Off to the Zoe Conference today. Hope to see many of you there. Randy Gill did a great job with the new CD.
- - - -
As I went through security in Baltimore, I thought I was ready for the new regulations. My aftershave was in a little ziploc bag. You can only have three ounces or less. It was a four-ounce bottle, but there was just a little less than half left. However, they said that they have to assume the bottle’s full. In other words, if the bottle says four ounces, they have to consider it four ounces — even if it’s half full. (I’m thinking maybe the person who wrote these regulations grew up in a similar religious heritage.) So they tossed my aftershave. I felt safer flying.
- - - -
Great article in the Christian Standard by Jack Reese on a theme I addressed last week.
- - - -
Representative Foley was hypocritical. He pushed legislation that he may wind up being punished severely for.
However, without making any excuses for his behavior, there is a place for great Christian compassion as he goes through rehab. I haven’t heard him use his alcoholism as an excuse for his behavior. But he knows — as so many alcoholics have known — that he can’t move forward until he admits he’s powerless and seeks to get his life in a place of sanity.
As I heard someone say on NPR today, wouldn’t it be powerful if he came out of rehab accepting responsibility and making amends? It’s certainly possible!
I am jealous of Craig and others from Searcy who will get to be with you and everybody else at the Zoe conference! God’s blessings upon you all!
The Reese article is DEAD on.
DU
I appreciated the article by Reece. Just curious, has anyone looked at the material from the Nehemiah Institute — this includes this PEERS test. Our leadership is looking at using this — I don’t have a good feeling about it. Just curious if anyone else has thoughts on this….
Wish you could come join us, David. Looking forward to seeing Craig. Johnny, I don’t know anything about the institute.
Maybe if your aftershave had been half empty you could have taken it.
Mike, thanks for your hopeful remarks about Foley. I so easily succumb to the cynicism that expects only the worst out of situations like this one. Your words remind me that our Story is a hopeful one and that it calls us to picture a hopeful future.
I know that you will enjoy the Zoe C.
It is going to take him a Foley to work through the steps…It may take years before he can even begin to make amends.
I find it interesting though that this all happened on Friday. The day that congress voted to take away our rights as Americans. On Friday the news story was Foley instead of Gop voting to take way Abius Corpus. Any person, the president deems as an enemy combatant forgien and American can be held without trial or evidence. That means that if any American disagrees with the government or does or says something that the president doesn’t like you have no right to defend yourself in court. Now shouldn’t have that made the news instead of Foley? Sex scandles sell. The media reports on things that Americans want to hear about instead of what they should hear about.
Is that not a scary thing that was done on Friday? They have taken away your rights to defend yourself. You can disappear for years without even being tried for a crime. It isn’t just this president but say we get a president that isn’t so Christian and deems you an enemy combatant for speaking out against what he or she thinks.
The rights that we have as Americans are disapprearing. The things that have caused us to be a great country and make us different from the rest of the world are vanishing and we are focusing on a gay, alcoholic republican from Florida. Crazy.
Clint! LOL
I agree wholeheartedly with the intent and content of the Reese article.
He says,
“Does God love the U.S. more than he does, say, the Ukraine? Does he love America more than he loves Afghanistan or Algeria or Argentina? ”
However, there seems to have crept into our thinking that even as we know and praise God for His love of all nations, there seems to be a tacit implication that we should love the USofA less than other nations and as does God.
I’ve lived extended periods of time outside the US, loved the country I lived in at that time, was loyal to it, obeyed its laws and upon return to the US did the same here. But this is my country of earthly birth so there is a special place in my heart for the US. I’m of a generation whose hackles are raised if she is attacked too vociferously or when hate for her is shown.
No, God doesn’t love the US more than any other country, nor does He love her any less than others either. imho, that is.
Mike, have a great Zoe conference - you will be missed here and I pray it’s a safe, joyful, worshipful trip for you.
I am waiting for all the facts to come out on the Foley mess. As we are a nation of laws, if no law was broken then no crime. That is, if the pages were over the legal age of consent.
That being said, I still don’t like it and still find it disturbing. Very creepy and yes, the guy needs help just as the Political leaders of both parties if they didn’t offer it in the past.
I sound a bit like a sports talk radio caller — “first time caller, long time listener.” Thanks for your daily thoughts. I find them very helpful to me… in life and in ministry.
I noticed inthe by-line of Reese article that he is writing a book on worship as the community’s spiritual formation. Do you know of any advance material on his book? I am doing some study on this topic. Thanks.
Lord forgive me for I am a sinner. I’m incredibly jealous of anyone going to Zoe. But, how quickly I forget - I got to go to ACU Lectureship this year - and see my freshman daughter and parents in the same trip.
Oh, and ya’ll look for me, Susan and other Lufkin Preacher Mike readers on TV tonight (especially you DavidB in Katy) - you can catch us in a sea of purple on Fox Sports SW beginning at 7:30 pm - great fun.
What makes the whole Foley thing so “news worthy” is that he’s been a leader of protecting our children. A compassionate NAZI - oops - compassionate conservative. How do you recognize a compassionate NAZI/conservative?? They TELL you! Remember: Morality Matters - Vote Republican. UGH
preacherman . . . It IS this president! He - the decider-in-chief - is the very one that’s taking away your rights. I don’t understand why people aren’t protesting in the streets, instead of praising him for being a “man of God.” If this behavior is from a “man of God” (and I’m using that term very loosely), then it’s nothing I want to be a part of.
No, God doesn’t love the United States more than any other nation. I truly believe there are christians among us that believe that though. Do you ever notice how prayers are usually offered for the leaders of “our” nation? Or “our” troops? We have a very mistaken concept of what goes on everywhere else. My husband is Russian. Contrary to what I was taught, there are plenty of churches there. We refer to them as The Orthodox Church here. Remember - the church started in the east and was “scattered abroad.”
I believe this is not intended to be a political blog. We can get enough of that on the radio, which I have about given up on.
Belinda, some of your rhetoric is shameful.
Michael
Belinda,
I totally agree with you.
It is this president. Bush has so much power. The most power of any president in American history. Americans are ignoring it and it is going to come back and haunt them one day. This president has taken away so many rights it is insane. An now no Abius Corpus. We should be in the streets. But the media think American’s are too stupid to understand Abius Corpus and aren’t reporting what needs to be reported.
No Abius Corpus is a very serious and scarey thing for us as americans.
Michael,
Mike Cope is the one who mentioned the Foley scandle. I believe Belinda’s rhetoric as you call it is Christian and American.
In the last two weeks the President has mentioned at least twice that it is his job “to protect the American people.”
That is not his job.
The oath that he has taken twice now says that it is his job to “uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
The Constitution protects the American people.
Or at least it used to.
JPierpont,
Preach it brother!
How true…It is his job to uphod and defend the Constitution of the United States.” And when you pass laws that say any american my be held without trial and tortued isn’t cutting it as far as what he laid his hand on the Bible swore to uphold.
Just in case anyone was interested:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_Corpus
First, isn’t it Habeas Corpus?
Second, did the President draft this bill or did Congress?
Third, I beleive it refers to Terrorists taking up arms against the US. I don’t read a broad meaning of any and all US citizens.
That being said, there are many parts of the Patriot act I do not like just as I feel that many Federal and State laws passed by both parties take our rights away that people just lie down for (such as seatbelt laws, Blue laws, cell phone laws…). Bush has started nothing new. We have been just lying down for far too long.
Sorry for the Mis-spelling and thank you Beaner for the link.
The bill that was passed doesnt just include terrorists taking up arms against the US. The bill stated any person deemed an enemy combatant. It mentions any person who disagrees with the government or defends those deemed as enemies can be held without trial. This would also include lawyers for detainee’s.
It takes away our right to a fair trial and evidence to prove guilt.
Friends,
There are certainly important issues here, and they do have to do with politics. But let’s settle down with the rhetoric. It’s unseemly when Christians are insensitive with their language and provoke fights with one another. I’ve worked on previous threads to ask conservatives to settle down, and I’d like to make this same call here Preacherman and Belinda. Be thoughtful of your brothers and sisters on this thread and do what’s in your power to live at peace with them.
The issue with Congressman Foley should not particularly be that he blew it morally. Congressmen are people, and they’re subject to the same weaknesses, foibles, and sin as the rest of us. And I’m not even sure we can fault him for work he did to protect children–the work was indeed important and good. It’s not unlikely that it was a way for him to salve his conscience for his own reprehensible behavior. And that behavior was reprehensible, no question. The key issue, however, should be that the House leaderhsip knew about Foley as far back as 2001 and knew about the current text-messaging scandal at least a year ago and did nothing. Whether those leaders are Republican or Democrat, they should have taken steps to get this guy out of his position and into some help. The fact that they didn’t take care of this but attempted to sweep it under the rug shows a fault of character and leadership that should have repercussions.
Part of the difficulty is that with the current politics of personality, we’ve lost the ability to see what the real issues are. This fellow’s individual morality (as hard as this might be to admit) isn’t necessarily the issue; many fine leaders have been individually immoral at times and yet have done important things for their people. Like David. The issue is that one of our lawmakers was actively involved in breaking the law. That’s the problem here and the cause for action.
As for President Bush, the same is true. Regardless of how you feel about him personally or about his policies, the Hamdan case decided by the Supreme Court found that the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Attorney General violated US law by violating the Geneva Conventions (the US Constitution requires the President to uphold all US laws and makes any treaty we sign a US law). The Hamdan decision by definition opened the President up to impeachment since he stands in violation of US laws and has failed to uphold the Constitution (Bill Clinton, you may remember, was brought up for impeachment not for the Lewinsky affair but for lying to a grand jury when he denied having sexual relations with her–which meant he had also broken US law).
The new law seeks to insulate the President and various US officials from prosecution by retroactively approving actions that have already taken place and making torture now a prerogative of the President alone (he can define what it is, when it’s necessary, and to whom it should be applied). Precherman, the law does NOT eliminate habeus corpus for citizens (though it does allow the President to name anyone an enemy combattant and hold them without trial, does allow for hearsay evidence, allows for search and siezure without warrants, and does deny the person the right to face their accuser and the evidence against them–all of which have previously been guaranteed by the Constitution or Bill of Rights), but it only eliminates habeus corpus for foreigners.
This is a very bad law and a very dangerous one in terms of legal precedent, but let’s not exaggerate it in ways that are incorrect.
And let’s tone down the rhetoric, okay?
Yeah…….what Bill said. Won’t it be grand in Heaven……..NO POLITICS!!!
DU
Bill O’Riley uses that word rhetoric alot. Is your last name O’Riley?:-)
He hear you brother and understand what you are saying.
I love everyone.
I’m an independant.
I just believe while the media has gotten us to focus on Foley scandle so the government can sweep our rights away as americans without us ever even knowing.
David U,
Especially church polotics!!!:-)
Concerning the Foley case, I think there is much more to come out such as were they the age of consent? If not, who knew (GOP AND Democrats) and when? Are there others?
Lot of rumors going around now. I would rather wait until the dust settles before jumping to conclusions.
“The bill stated any person deemed an enemy combatant.”
Preacherman, do you have the exact wording?
It is interesting to note that
a. It appears the IM conversations that have been leaked by democrat activists were actually a group of pagers playing a joke on Foley.
b. The IMer was over the age of 18 (and apparently in DC, age of consent is younger than elsewhere in the country)
c. This is not a media conspiracy to cover up the vote. This is an irresponsible media that has become infotainment. Its not about telling us what we need to know, its about getting people to watch the news, and we as americans, love political sex scandals.
d. Belinda — please see Godwin’s law on wikipedia.
e. Also Belinda, contrary to popular belief, God doesn’t hold whatever political views you have. And, unless you’re Jesus, you should probably chill on comparing people with a group that put Jews into ovens. That is dispicable. I know a good deal of Republicans whose views upset me. I know an equal number of Democrats as well. Jesus didn’t come to set up an earthly kingdom, so no matter what government you put it, it will not be equal to Christ. And regardless of how great your ideal system may be, when you call people Nazis, you have sunk to the level of those you criticize.
I think you owe a ton of people an apology.
Wow — the comments are just overflowing with love and tolerance today.
Preacherman, do you really think that referring to fellow believers as “NAZIS” is Christian? Amazing.
Justin — Amen.
I would have to disagree with this apology stuff and the outcry agianst Preacherman and Belinda. It’s kind of a funny thing that we allow the use of satire and sarcasim when people make points we agree with, but all of a sudden take it very seriously, and personally, when we disagree. Tree hugger, communist, environmetnal wacko, nazi, whatever they are all ways of making a point. Jesus used some colorful illistrations when making points, that if we really understood some would probably argue with Him and say, “now that wasn’t very Christ like Jesus”
We are all part of a family of believers, and we have different opinions and different ways of sharing those beliefs and opinions. And as in all families no one likes a cry baby. If we enter into the realm of debate let us put on a thicker skin and not become a professional weaker little brother, this would help all stick to the issues and not debate the language or illustations used in the conversation.
Debate is totally fine Brad. Its hard to debate someone who is comparing you with a group who put human beings into ovens. Until Republicans start doing that, the nazi comments should cease.
When you start using inflamatory language like belinda, you aren’t criticizing the message but the messenger. She made some broad generalizations… and some pretty outlandish ones too. I’m not a Republican, and I disagree with a lot they are doing, but they are not NAZIs. In the bible, when Paul and Peter disagreed, I would imagine they debated it civilly. I’m quite sure they didn’t resort to sophomoric name-calling.
I would like to see someone hijack a plane with aftershave.
“I’ve got Old Spice and I not afraid to use it. BACK OFF!!”
I wonder if we could all look at the Amish thread and the gentle, loving tone this community set for us in their forgiveness of and prayers for the man who shot and killed five of their little girls - actually took their lives - and then compare that tone with how we are treating each other on this thread.
I repeat, we seem to lose all civil tone and courtesy and love for each other when political discourse brings differences of opinions.
Any suggestions everyone?
Don’t belittle Belinda or censure Preacherman. As long as they say what they think, the chasm between their side and power widens. It’s when they talk like conservatives that they gain power. i.e. Bill Clinton (1992)
“Any suggestions everyone?”
Start being real and stop being nice. I disagree with Belinda and Preacherman but at least I know what where they stand.
It’s the big “kumba ya” turd floating in the West Texas evangelical grape kool-aid that makes me want to vomit a big fat hairbow.
This blog usually turns into ass kiss rodeo 3 comments in. It is refreshing to hear a vehement dissenting heartfelt, yet ignorant opinion. I did not want to endorse your comment Belinda (why I used ignorant), but I do like your “spunk.” keep up the good work.
Belinda,
Though not overly politcal, I would consider myself to be one of the compassionate conservatives that you refer to and would actually prefer not being compared to a Nazi. I don’t believe that I am ethnically superior to anyone else, and am not in favor of the extermination of the Jewish people. I also can’t speak German.
Preacherman,
Two points: First, if, as you say, this new legislation “mentions any person who disagrees with the government”, you are apparently in trouble of being arrested and detained. Yet I think all of us know that that’s not going to happen. Which means you’ve exaggerated the issue.
Second, if the preaching you were referring to when you told JPierpont to “Preach it brother!” is what makes you a “preacherman”, you might want to use a less confusing named. I assumed that you “preached” the gospel of Christ, not an anti-Bush political agenda.
Leland,
I can’t speak for others, but I think the discussion would progress just fine without cursing.
Luke,
Maybe, but it really hasn’t, unless your second point bashing preacherman’s name is intended to be a catalyst.
Keep up the hyprocritical holier than thou good work, well gotta go, I am late to the Polyanna film festival.
troy
I’m not bashing either of them. I’m just making the point that they (belinda especially) sound like rebellious sixteen year old liberals who have no other way to defend their POV than to call conservatives nazis. I’d just imagine that we could be above that on an adult christian blog… but maybe not?
The problem with what passes for political discourse in America is this–and it’s something that’s been fueled by a cadre of pundits:
1) People have forgotten that the purpose of argument is not to win, but to achieve resolution.
2) People have allowed sweeping, universalist notions (one brand of which is the politics of identity–”I’m a conservative no matter what,” “I’m a progressive no matter what”) to replace reasoned and thoughtful discourse.
This isn’t about turning the thread into an “ass-kiss rodeo.” However, we of all people should know that we can treat one another with civility even in disagreement. I’m not calling for any sort of tapioca-like uniformity. But when we forget the above 2 principles, we also allow a host of distractions to prevent us from genuine truth-seeking.
Note, for example, how so many of the comments above have abandoned truth-seeking in favor of retrenchment (”I admire their spunk even though they’re totally wrong” and “I won’t consider what you’ve said because of how you’ve said it”–which represent most of what’s said above–are both forms of ignoring truth). It’s also interesting, for example, that no one after the original posters is dealing with the specifics of the issues they mentioned. For example, though I hear people on both sides pretending to believe that our leaders should be moral–or at least law-abiding–this discussion isn’t leading to a discussion of how to hold leaders accountable or how to prevent abuse of power (which both the Foley case and the new legislation is about).
Instead, we merely get “you’re a ________, and therefore you’re a benighted jerk.”
Fascinating.
As Christians, don’t we have an even more profound responsibility to seek truth? Don’t we have an even more profound responsibility to care for our neighbors–broadly defined–to seek, more than others even, for true commonwealth? I know that there are few models of such responsibility our world, but it strikes me that Jesus was above all things a truth-seeker and a truth-teller who called us to lives of sacrifice for the good of others. Is that what you folks are trying to do in this thread, or do you just want to play at irrelevant name-calling, self-aggrandizement and ego-stroking?
If you care about the world and take seriously Christ’s call to manifest HIS kingdom, you’ll quit calling each other Nazis or 16-year-olds or liberals or conservatives or hypocrites or polyannas and instead you’ll get busy with the important work of caring for your neighbors.
Any of you guys read this ? Just curious as how this might apply?
http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?item_no=6730X&p=1006327#curr
Justin,
I appreciate your POV and was not referring to you specifically. I think Belinda and Preachermans’ comments speak for themselves. I don’t view their comments as an attack on anything other than common sense and reality. Their greater problem is their attitude and tone. A negative attitude, no matter who it is directed towards, is not going to persuade or inspire anyone. Within the realm of politics, this issue is temporal. However, when this negative attitude filters into the Church and the affiliated Universities, it’s deadly.
Troy and others,
you should note that the content of Preacherman’s and Belinda’s posts is correct. The new law does abolish more than 900 years of legal precedents (as a number of Republican senators noted before inexplicably voting for it after pressure from the White House) and does violate the separation of powers by making the President (and the President alone), rather than the judiciary, the effective determiner of applicability, guilt, and punishment. It thus not only sets up dangerous legal precedents, but also violates the Constitution and Bill of Rights in crucial ways.
This bill indeed is “an attack on…common sense and reality,” but not on the part of the posters in this thread.
Once again, how we talk about the argument should not displace the importance of the actual content of the argument.
Justin,
your information about the Foley scandal is completely incorrect. This is no made-up conspiracy. The IMs are Foley’s, the kid to whom he wrote was 16 (and the page system places Congress in loco parentis, further causing problems), and a number of news sources held the story in several cases. Note that Foley has not denied any of the allegations (at least not after a half-hearted first attempt prior to the release of the main text of the messages). If it were all a “hoax,” Foley would certainly be fighting the allegations.
But again, the chief fault isn’t precisely with Foley–though what he did is very bad, indeed, and certainly justifies his resignation; the fault is with the House Republican leadership (especially Hastert and Boehner) who have been aware of the issue for at least a year and did nothing. That is an abrogation of leadership that should also have consequences.
I am seating here reading all of these opinions about the state of this great country. I know that no matter what we disagree about, we all love this country and the rights and freedoms we enjoy.
Even while I read, I cannot help but think about my friend Fran Hilbert, a member of Highland COC. She is not concerned about Republican-vs-Democrat-vs-Independent viewpoints. She is concerned about being evicted from her home. She is concerned about carring for her two dependent children. She is concerned about food.
In this great country, people have the right to the pursuit of happiness but still loose their job just because someone more powerful can take it from them. That happened to my friend. In this great country, men still leave and refuse to take responsibility for their children. That is what happened to my friend Fran. She needs a financial miracle.
I do not know why I am writing this. I believe I have been led by the power of God. So while you debate and discuss, please take time to pray for my friend Fran.
LD,
Yes. Thanks. Your friend Fran is in our prayers.
Bill, all the information is not out yet. Was the page at least of consenting age (in some states it is 16)? Just how much did people know and who knew it? Note that it is starting to come out that some Dems ALSO knew about it and did nothing.
As for the GOP being hypocrytes as much of the main stream media is crying…well, at least Conservatives HAVE values and standards which cannot be said of Liberals who really stand for nothing and have an “anything goes” attitude.
At least Foley resigned which cannot be said of any Democrat who gets caught.
I think the whole thing stinks on all sides including the media side that sat on the story for over a month (thanks ABC)!
I don’t believe I owe anyone an apology. Yes, I compared a “compassionate conservative” with a Nazi. Please realize that the Nazis also managed to convince people that they were compassionate. I have FIRST-HAND knowledge of the Holocaust. My husband had a grandfather and uncle executed. I was being a bit sarcastic when I compared them, but I’m so sick and tired of being told that the “conservative” party is God’s party. No, those words are spoken exactly, but the message is loud and clear. What do you think when someone uses “Morality Matters - Vote Republican” in their signature block?? I have every right to be offended. As is implied on a daily basis, straight from this administration’s mouths, “either you’re with me or you’re against me.” Where does this leave any room for dissent??
Belinda, that is very sad that you would actually compare a conservative to a Nazi. I guess when you have no basis for an argument you must resort to that old and tired rhetoric.
TimP,
I’ve seen you post a lot. You’ve been very upset when people overgeneralize about your positions, but to date, I haven’t seen you offer anything but overgeneralizations, smears, innuendos, buck-passing, and deferrals.
You’ve cried foul a lot, but you also seem to be playing foul. You attack Belinda for calling conservatives Nazis. Yeah, that’s perhaps over the top. But do you really think you’ve established any kind of moral imperative or basis by saying “all liberals stand for nothing and have no values?” Kettle, this is pot. Pot, this is kettle.
You’ll forgive me for stating the obvious here. Or do you think just once you could actually try to make and support any sort of argument in favor of any position you might take? It would be a refreshing change to see from you.
Really. Give it a try. Just once.
Or are you happy to have been hoisted by your own petard?
77, give me one.
Sorry, hit return before I even started to write.
77, for one thing I don’t know where you get “buck passing” from. I simply stated we need to wait until all the facts come in and all the rumors are settled before we jump the gun too much.
Please give me some examples of where I have been ANY different from others here. I see a ton of Bush and GOP bashing, HU bashing and finger pointing. The example of “Liberals have no standards” is no different from some of the things others have said, for example, about Conservatives except they are a bit more subtle then I am.
Belinda, you know the Nazi’s did not give some people choices on whether they lived or died. They just murdered them.
TimP,
So you quibble with the buck passing, but not the overgeneralizations, smears, innuendos, or deferrals. Nor do you argue with the content of my critique–you just claim it’s okay because other people are doing it too.
Cute.
I’m sure given all of that that Belinda and everybody else will be very convinced.
TimP, Please stop. Twice now in this thread alone you’ve used the two-wrongs defense and then you’ve had the nerve to lecture people about standards.
Yes, some people have made unsupported overgeneralizations; others have made questionable comparisons. But at least they haven’t then tried to pretend that they have some right to critique others or to pretend some sort of moral superiority. That’s where you differ from the other posters using these strategies.
I’ve called on people several times in this thread to elevate the discourse. And I’ve tried to model what I’m calling for in my posts, making specific arguments using specific evidence. But in spite of what you’ve claimed, your most recent post makes it clear that you’re not really interested in any kind of truth or standards. You’re just upset that people don’t agree with you.
77’s right. You can’t lecture Belinda or anyone else when you freely admit to using the same strategies–just not as well (or rather, not as “subtly”). Blaming other people, by the way, or trying to distract from your own faults by pointing to somebody else’s is a form of buck passing. 77’s right about that, too.
Please. You’re only working to inflame things here; you’re not making things better. And when you, too, engage in brazen name-calling and then call it “standards,” it’s not only an embarrassment to us. It’s an embarrassment to you.
I would not call what I say in this blog even close to the Nazi comment but simply because you agree with Belinda and enjoy the GOP bashing, it’s somehow not that bad. Give me a break.
All I know is this: Conservatives try to have standards. Liberals have an anything goes policy. The only standards they have, which you are clearly showing, is that it’s ok unless the other side is doing it, then is it bad.
TimP wrote: “I would not call what I say in this blog even close to the Nazi comment…”
Why not? You’ve attacked Belinda for overgeneralizing, but then you don’t deny the fact that you’ve done the same thing yourself. Plus, most people would say that the Nazis had no standards, that they were inhuman. This seems to be Belinda’s point in using the term–though she notes her own family experience with the term and points to the hyperbolic nature of her comments. Yet you’ve said exactly the same thing about liberals. Effectively, therefore, you’ve called those “immoral, standardless” liberals “nazis” without calling them “Nazis.” It’s a distinction without a difference, a semantic game and nothing else. Surely your unwillingness to “call what [you] say…even close to the Nazi comment” is therefore at best merely a flaw of perception… or at worst, intellectual dishonesty.
And, by the way, attacking somebody as wrong for using the very strategies that you yourself use is by very definition hypocrisy. That’s a charge you continue to evade (and a strategy you continue to deploy)–and that’s the heart of my disagreement with you. My qualms have nothing to do with whether I like Republicans or whether I like Democrats. If you look back over my posts, you’ll note that the thing I’ve critiqued consistently is your hypocrisy and condescension in calling for “standards” and then demonstrating a lack of those standards, using the same strategies you decry.
What I’m saying is this: either you can keep using your overgeneralizations and fallacies, but then you can’t call for Belinda’s apology, or you can call for a moderation of the rhetoric–but since you’ve done the same things yourself, you’ll likewise need to apologize for not playing fair. Those are your options–at least if you’re a person of integrity and character.
But maybe you genuinely don’t realize what you’re up to. Maybe you’re just unaware. It might help, therefore, for me to restate the arguments your posts are making since you can’t seem to see them. Maybe it’ll help you to see their flaws if you hear them from my voice and not your own. You tell me where and how I’ve got it wrong, okay?
You’re saying that it’s okay for you to make a sweeping generalization and to base your “arguments” on logical fallacies–ad hominems, red herrings, a prioris, tautologies and tu quoques. However, other people are over the top when they do this, displaying only partisan rancor.
And it’s okay for you to be dismissive of unsupported arguments by others, but when people call you on the hollowness of your own arguments and offer you an opportunity to provide any evidence or discussion to support your position, that’s an affront that proves their bias. Therefore, you refuse, which is not only further proof of their bias but also proof of your standards somehow…
And you say things are the way you say they are because you say it’s that way–but when other peopel do so, they “have no basis for an argument” and you critique them for “resort[ing] to that old and tired rhetoric.”
I wish I could offer more than that, but that’s all I can see in your posts. What else would you add?
See, it’s not that I don’t like you because you’re a conservative. I’ve seen no evidence of conservatism in your posts and can’t make any claims about your political position because, well, you haven’t made any either. I don’t like your posts because they’re condescending, hypocritical, and poorly argued. Indeed, to be frank, I don’t like your posts because YOU don’t seem to like conservatives. If you did, I would hope you’d do a better job of representing and defending them. As I think Bill was trying to say when he talked about “embarrassment,” I don’t like your posts because your arguments are so transparently inferior that they give the conservatives you’re supposedly defending a bad name. I don’t like that at all. It’s unfair.
Even in your most recent post, where you fail to deal with a single substantial charge that people have raised against you, you continue to try to claim some kind of moral superiority for yourself, and then you have the chutzpah to attack your opponents as “anything goes” and to claim that it’s just partisanship. Really? And we should believe that because why, exactly?
Of course, I can sort of understand your reluctance to try to support the argments you’ve made in this thread with evidence. It would, after all, be difficult for most people to justify themselves convincingly by claiming that it’s okay for them to be bad because other people are just as bad… or that a person can’t really be held responsible for his behavior because the media are corrupt… or that we have to reserve judgment on Foley because it might technically be legal for a congressman to have sex with a 16-year-old he’s supposed to be taking care of.
And it would be even more difficult to support your argument that “conservative” offenses prove that “conservatives” have “standards,” while everyone knows that “liberals” never had any to begin with and therefore can’t be in violation of what they never had…
Still, this is such a juicy and rare opportunity, that I can’t pass up the chance myself. So let me give a shot at supporting this last argument for you, if you don’t mind.
Let’s see, you’ve made the argument that the scandals surrounding “conservatives” like Jack Abramof, Bob Ney, Tom Delay, Scooter Libby, Duke Cunningham, Michael Scanlon, Claude Allen, Brian Doyle, James Tobin, Allen Raymond, Bob Taft, Thomas Noe, Neil Volz, Dan Doyle, Mike Battles, Bill Janklow, Jim Ellis, John Colyandro, Warren RoBold, Carey Lee Cramer, Jim West, and Steven Foti (I could go on, but I only wanted to include the conservatives who’d actually been indicted over the past year or so here; listing all of their colleagues currently under investigation–like Mark Foley–would have taken up several more screens and I’m afraid that people would have gotten too distracted before I was done)… All of these conservative government officials–indicted for money laundering, bribery, racketeering, sex crimes, negligent homicide, theft, larceny, and fraud (among other crimes)–are proof that “at least Republicans have morals to break,” is that right?
Whereas somebody like Jimmy Carter, who founded Habitat for Humanity and who has scoured the earth ensuring fair elections, a fellow who routinely donates his speaking fees to the poor and underprivileged and who regularly teaches a Sunday-morning Bible class at his church (though he’s getting up there age-wise) is evidence of the “liberal…anything goes policy.” Or Barak Obama, whose eloquent calls for Christian unity and whose work protecting American democracy through legislation like the recent “transparency” act, whose celebration of his commitment to Christ is witnessed not only in his personal worship, but also in his calls to people to genuinely link their faith to their political activities–in part by supporting the widows and orphans James says are at the heart of “true religion,” (see an example here: http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060628-call_to_renewal_keynote_address/index.html)–he, too, is just a standardless liberal.
Did I get that right? Do you think people are convinced?
Of course, the truth is that there are good liberals and good conservatives. And there are bad liberals and bad conservatives. An intelligent person would acknowledge this and would note that a list of evil-doers or do-gooders is of limited value since all people are flawed and since the lists often say more about the list-makers than about the real world. And an intelligent person would admit that two wrongs don’t ever make a right, no matter how much we might happen to agree with one side. And an intelligent person would know the actual definitions of “conservative” and “liberal” and would know that these are both about the perceived roles that government should play in the lives of people rather than being pejorative epithets that can be thrown around to shut down argument. Further, an intelligent person would know that the current administration isn’t even really conservative since it supports almost none of the tenets of conservatism–rule of law (which the President has undermined with more than 800 signing statements–25% more than all other US presidents in history combined, with illegal domestic spying, and with the violation of the Geneva Conventions), small government (under the current administration, the government has grown larger than at any time in US history), fiscal responsibility (our deficits skyrocket, our trade imbalance is exploding, and we have, for the first time since WWII, dropped from the first to the 6th most productive economy in the world), conservative interpretation of the constitution (which, again, the President has violated with signing statements that circumvent the veto process, and which the new “military security act” violates by eliminating habeus corpus, due process, search-and-seizure controls, separation of powers, and legal redress, etc.), and support of the military (which the administration has undermined by slashing retirement and health benefits, by withdrawing support from many VA hospitals and programs, by sending in troops without proper body armor or weapons systems, and by refusing to send in more troops in spite of calls by field commanders). Indeed that thinking person might look at what’s happening today and say it looks not conservative, but fascist (don’t take my word for it–look at the definition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism)… A thinking person might even be tempted to compare the current regime to that other notable fascist regime of the 20th century… But that person would probalby pull back from that position eventually, admit that it’s an over-the-top expression driven more by exasperation at the current state of affairs than anything else…
So surely you haven’t meant to set up these sorts of inferior arguments and defenses.
Of course, it’s just struck me. Maybe this is where I’ve erred. I keep thinking that you’re a person genuinely interested in truth, someone who doesn’t want to argue merely for argument’s sake, someone who actually has a developed and supported rationale for the things he believes.
But maybe I’m wrong about my assessment. Maybe all you can do is attack the other side for overgeneralizing by overgeneralizing yourself. Maybe you don’t have any evidence to support your own positions. Maybe you not only don’t know what the function of argument is but also lack any sense of what strategies a person can use to make a compelling argument. Maybe you’ve been so insulated from real discourse that your only tools are the tu quoque (”you did it too”) and the a priori (”It’s the way it is because I say so”) and the overgeneralization (”All liberals are standardless”).
Maybe I’ve overestimated you. Given all the evidence so far–every one of your posts on all the threads I’ve seen–maybe I’m just plain wrong to try to reason with you at all because you simply don’t have the skills or perception necessary to understand and make a coherent argument.
It’s just hard to say whether I’m wrong about you or not.
I suppose what you write next will be the definitive evidence either way…
I am a Christian. Everything is not always black or white. All “liberals have an anything goes policy” is so far off base . . . Sometimes, it’s very enlightning to see things from a different viewpoint, another culture . . . I’ve had the priviledge to do that on a lot of things. I grew up in a very “conservative” environment(and I use that term carefully - it’s all relative). I was told so many things by our government and things were implied that I now know were completely false. I don’t believe it was all intentional, just ignorance and fear talking. There comes a time when we must answer for our own salvation . . . read and study everything you can get your hands on. And never be afraid to LISTEN to ideas different from your own . . . I guess that’s what makes a “liberal.” Because of that, I now take great pride in being called a liberal.
Thanks to all of you for your support and your feedback.
So Belinda, everything’s not black and white. Yet just up this page you called conservatives nazis… hmmm
TimP,
Once again you’ve made a gross and unsupported generalization, and then pretended to take the moral high ground. I will invite you again: either support your argument with specific evidence (which will be difficult given that it’s based on the logical fallacies of overgeneralization and circular reasoning) or stop pretending that you have some sort of claim on the moral high ground. By the way, I can rattle off a long list of quite moral liberals–liberals who are Christians even–and also a long list of conservatives who are utterly immoral (the long list of indicted politicians comes to mind). I’m not really sure that proves anything, though.
And Justin, I think Belinda’s acknowledgment a while back that she’s reacting out of frustration and her most recent post that those currently controlling things are working to turn everything into an either/or argument–”you’re either with us or against us” (which is, after all, effectively what the Nazis did) mitigates her use of the term to some extent. Wouldn’t you agree?
It is interesting that people who are so progressive when it comes to religion, worship, women’s role in the church and leadership is so conservative when it comes to political views. Shouldn’t we progressive in all aspects of our lives?
I believe that their are Christian republican’s, democrats, libratarians, independants, you name it.
These are matters of opinion. Disputable matters. Non-essentials. I have freedom in Christ to believe what I want to believe when it comes to politics. My faith allows me think a certian way and your a certain way and we shouldn’t judge each other when it comes to matters of personal opinion.
I love everyone.
I hope that as we have differing opinions that we will strive to have the love and respect and progressive thought that we should.
Love and peace to everyone.
I agree Bill, it is frustrating when any sides defense is an either or mentality. The world is not a place of black and white, but many shades of gray.
However, the Nazis aren’t the only group of people who have used that same tactic. I still think its grossly immature and in bad taste to compare any group to the Nazis, unless they are vocally for the elimination of a race of people. I can deal with fascist, I can deal with communist, but calling someone a Nazi is a smeer tactic used by those who’s debate skills don’t extend beyond the proverbial “you’re a dum dum. well you’re a poopface” Except, Nazi is a little more of a loaded term than either of the previously listed.
I still say “see Godwin’s law”
Sorry Bill but nothing can “mitigates” comparing Conservatives to Nazi’s.
Bill, I don’t think I said that Conservatives have any high moral ground. What I did say was that we are not perfect and when we do mess up (such as Foley) we recognize that and call a spade a spade. All Liberals do is coddle and praise those sort of people. I’m still waiting for Liberals to react to the rape charge against Clinton as they did with the charges against Foley. I guess I’ll be waiting a long time.
TimP,
Of course you’re saying that conservatives own the high moral ground, but that’s not my concern in any of my posts nor in Bill’s post. My concern is that YOU keep claiming the high moral ground, decrying Belinda for calling conservatives nazis but then doing the VERY SAME THING to liberals. What “mitigates” you making blanket dehumanizing overgeneralizations about liberals?
Attacking somebody as wrong for using the very strategies that you yourself use is by very definition hypocrisy. That’s a charge you continue to evade (and a strategy you continue to deploy, even in your most recent post)–and that’s the heart of my disagreement with you. My qualms have nothing to do with whether I like Republicans or whether I like Democrats. If you look back over my posts, you’ll note that the thing I’ve critiqued consistently is your hypocrisy and condescension in calling for “standards” and then demonstrating a lack of those standards, using the same strategies you decry.
What I’m saying is this: either you can keep using your overgeneralizations and fallacies, but then you can’t call for anybody else’s apology, or you can call for a moderation of the rhetoric–but since you’ve done the same things yourself, you’ll likewise need to apologize for not playing fair. Those are your options–at least if you’re a person of integrity and character.
TimP, I’m just calling your spade a spade. Or would you prefer me to coddle and praise you instead?
(By the way, the rape charges were proved to be fallacious–made up for political gain. He also didn’t kill 2 teenagers with a train. Clinton did lie to a grand jury, though–for which the congress brought him up on impeachment charges.)
TimP–
I think 77’s taking this all too much to heart (though I don’t really disagree with what he says).
Unlike 77, I find it hard to believe that you’ve misunderstood what so many people are saying in their critiques of your strategies and posts…
Further, I find it hard to believe that you could see me as attempting to defend ANY of the extremist comparisons being made (Nazi or otherwise). You’ll note for example that I was the first to call for the rhetoric here to settle down–very early in this thread…
I find it hard to believe that anyone would seriously attempt to offer the utterly specious claim (as you’ve done) that the Foley case (or any of the other number of current conservative scandals or indictments) merely proves that conservatives have standards whereas scandals involving liberals prove they do not…
I find it hard to believe that you’re so unaware of your own rationales and strategies and so unable or unwilling to argue logically, think coherently, or read perceptively that you would continue to make the claims you do in your posts…
Nope. I don’t believe any of it. So I’m hoping you’re just messing with us all. That’s the only thing that makes sense. It’s the only explanation for why you’ve never even made a stab at defending your position.
I don’t want to be contentious here if you’re just goofing around, so I’ll bow out now. Future readers of this thread (if there ever are any) will no doubt be very amused…
The final word is yours, sir. Your audience awaits.
“By the way, the rape charges were proved to be fallacious–made up for political gain. ”
Really? I must have missed the trial.
Dude! You gotta start watching the news. The impeachment hearings were all over it–and if your highly moral conservative pals had had an actual rape case to use to get Clinton out of office, they would have totally called that spade a spade. Of course, they didn’t because there wasn’t a trial because there wasn’t a case because there wasn’t any evidence because it was made up out of whole cloth by your friends with all the standards (along with a bunch of other stuff) so they could (apparently) distract President Clinton from getting Bin Laden so the current fella would have some good excuses to fall back on when people started asking him to be responsible for the things he’s promised–at least that’s what’s been happening recently. Again, it helps to keep up with current events…
Sorry you missed it all.
Hey–you wanna respond to the rest of my post, or any of the key parts of all of my other posts? Or any of the inherent problems people have brought up with your posts? Or is that just more stuff you keep missing?
Maybe Bill’s right about you…
4 days and nothing. As I suspected…