For years liberals have been cowering in the corner any time a conservative says some nasty lie about them. Now they're shocked and surprised when we've finally grown sick enough of their BS to call them on it. Glass jawed, apparently.
Prior to this wonderful summation of my own position, I had this comment from infrequent busybody Mom2:
Geoffrey, you do your wife no favors with the comments that you make. Your behavior and manner of talking to people that disagree with you, causes me to wonder what kind of influence she can have in the pulpit when her husband has a vile mouth and an explosive temper. A pastor should have some control at home first.
Those names you called EL should not be held in your hand, let alone come out of your mouth, head, hands on the keyboard.
Before you read my response, please note that she backhandedly attacks my wife's integrity, the integrity of her ministry, and, indeed, our family life. As I have said, snide comments are one thing. Yet, this comment is of a piece with another comment sent my way, which I noted here:
Am I mistaken or do you classify yourself as a Christian with these kind of doubts?
Since there is a history of this kind of thing, and more, with this particular person, perhaps there can be some understanding behind my response:
Mom2, when I want advice from someone who knows nothing, I'll be sure to look you up. Until then, leave my wife, and her ministry, and everything else that has to do with me, out of it. I might just release some more words from my hands, because my patience with comments like yours has disappeared. Your phony sanctimony, your pompous preaching about morality, your tired, nonsensical drivel about how much more learned and wise you are simply because you haven't died yet all make me want to vomit.
Oops. I guess I was rude again.
C'est la vie.
ELAshley has taken it upon himself to expose me to the world for the horrid person I am. He even calls upon me to repent.
It is all well and good for ELAshley, Mom2, Marshall Art, and (previously) Neil to question my faith, to call in to question my wife's integrity, to claim that I am not truly a Christian. When I respond to their nonsense, however, I am wrong. It is all well and good to insist that my faith is erroneous, the way my wife and I raise our children is harmful, and we are a danger to society. It is hateful and evil for me to tell them all to mind their own business.
As I said once before, "Homey Don't Play That Way."
I honestly do not wish any of these people ill. I have not and will not call in to question their faith. As I have not only not been given the same courtesy, but have been lectured at, preached at, pronounced non-Christian, and now had my wife's integrity challenged, I do think I have shown remarkable restraint. It is not rude to take a stand when attacked. It is not un-Christian to act out of anger. It is not hateful to dismiss the intemperate comments and intrusive suggestions of people whose opinion one does not value. I have honestly sought dialogue with these folks, to a person, and have had nothing but bile thrown at me, time after time. Now, I am flinging back, although in a different way, and they don't like it.
WATB one and all.
11 comments:
Not to judge or anything.. But there is a whole lotta judging going on here. But, thats what the internet is for?
"self-righteous, self-appointed hall monitors"
Nail.. Hammer.. Hammer.. Nail. Glad you introduced them to each other.
That said.. Can I just say how hilarious that trip into "Pearls & Loadstones" was. From the white v. black scenario to Neil's "protection" of Mom2.. my goodness. I know these kind folks occupy the same country as me. But, that appears about the only thing we have in common. It kind of feels like the civil rights and feminist movements never existed.
Whatever works for them.
PS: The weak dollar post.. where do they come up with this stuff? That is pure talking points stuff (R)ight there. Just blame the tax system. Just how do conservatives have ONE solution to every problem. Its not that he even disagrees with me. Its that it goes against every article that has been conceived of in the WSJ / BBC / NPR media outlets.
I didn't get to that one, but it seems to me that we are on the verge of some very nasty economic weather. With the Canadian dollar equal to $1.10 American, there is this specter looming called hyperinflation. Scary stuff.
Judgmental? Well, just a bit. I haven't condemned anyone to hell recently, though.
First of all, as I've said, the whole "rudeness" charge is simply a tactic to change the debate from the topic being discussed to whining about HOW the debate is going. It's a classic tactic. Sure it's nice, when possible, to discuss issues logically, without rhetoric, invective, lies, snotty comments, and intentional misrepresentations of the other side's position. However, those folks have proved themselves incapable of those sorts of discussions. Trust me, I've tried. I've tried over and over and over.
I wandered over to ELA's blog and read that comment thread. I truly admire Dan's suggestion of a truce and I'm sure he's well meaning. However first of all, a truce could only really happen if we were all were committed to dialogue. I'm committed to dialogue, and I'm sure others are as well (notice I didn't say agreement.) But those folks aren't interested in dialogue, or understanding. They're only interested in winning. They're only interested in debate.
I've been debating with these sorts of folks for well over a decade on the topics of sexual orientation and faith. I've heard every argument from every side: right, left, and middle. Every piece of evidence both secular and sacred. I've heard every argument, every counter argument, and every counter-counter argument. After all of this I've learned exactly one thing: Debate has never changed anyone's mind about anything ever.
If reasoned discussion, argument, and evidence could change people's beliefs, there would be no overweight doctors who smoke, no?
So debate is useless; dialogue could be useful. But they're clearly not interested in dialogue or understanding (notice I didn't say agreement.)
The second reason a truce wouldn't work is that peace can only happen with justice. Just what would such a truce entail? Would that mean people like them would stop calling me a degenerate, pervert, and/or abomination? Would that mean they'd stop questioning my faith? Would that mean they'd stop blaspheming against the Grace of God by questioning my salvation? Would that mean they'd stop insulting my family, my husband, and my marriage? Would that mean they'd stop believing that their words are the Word of God? Would it even mean, at the very least, they'd stop with the snotty, snarky comments?
Not bloody likely.
Just pretty words aren't going to cut it. Such a truce would require their side to acknowledge that I'm a actually a human being, that I'm a Christian, that I'm created in the image of God. Have they ever shown any inclination to do those things? Nope.
The problem here? The Monkeysphere. What is the Monkeysphere you ask? This is the observation, based on research, that monkeys can only form societies containing about 50 monkeys; the size of the society based on the size of the monkey's brain. Given our brain size, we can only really care about 150 people or so at a time. Anyone else is simply outside our monkeysphere and we simply can't be bothered. Seriously.
For more on the monkeysphere:
http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/monkeysphere.html
Enjoy!
"I mentioned it to note the hilarity of the idea, not to whine about it."
Point taken. And, frankly, agreed with.
I've tried to stay out of these spats you've had with the people you've mentioned here because they seemed to be steeped in history you must have had with them. I've seen some of it at other places we both frequent, but it's apparent that it's been going on for some time in various places.
So I've spent a little time reading in other places and thinking about where it seems like you're coming from, and I gotta say that I think you're annoyance and anger are entirely justified.
Mom2's comment on the previous post regarding your wife's ministry was absurd. I have no idea who Mom2 is, or anything about her, but those kind of statements are just asinine.
I'm a Mormon. As such, I'm fairly well acquainted with the wing of Evangelical Christianity that feels it necessary to go around doling out "real Christian" buttons. The LDS Church has semi-annual conferences in Salt Lake City where tens of thousands of people attend. Every April and October, without fail, there are protesters standing around holding signs, passing out pamphlets, and yelling chants about how we're all going to hell. It's insane. These "preachers" come from all over the country to holler at me while I attend a church meeting. In fact, every day they come from all over the country to yell at newlyweds as they leave the temple with their families and loved ones. They feel it's their right and duty to fling insults at women on their wedding day. What a disgrace.
Now, I can understand feeling compelled to spread the good news of the gospel. I was a missionary in Uruguay for two years. I saw a lot of people convert to the LDS faith while there. I also had a lot of people tell me where I could stick my good news. But it was good news. I felt I had something amazing to tell people, and did so happily. On the other hand, the folks lined up on the sidewalks of Salt Lake City make no sense to me. They are filled with such venom and contempt. Let me assure you that there is little chance of them making me rethink my evil ways. There are some who enjoy engaging them on the sidewalks, and they end up yelling scriptures at each other. More than anything, the spectacle makes me sad. There's no good news there.
So after some reflection Geoffrey, I think I'm gaining some idea of your justification for your "rudeness". Thank you for the clarification and the chance to to reflect and opine on the subject.
Alan - "Monkeysphere" - I like it. It does make a certain amount of sense that even though we are social animals, there would be a certain hard-wiring of sociability, however limited in scope.
Cameron - I wish you knew how much your comments mean to me. Really. You and I started out on a bad note, and I do not think we will ever agree politically. On the other hand, I have sought, with you (as with those to whom this particular post is directed) to deal as one human being to another, with all the differences that entails, and I have found us responding more and more to one another in kind.
My heart ached a little bit when I read your comment on an earlier post on this same topic, because I felt that, if nothing else, I had not made myself as clear as I should have, or could have. I thought that even though we have our differences, you were not understanding my own position.
I am not asking for sympathy, but that you are seeing this conflict through my eyes, eyes aided in that seeing by your own experience of intemperance directed at you because of your religious beliefs, means so much to me. It is a direct refutation of the idea being proposed that (a) I am not a Christian; and (b) that I am dismissive by nature with those with whom I disagree.
I suppose I have been rude, at times. I would apologize for my own rudeness if I felt it made a dime's worth of difference.
Thank you so much for your understanding. I do not ask for you to accept or agree with everything I've written (especially the rude stuff). That you at least grasp the emotional state that created this situation and understand it, without necessarily accepting all of it, is all I have ever asked of anyone.
Thank you, Cameron. Thanks so much.
This is why I blog. To make this kind of connection - one of understanding, without any felt need for agreement. This is dialogue, as Alan points out.
God has blessed me through your words today, Cameron. Thanks you so much.
You're welcome, Geoffrey. And thank you for the kind words, they are likely much more than I deserve. I had no idea, when I wrote what I did, that it would have this kind of impact for you. I'm glad that my small attempts at understanding can be meaningful. That, too, is why I blog.
Some good back scratching sho do help, don't it? I do have a sense of humor. :-)
Mom2, I have never read anything you have written that has ever struck me as the least bit funny.
Trying to dodge responsibility for the hurtful things you have written by claiming it was a joke is a sad dodge. I don't buy it. In fact, I won't walk down that aisle of the store.
I have taken responsibility for the things I have said. The least you could do is likewise.
"Trying to dodge responsibility for the hurtful things you have written by claiming it was a joke is a sad dodge."
I'm afraid you've done as much recently yourself, Geoffrey. In kind, I didn't see humor in anything you've written. I give slack though, due to the lack of vocal inflection in written sarcasm and snarkiness. I'm afraid you suffer from extremely thin skin to cower at the words expressed by your opponents. Man up, dude. As you've noted yourself, it's the blogosphere, deal with it.
As to comments on your family issues, here's a tip: Don't like comments? Don't offer the info. When you publish anything on a blog, it becomes ripe for comment. Those regarding your wife's abilities as a preacher are not a knock on her, but a wonderment on they nonsensical comments you make and the goofy positions you've taken. Your wife, to my knowledge, hasn't posted comments here, or at least hasn't done so with her real name attached, so who knows what she believes or how she would comment?
As to your anger, it is indeed unChristian to act out of anger. I don't see how righeous indignation can be equated with anger since anger is a mostly uncontrolled emotional response. In other words, if you're pissed, back off until it passes, then comment. You'll be wittier when calm and in control.
For myself, my continued presence here, where I have so often been ripped, shows MY willingness to continue dialogue. But I'm not about to sweet-talk ya when you spout crap. Crap is crap. Why call it anything else.
YOU, on the other hand, for all your reading and studying, have shown an incredible knack for missing the point and leaping wildly to conclusions. Rarely, if ever, have you taken the time to ask clarifying questions to guage your perception of my comments. This is the source of my frustratin in dealing with you. Dissagreeing with my opinions is one thing. Totally misrepresenting them is quite another.
The complaint that charges of rudeness are merely tactics to avoid the issue is pretty lame. That's exactly what we get when we post our opinions, whether they are supported well or not. For example, if one wants to believe that they are just dandy engaging in homosexual behavior because of monogamy, love and committment, it's legitimate to say that that person is mistaken, since they are, particularly from a Christian perspective. If one wants to view such as a personal attack, that's unfortunate and an example of the tactic now asserted that we are using. It isn't an attack, but an accepted representation of Scripture.
It's also legitimate to question the faith of someone who so proudly rejects long held beliefs about the faith as backward or uneducated, as if education is a basis for determining good or evil.
We are all created in God's image. This does not justify anything regarding the behaviors of anyone. It is a mere starting point, a given, a big "so what, now what?" Think of the most vile human of your knowledge and that person, too, was created in God's image.
So, all in all, I offer a great and mighty "boo-freakin'-hoo" for your newfound victimhood. I'm willing to debate, argue, dialogue with anybody and I'm not worried about having my feelinz hoit. Everyone feels strongly about the issues we've discussed over time. Not surprising some may get emotional. Lighten up.
"The complaint that charges of rudeness are merely tactics to avoid the issue is pretty lame. "
Lame? Perhaps, but true. The rest of that paragraph merely demonstrates that you have no idea what I was talking about. I don't care if complete strangers on the internet agree with me or disagree with me. Disagreement can be done without being disagreeable. However, the tactic, as we've seen here and elsewhere many, many, many times is for the fundies to be rude in their disagreement, and then whine when someone isn't interested in just sitting there and taking it.
I was talking about rudeness, not disagreement. The fact that you don't understand that there's a difference, MA is an excellent and clear example of precisely the situation I was talking about.
"So, all in all, I offer a great and mighty "boo-freakin'-hoo" for your newfound victimhood."
Ooh, extra points for taking over Neil's tired "martyr" attack tactic. No victims here, just observations. The irony of the martyr attack is that it's simply 1) a way to attack again, and 2) a way to admit, "Sure we're being jerks, but quit noticing it, or we'll call you martyrs again." Notice that "martyr" tactic never requires one to deny they're being jerks...that's why it's favored by them, I think.
And for the trifecta of stupid fundie tricks, we have the final tactic shown in MA's last paragraph: repeat what has already been said by the other side, but appear to disagree with it, even though you agree. I believe this tactic is used because some people simply find the clicky-clacky sound of their keyboards particularly diverting. So, here we have several comments from me, Geoffrey, etc. basically saying that we don't really care about fundie rudeness and their whining complaints are lame, and if they can't take it then they shouldn't dish it out. Then, MA comes stormin' in saying exactly the same thing. Brava, Captain Obvious and thanks for clarifying the issue so adeptly!
Alan, it is nice to have someone apply the rules of propositional logic to something Marshall wrote. I was going to do it, using symbolic logic, but you have managed to do it in a much more clear fashion.
You know, the part I love is that somehow I have invited attacks on my wife's integrity because her name crops up. Marshall, for the record, it was Mom2 who brought my wife's name in to the mix, not I, and if you are not careful I might just break my own rule and make my feelings about your family perfectly clear and public. Since you have said it is legitimate, I see no reason why you should complain, so I await your judgment on that particular point . . .
You are exactly right, Alan, on another point, viz., Marshall has no conception of the difference between disagreement and personal attack. But, of course, we have had years and years of conservatives who believe it perfectly fine to compare an adolescent girl to a dog (Rush Limbaugh), speculate wildly on the marriage of public figures, including their sexual orientation (the Clinton's ad nauseum), and stick their rather pointy noses and pea-sized moral sense in to the lives of other people (the anti-GLBT movement). It is absurd to think that I take offense at anything Marshall writes (except perhaps for arguing for the legitimacy of a personal attack upon a person who is neither a presence on this site, and about whom he know absolutely nothing; my wife would chew you up, spit you out, then wipe up the mess and flush it down the toilet, Marshall, so I wouldn't mess with her if I were you). Marshall's lack of any consistent moral or intellectual center (one moment he is going off on how Christian he is, the next he is insulting with horrid vulgarity; I wonder why Mom2 hasn't taken him down, saying he doesn't do his wife any favors?; another time he thinks we should admire him because he doesn't teach his kids not to beat up homos, as if we should reward him for that; yet, he teaches them that "homos" are horrid, evil people [perverts!], so why in the world should they refrain from physical violence, since aren't we supposed to fight evil perverts? His stated positions are a mass of moral and logical contradictions) is part and parcel of what has happened to the right. We get preached at by moral vacuums like Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, (every time she calls herself a Christian, I swear I see another angel plummet to hell), and even "preachers" like Pat Robertson - and when we try to engage on the question of what the moral life might actually entail, we are attacked. 'Twas always thus, perhaps, but that doesn't mean (a) we should take it anymore; or (b) that our feelings are hurt by the kinds of slings and arrows tossed by these people. I am not.
I think it is important to note that I continue to link to Marshall, even though he writes infrequently, his visits are usually occasions for me to scrub, and what comments he does write are almost incomprehensible, lacking any logical or rhetorical thread. I once compared reading him to trying to read Hindi, and I stand by that claim (unless, of course, you understand Hindi, then I might change it to Persian), because it doesn't resemble any English writing with which I am familiar.
Oh, and Marshall, I am both really, really smart and highly educated. I value education more than any other social institution. Unlike conservatives who talk about education but constantly display a lack of it, I actually apply things I have learned to my life. You really, really, don't want to get in to that argument with me, because few things upset me more than conservatives who carry on about 'larnin', but do so by displaying their almost comical lack thereof.
Post a Comment