Perhaps that is misleading.  As in did we ever have it?  I know at times we all get "het up" about posts and blogs.  But with the banishment of a couple from the left, and the absence of some of the right, for the most part, we have a very knowledgeable and opinionated group.  That can at least discuss and debate the issues of the day.  But that seems to be missing.

I once was a regular on the religion forum.  I started posting some articles on my faith.  But then I was attacked by one of the regulars, and after some heated exchanges, and some admonishment by a couple of people I do respect, I decided that they were just getting my goat.  So I rarely, if ever, go to that forum.  In fact, I make it a point to avoid them save for one poster.

We still have a couple of loons left on JU.  I can think of one on the right and one on the left off the top of my head.  But I do avoid both of their postings.  Others do not, so I guess that is why they stay around.

Several months ago, MasonM issued an apology to some bloggers for his negativism.  At that time, I congratulated him, and noted that I do avoid those who have nothing to say except to incite me (due to my beliefs).  There is a difference between inciting and instigating debate.  Most of the ones I enjoy debating are still here as they are firm in their beliefs, and willing to give as good as they get, fact wise.

And we still do have some that incite others for whatever reason.  But why cant we just ignore those who inflame us?  I know that some, in their beliefs, are inciting anger in others.  But why do we read them?  Why not just ignore them?  Quite frankly, I don't have any problems with those who do not believe as I do.  i know I am a heretic in some respects to their beliefs.  But I can accept their beliefs without being threatened by their non-approval of mine.  Seriously, if you are secure in your beliefs and the other is not using personal attacks, why worry?

I guess I do not understand those who see a person's firm belief as a threat to their own beliefs.  I know that no where in this world (other than the mind of Osama Bin Laden) are all beliefs going to always be in total agreement. But that I believe different than you, does not mean I cannot respect you or your beliefs.  Or that I do not.  Not others.  I see a couple of bloggers who are night and day in their beliefs and yet they manage a civil discussion.  Sure what they write may seem condemnatory to those who do not agree with them, but that does not bother me.  Why?  I am secure in my beliefs and neither has ever said "Doc Guy, you are damned".

Sure their words may indicate that since I don't believe as they do, I am not on the path to salvation. But condemned?  Nope, because my faith is different and it does not affect me.

I guess I am just wondering why we cannot debate issues, and agree to disagree at the end of the day.  I know the ones on the left will never be right (politically - but I do love the entendre. ), and the Born Agains will not be Catholics (nor will the Jews and Muslims), but then that does not bother me.

I am not one to see that only one way is the absolute.  I see many ways, and we must each chose our best way.  Once chosen, are we so insecure as to doubt that?  If we are not, who cares?  Seriously, why worry about someone else's statements of their belief if we are secure in our own?

We run the gamut here at JU.  All Faiths and political persuasions are represented.  With few exceptions, I don't think ill of any of those.  And those exceptions are ones that all the core JU know well, and for the most part laugh at.  So why do we have to feel the need to bash the others with hateful words just because we do not agree with their writings?  As was said, if they say "john Doe, you are condemned" that is one thing.  If they say "This is the way, and others have to follow it" is another.

The former is a direct assault.  The latter is a statement of faith. Theirs not yours.