Response:
"Many presume and imagine that it would be an us against them fight of two opposing sides"
The author assumes the reason this situation would degrade is because "The Liberal groups out there would fold quicker than a cheap tent in the face of war". I disagree. I think the "liberal" groups would start closing their umbrella of protection, sure, and this might even highlight a key misunderstanding of, at least my, liberal philosophy.
It's about priorities. We want to help people. To give them a fair shake and sometimes that means helping them overcome adversity that is not of their making. The biggest example of this is poverty. Poverty runs in families. Children grow up learning poor financial skills from poor parents and so they continue to make those same mistakes. It's about a culture of poverty. It's eating McDonald's because it's cheap and fast instead of cooking dinner. Instead of teaching their kids to cook and how to shop and how to meal plan, budget, etc... they teach them poor habits.
As long as we are able to help people, I want to help people, as many people as we can. I would spend less money on the military industrial complex, less money on corporate subsidies, less money on legislation that restricts the liberty of individuals in their bedrooms and in their family's doctors office and more money on helping the citizens of this country achieve their highest level of greatness. I'm not of this opinion for purely altruistic reasons. I think that an educated, skilled, healthy country is better for me and my children!
All that being said in the event that a civil war does break out I, like I assume most people, liberal or otherwise, would seek first to take care of myself and those close to me. We don't have the luxury of extending aid to people outside our immediate circle. So liberals won't fold because "The Government Abandoned Them", they would simply fall back, consolidate their resources, and take care of as many as they can just like they want to in any other circumstance, just like any political party would. The difference is only in the number of people who can be reasonably helped on limited resources.
So I do agree with the author that people would fracture into many groups, that it would not be a simple "us vs. them" kind of war. I just don't agree with his reasoning.
"Since Christianity has come under attack in general in this country"
This one is so totally ridiculous that I get exhausted simply discussing it. There is no attack on Christianity. No one is saying you can't be a Christian, adhere to Christian values, practice Christian traditions, or believe in Christian ideology. They are saying you can't force other people to adhere to those values, nor can you force them to participate in those traditions. As an employer you can not force people to adhere to your religious ideologies by denying them health care coverage. As a small town government or school board you can not require public coffers be used to promote the traditions of a solitary faith, that includes Christianity! That means no teacher led prayers to Allah, Yahweh, or Jesus. You can't spend tax dollars on a nativity scene. Sorry, those are the rules. If you would oppose your tax dollars being spent on a recreation of a Muslim religious scene, you can't make an exception for your Christian ones.
