it's what the conservative so-called 'Christians' are all about.

To go along with the 'trans agenda' would help some people deal with a problem with which most of us will never be burdened, and it would harm nobody. In this world where everybody has so many problems, why not do something that will help at least some people deal with one of theirs? Why not just be kind and do it? Why not?

Because conservative so-called 'Christians' care a lot less about being kind to others than they do about attacking and insulting the liberal left. One might be excused for thinking that they don't care about being kind to others at all.

These conservative so-called 'Christians' need to take a long, hard look at the face they're showing all of us.

Because it's ugly. It's very ugly.

We've had gender-dichotomy in language for as long as we've had language - demanding that everybody change over the course of five years is simply not realistic.

I'm going to use gender-specific pronouns, until the day I die - if that offends people, it's not my intent, but I simply don't care; they might just have to wait for intransigents like me to die off before they get their way, and that's fine.


And I am of the opinion that the phenomenon known as "woke" is real - for example, the trend in film and television of female characters emasculating male ones, making them look weak and incompetent in comparision, cannot be denied.

 

[Harry Leggs]

They start with hate, fear, and sexual obsession and try to justify it

Not very kind

 

[Furion]

To go along with the 'trans agenda' would help some people deal with a problem with which most of us will never be burdened, and it would harm nobody.

An angry atheist like you chastising people over kindness is the stuff hypocrisy is made of, hardly anything to note.

Society cannot alleviate an internal mental disorder enough to guarantee anything, so turning society upside down doesn't appear warrented.

Just let them be happy to be gay and wear whatever clothes they want. Which we already do, and apparently doesn't help one iota, right?

If you keep ignoring child grooming, sexualizing children, cancelling people who disagree, I'm afraid your calls for "kindness" will be seen for what it is, fake.

 

[Authentic Nouveau]

An angry atheist like you chastising people over kindness is the stuff hypocrisy is made of, hardly anything to note.

Society cannot alleviate an internal mental disorder enough to guarantee anything, so turning society upside down doesn't appear warrented.

Just let them be happy to be gay and wear whatever clothes they want. Which we already do, and apparently doesn't help one iota, right?

If you keep ignoring child grooming, sexualizing children, cancelling people who disagree, I'm afraid your calls for "kindness" will be seen for what it is, fake.

Calls for kindness masking their hostility.

 

[Furion]

Calls for kindness masking their hostility.

Well I expect an eruption of unkindness from the skeptic. Surely I'm to blame somehow.

It doesn't stop me being kind to everyone I meet at Walmart.

I think the OP conflates the backlash he receives for his nasty posts with kindness received by people in real life.

 

[Rockson]

The difficulties claimed about those things aren't the issue. Everybody knows that we can all deal with those things easily enough. They're not the root of the problem. You know what is? The fact that the idea is a liberal one; the fact that it might mean change that they don't control.

Ha, come on now! Are you telling me liberals aren't always seeking to control and set the agenda? I think it would be laughable to assert that they don't.

Any liberal idea, no matter what it is, no matter the motives, no matter what good it might do, is to be disparaged, denigrated, shunned and ridiculed. It's to have a condescending label (like 'woke') attached, any positives it might have simply ignored and the idea itself discarded without even thinking about it.

Of course that's merely your own biased position to assert people haven't thought about it. Who are you to claim as an absolute they haven't? Wouldn't that be a manifestation of small thinking on your part?

 

[Crazy Ivan]

This whole trans thing...on the one hand we have someone very concerned that words like 'mother' and 'father' will no longer have an 'objective referent'. On the other hand we have someone having apoplexy over the idea that some words like 'male' and 'female' and 'man' and 'woman' might acquire new meanings. Then there's the complete refusal to accept that a concept defined in all dictionaries and applicable to everybody even exists because it might give credence to the entire thing.

It's terrible, I know. Yes, if you go along with the 'trans agenda', you might have to, once in a while, ask a question to be completely clear on something ("Mum and I went to this great restaurant..." "Wait...which mum?" "Oh, Suzy - bio." "Okay, go on..."), just like you already do with the myriad other words in English which don't have an 'objective referent' and so can require clarification. Yes, you might have to accept that 'male' and 'female' and 'man' and 'woman' can refer to both biological sex and gender, just like all of the other words in the English language which have multiple (even opposite!) meanings. Yes, you might have to deal with a new concept, just like you deal with all the other new concepts life throws at us. So what? You already deal with all of that (clever you!) in relation to other words and concepts every day. There's nothing special about accommodating these linguistic quirks.

The difficulties claimed about those things aren't the issue. Everybody knows that we can all deal with those things easily enough. They're not the root of the problem. You know what is? The fact that the idea is a liberal one; the fact that it might mean change that they don't control. Any liberal idea, no matter what it is, no matter the motives, no matter what good it might do, is to be disparaged, denigrated, shunned and ridiculed. It's to have a condescending label (like 'woke') attached, any positives it might have simply ignored and the idea itself discarded without even thinking about it. That's the attitude of the conservative so-called 'Christians', and its been their attitude for literally centuries. It's petty, and it's small-minded, and it's hateful, and it's mean, and it's what the conservative so-called 'Christians' are all about.

To go along with the 'trans agenda' would help some people deal with a problem with which most of us will never be burdened, and it would harm nobody. In this world where everybody has so many problems, why not do something that will help at least some people deal with one of theirs? Why not just be kind and do it? Why not?

Because conservative so-called 'Christians' care a lot less about being kind to others than they do about attacking and insulting the liberal left. One might be excused for thinking that they don't care about being kind to others at all.

These conservative so-called 'Christians' need to take a long, hard look at the face they're showing all of us.

Because it's ugly. It's very ugly.

In reality, the trans agenda has pushed innumerable kids into believing they're trans when in reality they're regular boys and girls who happen to be a little atypical in their dispositions regarding gender. That is, in years past a boy who felt like a girl may have gotten made fun of for being effeminate, but he at least knew he was a boy still. Now the trans ideologues, and their accomplices like you, are working actively to normalize transgenderism, and convince boys like this that they're actually girls. The correct - and healthy - place for society to be is to simply accept that there are boys who are more effeminate, and that's ok. They shouldn't be ridiculed for that and they have every bit a place in society as more traditionally masculine boys.

But no. You and your ilk want this kid to believe he's ACTUALLY a girl. Which causes FAR more harm to that kid, and pushes him to a place to start down the road of altering his body through hormones and even radical surgeries.

And you think you are being KIND to them?

Tell me... who is showing more kindness to an anorexic person: the one who just "accepts" their anorexia and goes along with it and agrees with the person that they're too fat and helps them continue to not eat and instead to keep losing weight? Or the one who comes alongside them and says, look, you've got a problem here and I want to help you get healthy so we need to have you stop thinking that you're fat because you're not?

By your logic, "kindness" is the first option, which only actually makes the problem worse.

But hey, if it makes you feel good about yourself, and makes you feel virtuous, and makes you feel like a "better" person compared to the rest of us.............

 

[Misfit]

To go along with the 'trans agenda' would help some people deal with a problem with which most of us will never be burdened, and it would harm nobody. In this world where everybody has so many problems, why not do something that will help at least some people deal with one of theirs? Why not just be kind and do it? Why not?

I can be kind to everyone, even these so-called "trans" people, but I do not want that stuff shoved down the throats of the youngest members of our society via the schools. The activists have admitted that they need to "get them while they are young" so that they can be molded to their way of thinking. Nope, I don't like that sort of thing and I don't want that sort of thing foisted on a captive audience of school age children. I am all for everyone living their own lives as they see fit, but they need to keep their personal ideas and desires to themselves.

 

[Crazy Ivan]

They just don't understand that it's one thing for me to personally display kindness to a trans person, which I do, because I'm a kind person to basically everyone, and trans people should be no exception to that. But it's another thing to agree with the delusion that Lia Thomas is a woman, or to agree with the stupid notion that gender terms should be unchained from biological sex, or to be okay with biological males competing in sports or winning women of the year awards or receiving women's scholarships, because they claim to be women even though they're male.

Somehow, the trans ideologues and their allies seem to think that the latter is "unkind" even though they feel the exact same way about lycanthropes, and even though personally I'm very kind to all kinds of people. I'd even be really kind in person to my harsh political opponents in this forum if I ever met them personally and if they were my neighbor, I'd do just about anything for them (because that's how I am now to my current neighbors). Years ago I had two elderly gay women living across the street from me. I routinely did things like shovel their driveway, help them with things around their house. We would have been considered political enemies, but so what? Kindness is kindness. If they were trans, I'd have done the same thing. But I wouldn't have agreed that their gender identity actually makes them the opposite sex.

But we all know that this isn't a real concern of theirs. In fact, it's nothing more than virtue signaling on their part. The OP, for example, isn't really concerned about kindness towards trans people. If he was, he'd understand that allowing and encouraging people with serious mental conditions that cause all kinds of problems in life isn't actually kindness. No. He's just concerned about *appearing* to be kind. So in reality, it's all about him, just as it is with so many people on the left on so many issues.

 

[Backup]

Conservative Christians that are rational .

Like married bachelors

 

[mikeT]

Ha, come on now! Are you telling me liberals aren't always seeking to control and set the agenda?

No more or less than conservatives.

 

[Backup]

I can be kind to everyone, even these so-called "trans" people, but I do not want that stuff shoved down the throats of the youngest members of our society via the schools. The activists have admitted that they need to "get them while they are young" so that they can be molded to their way of thinking. Nope, I don't like that sort of thing and I don't want that sort of thing foisted on a captive audience of school age children. I am all for everyone living their own lives as they see fit, but they need to keep their personal ideas and desires to themselves.

I can be kind to everyone, even these so-called "RIGHT-WING CHRISTIAN" people, but I do not want that stuff shoved down the throats of the youngest members of our society via the schools. The activists have admitted that they need to "get them while they are young" so that they can be molded to their way of thinking. Nope, I don't like that sort of thing and I don't want that sort of thing foisted on a captive audience of school age children. I am all for everyone living their own lives as they see fit, but they need to keep their personal ideas and desires to themselves.

 

[Thistle]

This whole trans thing...on the one hand we have someone very concerned that words like 'mother' and 'father' will no longer have an 'objective referent'. On the other hand we have someone having apoplexy over the idea that some words like 'male' and 'female' and 'man' and 'woman' might acquire new meanings. Then there's the complete refusal to accept that a concept defined in all dictionaries and applicable to everybody even exists because it might give credence to the entire thing.

It's terrible, I know. Yes, if you go along with the 'trans agenda', you might have to, once in a while, ask a question to be completely clear on something ("Mum and I went to this great restaurant..." "Wait...which mum?" "Oh, Suzy - bio." "Okay, go on..."), just like you already do with the myriad other words in English which don't have an 'objective referent' and so can require clarification. Yes, you might have to accept that 'male' and 'female' and 'man' and 'woman' can refer to both biological sex and gender, just like all of the other words in the English language which have multiple (even opposite!) meanings. Yes, you might have to deal with a new concept, just like you deal with all the other new concepts life throws at us. So what? You already deal with all of that (clever you!) in relation to other words and concepts every day. There's nothing special about accommodating these linguistic quirks.

The difficulties claimed about those things aren't the issue. Everybody knows that we can all deal with those things easily enough. They're not the root of the problem. You know what is? The fact that the idea is a liberal one; the fact that it might mean change that they don't control. Any liberal idea, no matter what it is, no matter the motives, no matter what good it might do, is to be disparaged, denigrated, shunned and ridiculed. It's to have a condescending label (like 'woke') attached, any positives it might have simply ignored and the idea itself discarded without even thinking about it. That's the attitude of the conservative so-called 'Christians', and its been their attitude for literally centuries. It's petty, and it's small-minded, and it's hateful, and it's mean, and it's what the conservative so-called 'Christians' are all about.

To go along with the 'trans agenda' would help some people deal with a problem with which most of us will never be burdened, and it would harm nobody. In this world where everybody has so many problems, why not do something that will help at least some people deal with one of theirs? Why not just be kind and do it? Why not?

Because conservative so-called 'Christians' care a lot less about being kind to others than they do about attacking and insulting the liberal left. One might be excused for thinking that they don't care about being kind to others at all.

These conservative so-called 'Christians' need to take a long, hard look at the face they're showing all of us.

Because it's ugly. It's very ugly.

Kindness is not typified by indulging ignorance. A parent is not kinder by conceding to a child's desire to play in the street. If you were truly concerned about kindness you would be shocked and horrified that crisis pregnancy centers are coming under fire. Nothing could be more typical of genuine kindness then extending help to the most vulnerable.

Trashing the culture that has been delivered to us through thousands of years of development is foolishness not kindness. You obviously have no idea about the importance of the things that you wish to destroy. And it's extremely hard to imagine anything that could be uglier than that.

 

[Rockson]

No more or less than conservatives.

OK fair enough. You acknowledge Liberals and Christians seek to control society. Let's just not make it seem like Christians are wrong for wanting their world view to prevail. If Christians shut their mouths and just sat over there in the corner the liberals would rule the day and probably not have ANY real respect for Christians for they'd demonstrate they have no backbone to stand up for anything they believe.

 

[mikeT]

OK fair enough. You acknowledge Liberals and Christians seek to control society.

I really don't think "control" is the right word, but I wont argue that here. For the purposes of this thread/exchange, Liberals and CONSERVATIVES (not necessarily Christians) seek to control society.

Let's just not make it seem like Christians are wrong for wanting their world view to prevail.

I wouldn't say that, but the devil's in the details (no pun intended). Me wanting to see my world view prevail could mean many things. For example,

• I could want people to agree with my values
• I could want a political party to exist to find and elect candidates who agree with my values
• I could actively work to create laws which set my values into societal stone at the local level
• I could actively work to change existing laws across the nation so that everyone lives according to my values.

There are very large differences between the kind of control each of the above approaches seeks. The first one isn't something many people would complain about, but the last one is going to anger a great many people if it succeeds.

There's a portion of Christianity in the US which is taking the latter approach. Those Christians "are wrong for wanting their world view to prevail". The same would be true if there was a group of atheists who were doing the same. Or a group of Democrats, etc...

If Christians shut their mouths and just sat over there in the corner the liberals would rule the day and probably not have ANY real respect for Christians for they'd demonstrate they have no backbone to stand up for anything they believe.

You might be right about this, somewhat, but you also sound a little bitter (and I don't mean that as an insult), as in you're tired of Christian values not "winning" more often in society. That's an opinion I can understand, but it's a different topic - and one that isn't a justification for taking steps to get the Christian world view (as you see it) enshrined into public law. You can be upset that Christian values aren't more popular/widespread, but the minute you use that to justify forcing people to adhere to those values, you've lost the moral highground. If Christian values aren't more widespread, that's a job for Christians, not the government.