INVITATION TO A STONING [Rushdoony ties to D. James Kennedy

I did your scut work for you, as I was positive that I was right and I was. LOL

In " PRIVATE DEMONS ". by Judy Oppenheimer, the only bio of Shirley Jackson, that I know of, it says that Shirley, once involved with her future husband, at Syracuse, joined the YCL, though she was actually apolitical , to impress Larry, whom she later married. She went to one or two meeting, never spoke, didn't listen much, and did absolutley NOTHING, zero, zilch, bupkiss, for/with the Communists then, or ever. Later on in life, neither she nor Larry were in any way involved with any Commie movment/organization. It was just a passing bit of rebellion. Her parents, FWIW, were VERY Conservative Republicans.

" THE LOTTERY " was NOT in any way, shape, manner, nor form about Commies. Shirely, herself, said it was about the small Vermont town she and Larry and the kids lived in and anti-Semitism , which was rife there and in most other places in this country back then.

I first read " THE LOTTERY ", when I was about 7 years old and became an avid fan and reader of her works from there on out. :-)

My take on "The Lottery" is that it was about the tendency of narrow-minded bigots to try to control everybody else's life and and the tendency of everybody else to go along with them out of weakness and inertia, and then when it's their turn to be persecuted, they don't have anybody to help them.

Kennedy has extremely close ties to these folks, and vice versa. You can whine about "guilt by association" all you want, but they find each other's company to be congenial, and dominionists are not wont to give the title "Christian" to those who disagree with their rantings.

You consider yourself a Freeper. I consider myself a Freeper. But I don't consider our doctrines the same, or even similar. Just because people associate with each other at one level, doesn't mean that they are guilty of each other's sins.

Why so eager to denounce Christians in the limelight like Kennedy?

Since you qualify for the ultimate ignoramous, I don't feel the need to qualify the fact that there is nothing wrong in what I posted and my replies are based on fact not hysterical outbursts. It's not my fault that reality doesn't fit your twisted worldview.

tsk, tsk, tsk

There's no need, whatsoever, for the spurious name calling, when one is " correct "; which you seldom, if ever are, dear. That you'd rather engage in juvenile pettiness, imbued with delusions of competence,is proof enough, that you've failed miserably in attempting a cogent debate.

Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaahaha

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.