"How incredibly stupid! Diallo was shot because officers thought he was reaching for a gun in a sad case of mistaken identity. People make mistakes, even deadly ones. Zimmerman shot Martin because he thought Martin was going to kill him." Wow, you have perfectly made her case in the very words you use to refute it. That is irony wrapped in recursion. Indeed, Zimmerman shot Martin because he thought Martin was going to kill him. He was AFRAID.

I do fear for what's happening to this country. I fear especially for the unborn and for the judgment this decades long murdering of innocents will bring.

Excellent analysis--I have not read anything by this author before, but definitely will in the future. Thanks and great job!

I was looking forward to hearing Marilynne Robinson more than any other speaker at Festival of Faith and Writing. While there were several good soundbites, I felt her speech was very disorganized. I was disappointed that she did not touch on the themes grace and redemption found in her books. I'm not sure why Ms. Stone felt fear in response to the question at the beginning of the article. The questioner was calm and polite. I was very interested in hearing why and how she had chosen the topic for the previous night.

I find it ironic that Welby Warner can call Jack mentally deficient for merely coming out as conservative, and then BG Wheeler immediately afterwards comments on how mature the conversation has been. Roger McKinney's posts may have earned that kind of ire, but certainly not Jack's! Perhaps J.Bob would say conservatives are overly sensitive to that kind of thing? These all prove that to which Jack was alluding. For all the claims to understand God's love better than their conservative sisters and brothers (which I think is the subtle suggestion made by many here), there are enough examples that would seem to prove otherwise and thus make it all seem hypocritical. Let's face it folks: both conservatives and liberals sometimes act in very unloving ways. Let's not make that the core of our understandings of each other. I totally agree with Robinson's statement: "The only obligation I recognize is to say what I believe to be true ... and to say it with kindness. I believe that is how a Christian conversation should proceed." More than likely, this is exactly what many of your sisters and brothers are trying to do when they say something that doesn't jive with your understanding of Jesus, the Scriptures, and the world. Chalking it all up to fear-mongering or mental-deficiency is really assuming the worst about them. That is not love. I'm sorry that this comment pollutes what is otherwise a worthy subject. However, as with all sin, if you are not searching for the solution first in yourself, you're not searching for it at all.

Lots of food for thought. My husband and I have been thinking about the issue of perception and how it affects reaction. What if...we see people who differ politically as people, like us, who are raising their families and trying to pay the mortgage, who want what we want but differ on how to get there? What if...we see those who believe differently as people who are just trying to figure it out, just like us - rather than as people at war against us? What if...we stop and figure out where real threats exist, rather that suspect and fear everything? We've adopted a new rule, "If what I read or hear makes me fear or hate my neighbor, I'm going to stop and refocus on what God tells me is true. We choose life and love."

I've thought and felt about this a good deal, and am very much sympathetic to a desire not to participate in the acrimony that Christians often do — and even the bitterness they initiate — in public discourse. But one unfortunate feature of the many public and current calls to this vision, is that they cannot themselves keep from being partisan. That is, even as someone is ostensibly exhorting us to move beyond such error, they perpetuate them. The Florida comment was given as an aside, and as if "everyone knows" who was right and wrong in that case. In the comments it's referred to as fear and pre-emptive violence — when it might not have been the latter and the former isn't always bad. Even if it's acceptable, as a strategic point it might be unwise to note such things in such calls as these — as at the very least it only stirs up more fear, right?

I've thought and felt about this a good deal, and am very much sympathetic to a desire not to participate in the acrimony that Christians often do — and even the bitterness they initiate — in public discourse. But one unfortunate feature of the many public and current calls to this vision, is that they cannot themselves keep from being partisan. That is, even as someone is ostensibly exhorting us to move beyond such error, they perpetuate them. The Florida comment was given as an aside, and as if "everyone knows" who was right and wrong in that case. In the comments it's referred to as fear and pre-emptive violence — when it might not have been the latter and the former isn't always bad. Even if it's acceptable, as a strategic point it might be unwise to note such things in such calls as these — as at the very least it only stirs up more fear, right?

I believe I will go out and buy all of this woman's books.

I believe that many problems arise when we forget that we are all learning, and in this life are not expected to have achieved the final word, the final stage of development, or the final insights to all that we may be learning. The christian life does not promise that all arguments will be settled here, we still see through a glass darkly, we still are in process to becoming what we will finally become when the Holy Spirit is finished with us. I have learned greatly from many with whom I did not always agree, but I begin with the idea that even though I think I know the answer, there is more to learn about God, about myself and about other people with whom I interact. When Jesus was on earth a question was asked about divorce, and reference was made to the days when someone could just obtain a divorce by giving a "bill of divorcement". Jesus reminded the questioner that this was not the original intention of God, but came in because of the "hardness of men's Hearts". Similarly, there are practices that were acceptable by christians a long time ago, but not now, as our understanding of the love of God expands and so our consciences wil develop to avoid things that may not have mattered previously in our lives. We should all allow ourselves to be open to the growth that can take place when we commit to bringing all our thinking into line with what we understand to be pleasing to God, realizing that not everyone may have the same understanding, so we refrain from being judgemental and give others time to learn whatever God may be teaching them. It is on this basis that we follow the words of our Lord and focus on our own spiritual development without condemning others. Remember what Peter said after Jesus explained to him how his life would change in the future? Looking at John, Peter asked what shall this mand do? Jesus replied "what is that to you? Follow thou me." We have so many arguments and divisions when we become preoccupied over the fact that others may not be worshipping in the same way as we do. Remembering this talk with Peter may help us refocus in a way that will avoid tearing others apart because of their differences.