Rose Marie Berger, an associate editor at Sojourners, blogs at www.rosemarieberger.com.

My initial reaction to this statement was a hearty Amen. I still will hold to that, but I do take issue with one thing. What I want to point to is a larger problem, both addressed and perpetuated by her statement. That problem is this, I am tired of people telling me that I have to believe x because I am a Christian.

You have to believe universal health care is good, you have have to believe universal health care is bad, you have to believe that the war is justified, you have to believe that the war is evil. You have to believe that welfare is important, you have to believe that welfare is evil. The fact is that being a Christian does not preclude any specific political belief.

There I said, everyone is wrong. Frankly, you could back up any of the above statement straight out of the Bible. And people do.

Being a Christian, or a person of any faith really, impacts your socio-political beliefs. It makes you reflect on what this means in the bigger scheme of morality and rightness. It forces a person to consider more than their intellectual beliefs before they make a decision. People of faith have to reconcile what they believe with what they think and that is often not easy.

It is a struggle we all face, and frankly, if you consider yourself a person of faith and you don’t struggle with this, then you are letting people tell you what you should and shouldn’t believe and that is just wrong.

I have often been accused of being unChristian, of being evil and of being “wrong” all because I have taken stances that are opposed to those of the religious right. Am I unChristian because I believe in gay rights? I don’t think so. I think that Christ made his opinion on accepting and loving those shunned by religious society quite well-known, thankyouverymuch. I could quote a million passages in which Jesus tells us to love one another, not to judge, where Jesus eats with prostitutes and tax collectors, much to the chagrin of the Pharisees.

But does the grounding of my political beliefs in my religious beliefs mean that everyone else is wrong. Well, maybe, but who knows. Frankly, I don’t think God is up in heaven keeping a tally of rights and wrongs, but I do think that He cares deeply whether or not you try to follow His will and do right. The road to hell may be paved with good intentions, but I think it’s also paved with no intentions at all.

I get resentful every time someone in the Religious Right (a term that makes me shiver all over with the pompous, self-righteous, Phariseeness of it) tells me that I have to stand firm against this or protect that.

To me, the over-arching tenant of Protestant Christian belief is this: priesthood of the individual believer. We are trained that God speaks, through the scriptures and “still small voice” to each of us equally. That means that we all read our Bibles, pray our prayers and make our own decisions. It’s this independence that was the foundation of our country.

Let me restate that: it is this belief that we are all independent in our beliefs and should not be held to someone else’s beliefs that is the foundation of this nation. Not Christianity itself, but the belief that every individual should have the equal right and responsibility for their own faith.

When someone tells you that you should believe something or do something or follow something or support something because you are a Christian, they are not only going against this basic tenant of our faith, being unChristian as it were, but they are also being unAmerican.

Think for yourselves, America. You can’t trust anyone else to do it for you.

I most often hear opposition likening the current proposed changes to the national healthcare in Canada. What I hear, then, is horror stories about people not receiving care, doctors leaving for America, year long waits for specialists visits. We don’t want that, do we?

A couple of points. 1. No we don’t want a health care system identical to Canada’s, but with hundreds of national health care systems in existence in the world (we are one of the few industrialized countries without one) I think we could, if we wanted to, pick and choose the best from all that is out there. 2. My understanding is that this legislation doesn’t allow for national health care (although I will concede that if that was your final destination, this would be the first step. Of course, if you were going to Florida, you’re first step would be to get in the car, but whatever…) 3. Through some independent research of my own, I found something very interesting: Canada has a higher life expectancy by 3 years and a lower infant mortality rate by 1.5% than the US. So, while I’m not saying that they are doing everything right, I don’t think it’s fair to say they are doing everything wrong either.

In an email from the President (no, I’m not that important, just a mass email) that I received today, he listed the goals of health care legislation:

• No discrimination for pre-existing conditions
• No exorbitant out-of-pocket expenses, deductibles or co-pays
• No cost-sharing for preventive care
• No dropping of coverage if you become seriously ill
• No gender discrimination
• No annual or lifetime caps on coverage
• Extended coverage for young adults
• Guaranteed insurance renewal so long as premiums are paid

Now, I don’t know, maybe there is something I am not seeing here, but that sounds freakin’ good to me. I, for one, am tired of paying ridiculous out of pocket costs for preventative medicine, tired of not going to the doctor if I think I may be changing insurance because, what if… and tired of watching my annual maximum and allotting my illnesses accordingly. I am tired of people telling me that I could lose my insurance for having a c-section or for being a woman with more than one child. I am tired of living in fear of losing a health insurance that is putting a band aid on the severed arm of my finances.

What I find most horrific about this situation is that some of our elected officials are claiming that there is no problem. Mitch McConnell (Bane of my Existence) maintained recently on Meet the Press that there was no problem with the health care system and the US had the best health care in the world, despite scientists and experts maintaining otherwise and backing it up with fact, rather than because I said so’s. Of course, that’s easy for our friend Mitchy to say because in this market where money buys your way into specialists and guarantees your continued care, he’s all set.

For those of us not rolling in the green, the system is flawed at best, and flat busted all to hell at worst.

I don’t know what the answer is, but I feel sure that it lies somewhere in the middle of deny, deny, deny and socialized medicine. All I know is that availability of health care should not depend on your pocketbook. If I had to choose between our current system and Canada’s? I don’t know. Honestly, I see the flaws there, but I think I’d rather have to sit on a wait list than not be treated at all. Which is, for about 7 million uninsured Americans, countless other under-insured Americans (like me) and just those that can’t afford the freakin’ copay, our current state of affairs.

Why? Because Sotomayor is a moderate. She is politically and socially moderate and if the Republicans block her appointment, you better believe the President can come up with someone more politically liberal and then, well, how many times do you think they’ll try it. They can bluster and make a few days of her life hell, but it really won’t matter in the end.

Being confirmed as a Supreme Court Justice seems to be a lot like having a baby in Hollywood. Everyone is interested and what they are most interested in is the photos of you in your sweats without make-up. For judges, that translates to every tiny thing you ever said and can we find something embarrassing.

So, in this instance, Sotomayor, a Latina, is being called a racist. Why? Because she said she was a better judge because of her ethnicity. I’m not sure I agree that makes her a racist. In fact, I’m pretty sure I think she’s right.

For starters, I’m not sure why we believe that fairness and justice are best meted out by people who have never seen crime up close and personal. Poverty and crime are born out of each other, they create a cycle. Sotomayor has made great strides in her life. She has left a life of poverty behind. She has proved that her ethnicity, while a vital part of her being, does not determine her final place in this world. And she has done it with little to no fanfare. Certainly, her social and ethnic past don’t qualify her for her position, but along with her judicial experience, her excellent education and her record on the bench, I think it should be counted in her favor.

Think of it like this: if I say that I prefer to see a pediatrician who has kids, does that make a bigot? If I say that a creative writing professor should have been published, does that make me evil? The fact is that ultimately, there are plenty of people in the world qualified for this position, just like there are plenty of doctors qualified to see my kids.

I spent years trying very, very hard to be color blind. I believed that only when I truly did not see or consider the color of someone’s skin would I succeed. Well, that’s stupid. Wanna know what it took to teach me how stupid that was? A four year old.

My daughter sees skin color and clothing and all the things that make kids different, but rather than see it as a problem she is fascinated. She loves to see her friend M’s mother. M’s parents are immigrants from India. And her mother wears saris. Beautiful, beautiful silk concoctions of the purest jewel tones. She wears sandals and and gold jewelry and even when she wears jeans, her tops are beautiful tunics. My daughter loves to hear about India, what’s different, what’s the same. She loves to know about her Hindu faith and how it differs from our Christian faith. In short, my child celebrates the differences and similarities between them equally. She loves this friend and sees her as no better or worse than her other best friends, but still sees her immense differences.

That is how we should all strive to be. We should celebrate the diversity of our nation. Racism is the hatred of another group, the assumption that they are less because of a cosmetic difference. You don’t have to abandon your culture, your heritage to rise above racism, and you shouldn’t try to force others to abandon theirs.

I love the fourth. I love the music, the bunting, the fireworks. I love the time set apart where everyone spends at least a few moments honoring and remembering our men and women in uniform who make our daily lives possible. I love the devotion to those who have gone before, who have died preserving the dream of those rich white guys who didn’t want to pay their taxes.

But I think that it is shallow and self-serving to only remember the glory. The fact is that there is plenty of darkness in our past too. There is, in fact, plenty of darkness in our present.

Remembering the whole gammet, where we are and where we have been, is important. We teach our children to love our country, to worship Washington and Jefferson and Franklin. But we don’t teach them that they believed that government was meant to serve the people, to do the bidding of the people. We don’t teach them that, for the most part, these were not good guys, just guys with a few good ideas. We don’t teach them that our country has been down a dark road and hasn’t yet emerged on the other side. This nation is not perfect, and, in all probability, will never be perfect. Perfection is unattainable. And believing you have attained it is the quickest route to destruction.

We love to defend our “rights” in this nation. The rights afforded to us in our Constitution: the right to bear arms, the right to free speech, the right to worship as we wish, the right to vote. But, in the words of Spiderman’s uncle Ben, “With great power comes great responsibility.” Our rights are met with our responsibility. Our responsibility to make sure that the arms we bear are used only for good and that they don’t fall into the hands of those who would use them for ill, the responsibility to use our free speech to incite change, not incite violence. The responsibility to defend others’ faith with the same vehemence we do our own. The responsibility to only vote from a well-informed standpoint.

I enjoy taking a moment out to celebrate the birth of our nation. Frankly, everyone should. We are here because two hundred and some years ago, a line was drawn in the sand and a nation was born.

But don’t believe that the status quo is right because this is America. Or that no nation does it better than us because this is America. Or that we are always right and never wrong because this is America. That kind of thinking has brought down empires. And it will again.

Fight the power. Stand up for your beliefs. Express what you feel. Write your representatives and demand that they start representing you. In short, to celebrate our nation, be a patriot.

Did you see that nonsense? Did you see the 70,000 hits that are all stories questioning Kate’s ability to parent because she gave one of the kids a spanking? Really?

And did you read the story. Kate asked the kid three times to be quiet and then spanked her when she didn’t obey. And the kid cried. Oh, my.

Now, honestly, I have mixed feelings on spankings. I come down on both sides a little. I feel that sometimes, spankings are the only way to get a kid’s attention, to make your point heard and to drive home the idea that there WILL be consequences.

I also believe that trying to teach kids not to use violence when they are frustrated while using violence is a little like telling your kid not to smoke pot while handing them a joint. It’s just a little non-sensical. (Although, studies show that if smoker parents tell their kids not to smoke then the kids are less likely to become adult smokers than kids of smoker parents who don’t want to be hypocrites. Go figure.)

Personally, I spank, but only very, very rarely. I only spank for the worst offenses. Why? Because it doesn’t work with my kid. I, however, was spanked and it worked with me. My kid just doesn’t get spanking and then she hits me and then I  spank her again and then she hits me harder and it just keeps going downhill.

But, really, my personal opinion of spanking doesn’t matter, here. Your personal opinion of spanking doesn’t matter here. What matters is that she made a non-abusive parental decision and she’s getting her butt nailed to the wall for it.

I will be the first to say that abusive parents should have their parental rights revoked right before they are strung from the highest tree and beaten to death with pinata poles. But, we need to define abuse.

To me, abuse is treatment that causes physical or emotional harm to another being. So, let’s define.

Treatment – one person doing something to another person, this can include touching, hitting, yelling, speaking, ignoring, whatever – if you are doing it TO a person, it’s treatment.

Physical harm – a condition which leaves marks, causes pain that lasts more than a few seconds or requires treatment

Emotional harm – this one is a little harder. I will call emotional harm the negative alteration of a being’s emotional equilibrium. By this definition, treatment with a therapist (as long as the therapist isn’t abusive) isn’t emotional harm, because it’s a positive alteration. But telling your kid they are worthless is.

Being – Remember kindergarten? Living vs. Non-Living? Okay, living, then.

Some examples:
Neglect – Can often cause physical harm, as demonstrated by injuries, malnutrition, etc. Can also cause emotional harm as children feel unloved and exhibit unhealthy treatment of others. Abuse.

Sexual abuse – If it doesn’t result in physical harm (which, by my definition would include STD’s and pregnancy), then it always causes emotional harm, as exhibited by unhealthy view of oneself and one’s relationships.

Spanking – only causes momentary pain, does not cause emotional harm.

(A note: Almost anything can be abusive if done in an abusive manner. Yelling, for example, is not by it’s nature abusive treatment, but if it is done with frequency and malice, can certainly be abusive. The same can be said of spanking.)

Okay, so spanking, by it’s nature isn’t abusive. It can be. I won’t deny that. But if a child is given warning, then spanked in a non-abusive manner, can we really call that abuse?

If you are waffling back and forth, just pause and think about the slippery slope this is. If we start policing for normal disciplinary techniques that do not cause the child harm, what else can we police about parenting?

What about vegetarian parents? Are they harming their child by denying them meat? What about the age old trick of letting your kid get “lost” in the store so they are upset and then explaining about not staying with mom? Is that abusive because it causes temporary emotional distress?

All, I’m saying here is don’t judge.

If you think that a child is genuinely being abused? Absolutely you should do whatever it takes: call the police, get involved, whatever you can to protect that child.

But, if you think that spanking isn’t the best method of discipline out there, but you see someone doing it in a responsible fashion? Move on.

I am an avid water of Momversation, and you have got to see the newest one. It’s about guns in the house. I watched and thought that it was a pretty fair and balanced presentation. One mom showed off her NRA membership card, one was violently opposed to guns (pun intended) and one was a moderate voice. (Oh, and one always talks so quietly, I’ve never heard a word she says. I’m very interested in hearing her because she’s so quiet, but my speakers just don’t dial that high.)

I usually catch up on Momversations at the end of the week, but one of the contributors had it posted in her regular blog, which I read religiously. And debate sparked.

Now, some background: I am a member of hunting family. My mom is (I think) a member of the NRA. She does (I know) have a concealed carry license and sometimes picks out purses based on their ability to properly hold a gun. I do not have a gun. I won’t ever have a gun (I don’t think) and I am pro-gun control. I thought.

I believe things like waiting periods are good things, checking police records before selling guns is a good thing. I actually believe that you should have to show your gun license to purchase ammo. I believe that if you couldn’t buy bullets for that illegal semi-automatic, it would be harder to shoot people with it.

I have always believed that when people talk about how horrible gun control activists are, they are being a little ridiculous. I have always believed that people just had a slight difference of opinion.

Wow, was I wrong. Totally, totally wrong.

I have never found myself on the pro-gun side of the street, but reading comments saying that guns should be illegal, that no one should have a gun in their house, that hunting is evil-evil animal murder, that guns have never done anything good, my head spun. My vision blurred. My stomach churned.

I commented twice then closed the window for my own sanity.

So, here I shall address some of these issues without screaming hippies (I never thought I would say that with derision. I am usually a screaming hippie.) telling me that I am evil.

1. No one should have a gun in their house:  I’m not even sure where to go with this. What about soldiers? Police officers? Farmers? Have you really thought this through? I don’t have a gun in my house for one simple reason. I am not comfortable with them. I was raised in a house with guns and I know gun safety. I have shot a gun and I could, if absolutely necessary, probably handle myself. But, I also believe that a gun in the hand of someone who is not capable, willing or trained to use it is more dangerous than a nuclear weapon in the hands of a terrorist. Therefore, no guns for me.

But, believing that we should take guns away from everyone? Really? I can’t imagine how much scarier life would be if only criminals were armed. And before someone brings up England, let me just say that I love England. I love all of England’s laws. England has very few guns and very little violence. Despite it being the home of murder mystery. But, don’t think that only gun laws are responsible for the lack of violence. Drug laws, education reform, etc. etc. All of those things play a part in their low crime rate.

Furthermore, I know this is saying that it is because it is, but it is our Constitutional right to bear arms. Now, I am all for taking that right away from anyone who abuses it, and I don’t believe that it is our constitutional right to bear automatic weapons or grenades. But that doesn’t change the fact that we have a right according to the Constitution of the United States of America. You can’t pick and choose. You can’t be in favor of the first amendment and hate the second one. This is the basis for our government and we need to protect it and stand by it.

2. Hunting is evil: Only if you’re the deer. No really, hunting is not evil. For any non-vegans who believe that hunting is evil, you should really visit a slaughter-house. Either you believe that killing animals for meat is bad or you don’t. If any method is worse than any other, it is definitely slaughter that is more miserable. Don’t believe me, rewind the news footage a year.

For those who are vegan and believe that all killing of animals is evil, thank you for at least not being a hypocrite. Now, take a conservation class. We have destroyed nearly all the natural habitat in the United States. In addition to taking away the natural habitat, we are coming closer and closer to extinction of all the predator species (bears, cougar, etc.) For those who haven’t thought this through, if there is a very limited habitat and no predators, you have overpopulation. Over population of one species leads to underpopulation of whatever that species eats, which leads to underpopulation of any competitor. For instance, if nothing kills and eats the deer, the greenery that the deer feed on will become diminished and all other animals who eat that greenery will die of starvation. Then, eventually, the deer will start starving. In short, we’ve screwed up the ecosystem and the only thing that keeps it in check is hunters.

3. Guns have never done anything good. Hmm… First of all, guns have never done anything. They are a tool. Secondly, as much as I abhor violence and long for world peace, I can’t agree with that statement. I think that any pioneer family who didn’t starve because of their gun would disagree. So would any father who used his gun to rescue his child from a wild animal. Furthermore, as much as I want to believe that at their core, people are good. I don’t. I believe that there are people who need to die. People like Hitler. I bet the prisoners released from concentration camps by American soldiers toting guns believe that guns have been on the side of right.

I believe, from the depths of my soul, that the world would be better if there were less violence and if we could stop this insane acceleration of weaponry. I believe the world would be better without hatred and hurt and fury. But I believe that we don’t live in that world.

I have always heard the saying “I don’t agree with what you’re saying, but I’ll defend with my life your right to say it.” That’s much how I feel about guns. I don’t want a gun in my home, in my life. If I could get rid of all the guns in my world, I would. But I will defend with my life someone else’s right to have one, because we don’t now and we won’t ever live in that world. That world doesn’t exist.

-Barack Obama

I don’t believe I have ever been so heartstoppingly proud of a President. This is what I have said since about 6 hours post 9/11. Islam is not to blame. Saying that Al Quaida or other Muslim extremists are representative of Islam is like saying that Jim Jones is representative of Christianity. It is time to put away the blind hatred toward a religious group and attack all terrorism. This is so obviously true, and yet.

And yet, go to the news sources we are supposed to be following. Read the stories that contain these quotes and then read the comments. People are enraged. People are enraged that our President has declared us to be not at war with a religion.

One commenter went so far as to say that we are at war with all religions other than Christianity. Really? Really? I guess I was absent the day we overthrew the first amendment.

I’m afraid I don’t understand that mentality. I’m afraid I don’t understand why we didn’t go to war with Christianity post-David Koresh, but we are, supposedly, at war with Islam now.

It’s about time we got back on track. Time we stopped fighting a blind fight against a faith and started taking real action. And yes, doubters, real action involves talking, negotiating, working toward a goal. It’s about more than war. About more than fighting and certainly about more than sticking our metaphorical fingers in our metaphorical ears and saying “I’m not talking to you, I can’t hear you.”

If you are interested in that kind of politics, I suggest you come sit in the back seat of my minivan and quit expecting it on an international level.

I read an article late yesterday that suggested, among other things, that by ingesting hateful rhetoric about the other side (television, news, Internet) we become more prone to intolerance of the other side and even hatred of those who disagree with us.

I never really thought about it. I watch some of those news commentaries, but really only one or two and them rarely. I mostly read foreign news sources because I believe our journalism has gotten out of line with the basic principles of journalism. And yet, when I debate with someone I am met with such vehement disagreement as to borderline on violent. (Not that they are physically violent, but their support of their own opinions takes on a violent nature.)

I have often wondered why this is. In fact, after being told that I would “grow out” of my liberal stance the other day, I wondered aloud if they had any respect left for me at all. (I am a 30 year old, college graduate, employed mother of two. I’ve done a good deal of growing, already, and my political views have not changed.)

Now, I think I know. I think it is the around the clock viewing of Fox News in their home. Now, I’m not specifically blaming Fox News. In fact, I believe this is just another example in the ever-declining journalistic standards in our country. MSNBC, while more often aligned with my viewpoints, is just as bad. I’m told that CNN is liberal, too, although I see it as the most centrist of the three. Perhaps, though, it’s my position that makes it appear centrist, I am willing to concede that.

Watching the news yesterday morning, I was overwhelmed at the reporting about the Tiller murder. They were trying very hard to show both sides of the issue. I was perplexed to say the least. Murder is not an issue, it’s a crime. Surely, only the most rabid of anti-choice movement* activists could believe that there is a debate to be had about the “rightness” of murdering someone in their church. And, yet, there they were: quotes from various organizations saying that while the “method” was regrettable, the outcome was a cause for celebration.

How did this happen? I asked myself on and off all day yesterday. How did we get into such a position as this. It’s bad enough that people are killed for their beliefs in this nation of free speech, free religion, free everything, but now people are justifying it?

I used to able to write murders like this off as another example of insanity unchecked, unwatched, unnoticed. But no more. Not when groups are sending statements to television networks proclaiming their joy at seeing a murder committed. Groups, not individuals. Not crazy people. But groups or organized individuals. Who, obviously, have the right to say whatever crazy, hate-filled, insane thing they want to, but the television networks should be exercising their right to ignore this idiocy.

I feel like I am stating the obvious when I say that this is not my America. This is not the nation that I was taught to love. We, as Americans, love to pat ourselves on the back. “Home of the free,” and all. But we are no longer the home of the free. We are the home of divide.

Remember when Lincoln said “United we stand, divided we fall?” He was talking about a simple divide. A divide based, primarily, on geography. We are faced with a divide much, much more dangerous. A divide based on belief. The belief that only those who agree with our specific viewpoint are right, and everyone else is wrong. No war can fix this divide, no negotiations, no treaties. Because this war is every man for himself.

If you are reading this and thinking that I am overreacting, thinking that it’s just one crazy man killing someone and it’s been done before, then you are not seeing the big picture. Yes, this has happened before. Even the above mentioned Lincoln fell prey to it. It’s not the act that concerns me, it’s the reaction. The national reaction of scrambling to your battle posts. Of using this opportunity to again tell everyone else how wrong and evil they are for believing the way they do. In short, it’s a reaction of hate. Which is what started this in the first place.

If you expect me to end this with a call to action, I don’t have one. At this moment, in this time of my own despair, I’m not sure we can be saved. Don’t watch incendiary commentary. Remember that it is a very, very small group that acts with malice, that most of us are just trying to follow our own morality, our own ethics and do the best we can. There is a commercial going around that says (and I am paraphrasing) most people try to make the right choice, they are just not always sure what it is. Remember that. Try to act with compassion for your fellow man. Try to remember that an intellectual disagreement should not dehumanize or demonize any of the participants. Vote and speak with your heart and allow others to do the same. That’s all I’ve got.

If we all did that, it wouldn’t take long before we were once again united. But I doubt that many will and I doubt that the small number who do will make any difference.

*I picked this phrase (Anti-Choice) up from another blogger. Read her 6/3 post about the importance of peaceful language as it is a part of what prompted me to write this. I agree with the shift. Anyone willing to commit murder cannot truly be called Pro-Life. I also believe that Anti-Abortion isn’t quite right because I know lots of people who are personally Anti-Abortion, but politically Pro-Choice.

I am tired of people who believe so greatly in the sancity of life that they KILL another person to make their point.

I am tired of people who believe that abortion should be completely illegal, but also believe that it is somehow wrong to provide sex education, healthcare, and easy, affordable access to birth control.

I am tired of people who believe that they have the right to carry a gun, to do whatever they want with their land, to live any life they want, but that I can be arrested for writing against the war and be held without charge indefinately.

I am tired of people who are enraged by government spending on bailout measures, who nitpick every single line of spending and believe that there are no jobs in the environmental movement (that’s right, I must go to the office every day to live out some fantasy) but don’t acknowledge that we are spending at least that much on a war to free a country that was freed two years ago. We aren’t fighting a war anymore, we are policing. They now have taxes and government income, let them police.

I am tired of people defending that war on the basis that “the people there need us,” and denying that the people in the Sudan being killed, tortured and kicked from their homes need our help. Apparently the hundreds of thousands of children there who have been raped to death aren’t worthy of our help.

But mostly, today, I am tired of the same people who six years ago told me I was guilty of treason (for DISAGREEING with a President of the United States and saying that the war was ill-planned and based on false evidence)now making snide little jokes about assignation.

That is treason, my friends and (mostly) family. That is treason. And you better be careful because thanks to your precious Patriot Act that you defended tooth and nail to me, you can be arrested, held without rights in a prison without being charged for an undefined amount of time.

Okay, I’m not done. The whole point of this is for me to share with someone, anyone how I really feel about issues (political, cultural, whatever) without hurting anyone’s feelings.

The gloves are off. With the help of the anonymity of the internet.