It wasn't long ago when flying into fits of rage - at least publically - was evidence of someone who hadn't grown up, someone who was not in control of oneself. It was looked down upon. You could not rely upon the hot head. This was applicable to personal as well as political sources of anger.

At some point expressing anger, rage even, particularly in regard to a political viewpoint or cause, became a requirement to show one's authenticity and commitment to the cause. Refer to the bumper sticker, "If You're Not Enraged You're Not Paying Attention!" Anger is a source of pride, often the pre-requisite of many movements. This is as true of enraged upper middle class white kids throwing rocks outside the G-8 Summit as it is Baptist preachers calling for open war on gays all in the name of Christ.

There will always be angry people who wake up angry and go to sleep angry and die angry. These are miserable, destructive people. For the most part anger is almost purely destructive. At some point one has to channel anger into something other than rage to be productive, to actually get any where.

So we need to beware of a new tone to this public anger, which has a lot to do with personal indulgence. Alec Baldwin's perrenial flights into righteous rages on prime time television is a perfect example of this.

Great point. Let us not forget that anger leads to hate and hate leads to the dark side. We have to be mindful of our feelings.

Baptist preachers calling for open war on gays all in the name of Christ.

Ah, the wonderous simplicity of moral equivalency. See, we all do it.

Though I am far from Baptist, I assume this reference is to the Baptist (and majority American) resistance to changing our social policy to permit gay marriage and working within our political system to prevent it (as in putting it in front of American voters). Worlds away from beheadings and suicide bombings and Friday night sermons on "Death to America! Death to the Jews!" and the jailing/execution of homosexuals.

The logic that equates working for a desired social policy as "open war" and denies that the very real and widespread violence promoted and exercised in the name of Islam represents a greater threat is part of what keeps us from working together against true enemies. Tilting at the windmill of "the impending Christian theocracy" may be emotionally satisfying but we need to stay focused on reality.

Actually, no inmypajamas, I was not considering reasoned, honest thoughtful resistance to gay marriage when I made my statement about Baptist preachers calling for open war on homosexuals.

I was refering to only and exactly what I said, which is war-like Baptist preachers. There are in fact some who will tell you that gays are the enemy of our civilization and will burn in hell and are evil.

As a conservative myself, I am very sympathetic to the idea that gay marriage is a radical concept and should be taken slowly. I am sympathetic to those who are against it (although I am for it). I do not consider doubts or those who are against gay marriage to be automatically hateful, not by a long shot. I think in fact that the onus is much more upon those who want gay marriage than those who wish to (continue to) deny it.

And although I'm not a Catholic in any real practicing way any more, I have a great deal of respect for most Christians and religion in general.

You will see that I made my point about the violent Baptist preacher in direct contrast to the left-wing idiots who throw rocks at the G-8 Summit, not Muslim mass murderers. There is simply no comparison any attempted comparison is vile and unjust.

I've got a lot of problems with the "gay agenda," but I am for gay marriage as I think that would be a very normalizing and ultimately conservative thing.