Wetland
Originally uploaded by paynehollow.
Now, as through this life I've rambled, I've seen lots of funny men.
Some will rob you with a pistol, some with a fountain pen.
Now as through this life you ramble and through this life you roam,
You'll never see an outlaw rob a family of its home. ~Woody Guthrie
Let me get this straight: Bush and the Republicans are in an uproar over recent comments John Kerry made in a joke whose point was to keep kids in school.
Bush and the majority of the Republicans in power – who have twisted truths, led us into an immoral and possibly illegal invasion of a country, in the process strengthening terrorism rather than reducing it. Who have increased Big Government, forsaken conservative values, placed corporate flacks in the roles of defenders of our environment and energy policies, engaged in a war against science and the environment.
THIS Republican leadership is upset and trying to start a national uproar about an admittedly poorly worded and executed joke whose point was to encourage kids to do well in school? Are you kidding me?!
Fortunately for us, we, the people are smart enough to recognize a desperate attempt to change the subject when we see one.
70 comments:
There are a couple of basic problems with the outrage over this. One is that Kerry served in Vietnam, while most of the current administration didn't. The second is that it wasn't all that long ago that Bush was making insensitive jokes about not being able to find WMDs. Sorry. Republicans don't get to be pissy about this one.
Yup.
While I agree with you, Dan & Wasp Jerky, I also had the reaction of, "O, Kerry, please shut up!" A man who is so humorless as to make Al Gore seem like Robin Williams should leave jokes to others--especially this close to election day. This story came out the SAME DAY that a new report showed that that support for the GOP and Bush among MILITARY PERSONNEL and their FAMILIES is at its lowest in his entire term (and falling) and eclipsed this.
The rightwing blogosphere is trying to flood military families with
"this is what Democrats really think" talk. First Kerry lets himself be swiftboated and now he may do it to the whole party. ARRRHGH!
Dan, you indicated in the comments thread here that you would prefer I come to your blog to discuss your ridiculous assertion that Christians who believe war to be morally permissible even occasionally do so in clear defiance of the Lordship of Jesus Christ.
Okay, then.
I'm just not sure which thread would be most appropriate for that discussion. Would it be the one with the Two Minutes Hate that passes for poetry?
I'll set up a new post to address it specifically, Bubba. Thanks for dropping by.
"Two Minutes Hate"?
Would you say the same about the prophets when they condemn oppression?
I penned:
"Damn your god!
Who preaches war
That corporate whore
That distorts scripture
So the rich can get richer
On the backs of the poor"
Do you not think that any god that preaches war, is a corporate whore, that distorts scripture so the rich can exploit the poor is NOT a god worth damning?
Dan, I look forward to that entry, but I stand by what I said about that poem. I disagree with your assessment of those who believe that war is sometimes morally permissible and those who hold property rights as inviolable, but we could agree to disagree, except for the simple fact that that poem betrays a near-murderous hatred for your idealogical enemies.
Hatred... and pride. It takes cajones to presume that you're so clearly right in your beliefs that you can take the same rhetorical liberties that the prophets took, that you can throw at others the harsh words Christ had for the Pharisees.
Bubba: "a near-murderous hatred"
Touchy, touchy. Could it be you're letting your preconceptions color your reading a tad?
We had a perfectly good God
Prince of Peace
Making a feast
For ALL God's children
Black, white, straight, gay
Preparing the Way
Good God! We had a Good God
And you killed him
It is not "touchy" to see in lines like these a hatred that borders on the sociopathic. Preconceptions that lead a person to question the emotional health of someone who rants about deicide aren't extraordinary: they're quite rational.
I should be clear that I think people could think similar things about other groups -- about Christian liberals for supporting what they believe to be the murder of the unborn and the desecration of the human body, or about jihadists for murdering people when somebody somewhere utters anything they don't like. I could find intellectual common ground with both of these positions, but it would still be the case that writing such a viscerally angry poem about either group, railing about how either group had murdered God, would and ought to be seriously disturbing.
That there aren't people telling Dan here to calm down and unclench is almost as disturbing and is a good indication that there are many, many people who are lost in the fever swamp of unrelenting rage toward their political adversaries, people who have let their emotions overwhelm their charity and their common sense.
You argue that there are good times for the organized mass murder we call war -- but the sentiment "shame on you and shame on your God" borders on sociopathic?
You're going to have to do some impressive philosophical backflips to make that a rational position. In my opinion. You might disagree with Dan as to the severity of the madness which has consumed the Bush cult, but declaring his position "near-murderous" is indefensible. Again, in my opinion.
Cat, I made clear which sentiment I find to betray a near-sociopathic hatred, and it's not "shame on you and shame on your god."
It's "you murdered God."
It's not the intellectual position that war is always wrong that's so disturbing, but the emotional state from which a person can write about others, even using poetic license, "they murdered God."
I would hope that I wouldn't have to remind you that that sentiment has been used in other circumstances to justify quite evil behavior.
As for the insinuation that it's far worse for me to believe that war is occasionally morally permissible, I will remind you that it appears that both Paul and the writer of Ecclesiastes took the same position, as have Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and countless other Christian writers.
You want to argue that the Apostle Paul was sociopathic because of what he wrote in Romans 13? Be my guest, but you would sound ridiculous doing so.
Bubba: "a near-murderous hatred"
Since you haven't made any attempt to defend this statement, I think it's only fair to point out that you're now backpedaling to make yourself sound more reasonable.
And, again, you might think that it's an overstatement on Dan's part, but when responding to the hateful cult that has become the public face of American Christianism . . . when responding to people who say things like "blow them all away, in the name of the Lord" -- and when responding to those who call themselves Christians but say nothing when their leaders use such language . . .
In the face of that kind of behavior, to accuse Dan of sociopathic behavior because you disagree with his choice of words is a wee bit dishonest. Perhaps you don't take the corruption of the Christian faith as seriously as he does?
Bubba: "As for the insinuation that it's far worse for me to believe that war is occasionally morally permissible"
I said nothing of the sort. I'm only pointing out that you're attempting to rationalize actual physical violence while simultaneously calling out somebody over a violent metaphor. Address that, not some "insinuation" that you choose to read into my words.
It takes some kind of bizarre taste to think that poem worthy of posting, in my opinion. What about thinking upon things that are lovely, of good report and that would promote peaceful thoughts instead of wanting to stir up unholy passions?
Cat, your comment does not make much sense.
1) I'm not backpedaling, and I did defend my assessment of the hatred on display in Dan's poem, first by pointing out which specific passage prompted that assessment (the "you killed God" nonsense), and second by reminding you that other people have used the "God-killer" accusation to justify very wicked behavior.
2) You can't decide whether words are important or not. You believe Dan is right to criticize those "who say things like 'blow them all away, in the name of the Lord'" -- that those who do so are part of a "hateful cult" of "Christianism."
(That last is a term, I might add, that says less about the person to whom its applied than it does about the self-righteous demagogue who uses it.)
But God forbid I criticize Dan for "his choice of words." If I do that, I'm apparently being dishonest.
The message is clear: Your political opponents can be judged and judged harshly by the words they use. Your friends are immune from such criticism.
3) There is no inconsistency in believing that the use of violence is sometimes -- albeit rarely -- morally justifiable while believing that words sometimes betray an unhealthy animosity towards others.
The belief that war is sometimes just does not preclude the belief that things like purjury and obscenities are immoral; to suggest otherwise is to argue from outrage.
You ask, rhetorically I suppose:
Perhaps you don't take the corruption of the Christian faith as seriously as he does?
I have no idea how seriously Dan Trabue takes the corruption of the Christian faith, though I imagine he thinks he takes it very seriously. And yet, he finds it easy to accuse his political opponents of murdering God; even accounting for poetic license, such a statement is troubling, and it suggests that neither he nor his apologists are in much of a position to criticize anyone else on the basis of spiritual or moral corruption.
Bubba, at no point have I questioned your right to take issue with Dan's choice of words. However, you have yet to defend your use of the words "near-murderous" in any fashion -- unless your intent is to justify them by comparing Dan to Hitler?
There's a difference between talking about violence done to one's own faith, and advocating or committing violence on others. The fact that you disagree with him over the severity of the problem -- or, apparently, that you deny the problem exists at all -- doesn't make the comment "near-murderous."
"That last is a term, I might add, that says less about the person to whom its applied than it does about the self-righteous demagogue who uses it."
I see. So for me to refer to "Christianism" makes me a "self-righteous demagogue" . . . would you have preferred it if I ascribed these abhorrent views to Christianity? Because I personally detest it when I hear people speak of Christianity in those terms.
It seems like you're very fond of smearing those you don't agree with by assigning them some sort of hyperbolic label. So far, Dan's a Hitleresque sociopath and I'm a self-righteous demagogue. How, in your view, does your behavior differ from that which you're criticizing?
Lemme guess: Because you're right and we're wrong?
Yes. I find this behavior dishonest. You start from a point of arguing that the choice of words has a deep and troubling meaning, and now you're comparing words that you don't agree with to genocide. If no one else, you seem to be fooling yourself.
Wow. Guy's gone for a while and look what happens.
Thank you Cat for speaking up so kindly for me. I'm truly touched.
I just got home from a long trip and will be leaving again shortly. I'm tired and would like to talk more but I'm going to bed shortly, I hope.
Let me say this, brother Bubba: I believe that it is fairly orthodox Christian teaching that says we all killed Jesus, that we crucify Jesus all over again when we deny his teachings.
To the degree that I believe some have denied - rejected - the teachings of the Christ, I feel that they/we/I have participated again in the killing of my God. A condition calling for repentence.
Like Brother Catastrophile, I'm unclear how you get from that point to my being "near-murderous" or even "hatred."
Look to the Psalms, where the psalmists would often call for God to visit (sometimes brutal) judgement upon their oppressors.
I'm not even going that far, I'm just damning the god who would support the killing of innocents and theh oppression of the poor and saying shame on those who'd support that god.
Again I'd ask, couldn't we agree that such a god should be damned and such supporters should feel shame?
Cat, I would hope you realize that not every person who displays murderous hatred is comparable to the Fuhrer. Hitler is not the only person in human history guilty of murder; how in the world do you justify skipping over Cain, David, Saul/Paul, Brutus, John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, and the Menendez brothers to go straight to Adolph Hitler?
On what logical basis do you assert that I'm "comparing words that you don't agree with to genocide"?
It seems to me that you vindicate my suggesting that you're a demagogue.
I'll remind you that, in Matthew 5:21-22, Jesus implies that hatred is morally equivalent to murder itself. I did not assert and I do not believe that Dan here has murderous intentions or plans, but I do believe the "you killed God" line does betray a hatred of his political opponents that rises to the level of a murderous hatred.
I suppose I should have admitted at the beginning that I've been guilty of such hatred myself, wishing that really bad things would happen to people I didn't like. But that makes it no less sinful or sociopathic.
Dan, you're absolutely right to bring up the theological truth that we killed Christ.
"We" killed Christ. There's a world of difference between the first person and the second person; the use of "we" encourages humility and contrition, the use of "you" encourages dehumanizing hatred.
I believe that if someone had written a similar poem from the other side -- asserting that people who support keeping abortion legal killed Jehovah and worship a god worthy of damnation because their actions lead to the killing of innocents -- you would be troubled by the animosity displayed by that poet.
It does seem to me that you exhibit a great deal of pride if you're so confident in your positions that you continue to compare yourself to Old Testament prophets. The problem is, at most an insignificant number of Americans actually do support the killing of innocents and the oppression of the poor. With the former, you miss the fact that the American military has been working very hard to avoid civilian casualties; and the latter is nothing more than a Marxist talking point.
For all the discussion about my reading undue animosity in your writing, I don't think I'm the one arguing in bad faith.
People who believe that war is sometimes necessary no more support "the killing of innocents" than people who believe that imprisonment is sometimes necessary support the imprisonment of innocent men. Like wrongful imprisonment, civilian casualties are an unavoidable consequence of imperfect human governments' trying to fight internal and external threats to security. These consequences are terrible, which is why we craft a justice system that seeks to minimize wrongful convictions and why we much of the billions of dollars we spend on defense goes into developing precision weaponry.
But sometimes these negative consequences are a price worth paying. I'm not interested in discussing here the specifics of Iraq or any other war; I simply believe that sometimes war is the least bad option.
For holding that position, people like me are slandered as a war-monger who actively desires the murder of innocent civilians and who worships a bloodthirsty god.
And then Dan asks if the slandered should feel shame, with no indication that the one doing the slandering has anything but a clear conscience.
Amen, bubba. There's a difference in the tone of your post and some others on here.
Y'know, Mom22, for someone who apparently wants to sway the world to her brand of religion, you certainly don't advertise well.
Personally, I'm in the "war is sometimes, very unfortunately, necessary" camp, so on this issue you can't accuse me of an ideological bias against you.
I find it hilarious that you come here, no blog of your own, and purse your mouth at Dan for blogging and commenting on others' blogs. You don't really have anything to say, just "Yeah, what he said!" when you hear a tune that catches your ear. I think you win the prize for being uncharitable and sour, not to mention humourless.
You've always got your knickers in a knot defending God's honour, as if God isn't a big boy who can survive the rough and tumble of his own creation.
Put some honey in your tea... (or whatever ;-) and relax. At the very least, remember that you're more likely to catch flies with honey than vinegar.
Not this gadfly, though!
Well said Madcap!
Me thinks Mom2 is Bubba's momma. I met them back in July of 05 when I challenged Bubba, aka Anonymous,on the Mainstream Baptist blog to go immediately to his local recruiter and enlist. I see he is still sitting at his computer screen debating war while kids like my son are being deployed twice, thrice, four times and more. Shame on him.
What about thinking upon things that are lovely, of good report and that would promote peaceful thoughts instead of wanting to stir up unholy passions?
Exactly. Let's all meditate on the following:
Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones. - Psalms 137:9
Behold, I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces. - Malachi 2:3
There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses. - Ezekial 23:20
The righteous will be glad when they are avenged, when they bathe their feet in the blood of the wicked. - Psalm 58:10
Jolly stuff, that.
Marty, one can support a rigorous enforcement of the law without his become a cop; one can support the public funding of a fire department without his becoming a firefighter. Chicken-hawk argumentation is, I believe, intellectually hollow -- an obviously partisan rhetorical attack made in bad faith.
Since you insist on presuming things about the private lives of people you've never met, let me say that I do not know mom2 on a personal level. My mother died of cancer in April of 2004.
I do not know what it feels like to have one's adult son enlist and be sent to war, just as you have no idea about what I've gone through in my admittedly short life. We should thus both be considerate and charitable toward each other.
I don't believe I have ever made any assumptions about your private life; I would appreciate if the favor were returned.
And, to my credit, I do not make light of the sacrifices that the men and women of our military are willing to make in defending our country. In return, I would ask that you drop your rather nasty habit of using your son's service as a bludgeon against those who do not join you in your uncompromising opposition to this (and apparently every) war.
Bubba, Mom2 seems to follow you around defending you quite often. I just came to a logical conclusion.
Sorry about your mom. I truly am.
But I make no apology for encouraging young men who support the war to go fight it.
"we, the people are smart enough to recognize a desperate attempt to change the subject when we see one."
...but not smart enough to recognize a first-class boor when he opens his mouth. Instead you leap to his defense; defending the indefensible, and making excuses for Kerry's bad behavior.
"...the madness which has consumed the Bush cult"
I am simply amazed at the level of blind hypocrisy in that one statement! Can you not see the madness that has consumed the Democratic party? Obviously not. If you could you'd see the Democratic party is no better than the Thuggie's of India... a death cult if ever there was one. You dare call those who appreciate George W. Bush as mad adherents consumed by cult-like worship? When the Democratic party all but worships at the shrine of the aborted foetus? One has to be both blind AND depraved to cling to THAT tuft of grass!
With the possible of exception of Bubba and Mom2 does anyone here actually understand Christianity? I wonder.
Bubba, I'm looking for some logical connection between your initial characterization of Dan's poem as "near-murderous" and your supporting statement: "that sentiment has been used in other circumstances to justify quite evil behavior." If you're not referring to the most famous example -- the Holocaust -- then you should probably be more specific.
On that topic, since you believe in the concept of justifiable war . . . can you give me an example of a war fought in the last hundred years which the aggressor didn't claim was justified?
elashley: "I am simply amazed at the level of blind hypocrisy in that one statement! Can you not see the madness that has consumed the Democratic party?"
That's really quite a comical conclusion to jump to. Anyone who opposes Bush must be a Democrat?
elashley: "You dare call those who appreciate George W. Bush as mad adherents consumed by cult-like worship?"
Actually, I didn't define the Bush cult as including those who "appreciate" Bush. But if you want to lump yourself in with the mad adherents, I certainly won't stop you.
elashley: "When the Democratic party all but worships at the shrine of the aborted foetus?"
I wonder if bubba will take a moment to comment on what sort of mental disturbances (if any) he chooses to read into this rhetoric?
hen the Democratic party all but worships at the shrine of the aborted foetus?
As opposed to worshipping at the shrine of the dead Iraqi?
Thanks, Marty. You're free to encourage those who support this war to enlist; I simply object to the idea that a civilian cannot logically support this war and remain a civilian. I think chicken-hawk argumentation is a distraction from the main issues: is war ever morally justifiable, and does this war in particular qualify as morally justifiable?
I think discussing the military service of Bush, Cheney or any supporter of the war is a digression.
Cat, I may be mistaken, but I've always been under the impression that the accusation that the Jews murdered Christ was NOT a major motivator behind the Nazi Holocaust. It had more to do with modern theories of eugenics and with the supposed racial superiority of the Aryans.
I believe the slander of "Christ killer" did motivate many instances of anti-Semitism, I just don't count the Holocaust as a major example of hatred motivated by that particular charge. I stand to be corrected, and I perhaps should have been clearer on that point. Nevertheless, you should have brought up earlier what made you think I was talking about genocide, because otherwise the leap from hatred to genocide seemed utterly unjustifiable.
On that topic, since you believe in the concept of justifiable war . . . can you give me an example of a war fought in the last hundred years which the aggressor didn't claim was justified?
It's an irrelvant question because morality is an objective truth. Let's suppose that every side in every war thought they were right; that's no proof that they're all wrong.
And let me address your somewhat sneering rhetorical question:
I wonder if bubba will take a moment to comment on what sort of mental disturbances (if any) he chooses to read into [elashley's] rhetoric?
I think it's wrong for Dan to assert that his political opponents worship a bloodthirsty god; I also think it's wrong for Elashley to assert that his political opponents "all but worships at the shrine of the aborted foetus?" And, it's wrong for Wasp Jerky to reply that Republicans are guilty of "worshipping at the shrine of the dead Iraqi?"
Surely I'm not the only one who thinks idolatry is a serious accusation.
But I suppose you're implying that I would be inconsistent if I didn't read more into these latter two comments, but you miss my repeating what specific comment of Dan's got my attention.
Neither Elashley or Wasp Jerky has accused anyone else of murdering Jehovah.
Dan wrote a poem that does strike me as an expression of hatred of his political opponents, and in that poem he accused them of killing God. I object, and my objection is what is so offensive to you, not the accusation?
That ought to be shocking, but I won't soon forget your referring to the "hateful cult" of "Christianism". You, Dan, and Wasp are so far in your radicalism that hardly any hateful comment directed toward your enemies goes too far, and no criticism of those comments is permitted.
The sooner Dan opens the thread about the morality of war, the better, because I'd rather not spend more time visiting this fever swamp than I must.
I have to disagree with your premise that one need not personally partake in what one advocates. In order for any message to have integrity, the one who delivers it ought to live by it. Ghandi thought so, Jesus apparently thought so.
That's what makes politicians and celebrities so laughable. Rarely do they put out. That's what makes someone like Jean Vanier a force to be reckoned with. He's right there in the thick of it all, not avoiding anything he advocates. When he speaks, I know I'm getting the real deal. He can be taken seriously.
So, if you want me to garden for food, you'd better be digging the dirt yourself, or you're a hypocrite. If you want me to give up a petroleum-heavy lifestyle, you can't preach to me from the front-seat of your pickup on your way to the pizza joint. And if you think this is a just war, and you're eligible to serve, you ought to be out there alongside.
As to your fireman analogy - in a small town, where the masses can't pay off a segment of the population to do all the dirty work, we all do take on the fireman's hat, or any of those other difficult jobs that must be done.
A couple of years ago, when there was a huge forest fire in our area, it was fought by a majority of local residents, including our local volunteer fire crews. They worked round the clock, and there were other people working round the clock to feed them. All volunteer. In our last town, the reeve was out repairing the sewer when the line broke. And no extra pay, mind you. Only in such a bloated, disgustingly overgrown, urban society do so many get to avoid so much.
I sincerely doubt that every small town has a completely volunteer police force and sanitation department. Those who serve as firemen, police officers, and even garbage collectors deserve our thanks, but there's nothing intrinsically immoral in supporting these people and their work while not personally joining them in every situation.
In a complex society, each of us will depend on others to do jobs that we do not do. More people eat meat than are butchers; more eat salads than are farmers; and more are operated on than are surgeons. To deny this, or to demand that someone who could become a doctor must become a doctor in order for him to support having a free clinic for the homeless, is juvenile.
It's a distraction; the more imprtant issues are, is war ever justifiable, and is this war an instance of a just war?
A distraction? Are you serious?
I suppose it's a distraction in the same way Ted Haggard's conduct is a distraction from the issue of whether or not gay sex is immoral. His congregation doesn't seem to think so. They seem to think that there needs to be a correlation between the preach and the lifestyle. And that's why he's a laughingstock now, because his lifestyle gave the lie to his words.
Theory is only useful insofar as it's practicable.
Perhaps it's an outdated fashion of honour, that you'd want to walk your talk in order to garner credibility for your position. How silly.
Yes, I DO think that everyone should be contributing to the real, physical needs of our communities. We should all have a trade, something we make that feeds/clothes/houses the folk. No, we don't all need to be butchers. The non-butchers should make shoes, cure leather, spin yarn, make clothes, cook food, etc. Preferably we should all meet our own needs as much as possible.
My grandparents and great-grandparents lived that way. It's my goal, though I'm still far, far short of it; I'm moving in that direction inch by inch. Trying to walk my talk.
Never mind. Go on spinning your theory. I'm sure it's one of those high and lonely destinies that I just couldn't undertand.
Bubba: "I object, and my objection is what is so offensive to you, not the accusation?"
I believe I've already pointed out that it's not your disagreement that I'm taking issue with. I asked you to support your use of the words "near-murderous" in characterizing the lines you take exception to.
Bubba: "I won't soon forget your referring to the 'hateful cult' of 'Christianism'."
I ask again: Do you prefer to have those who invoke the name of Christ to justify oppression and murder, referred to as Christians? If you do, say so. If not . . . what do you call them?
Bubba: "I simply object to the idea that a civilian cannot logically support this war and remain a civilian."
I think Steve Gilliard at
The News Blog says it best:
"If you will not serve in Iraq, and no one you know will serve, stop expecting someone else to do what you will not.
Therefore, it is time to stop calling for more troops, or the US to make Iraq safe. We cannot do this and even Americans are refusing to join the fight. It is time to look at your actions and realize, that despite your ideals, you oppose continuing this war. In practical terms, you have decided that this war is not worth your life or anyone you know. And millions of Americans have joined you in this decision.
So, with this fact evident, it is time to call for US troops to withdraw from Iraq. Not save it, not add more boots on the ground. You have already voted by your actions. It is time that you match it with your words."
This is exactly what my son was talking about when he said that the policies of this administration and the LACK of SUPPORT from the American people had already lost this war.
Hi all. Thanks for the interesting commentary going on in my absence. I'm at a bit of a loss as to where to begin...
How about this:
"Dan wrote a poem that does strike me as an expression of hatred of his political opponents, and in that poem he accused them of killing God."
Allow me to point out that I suppose I DID accuse those who support a bloodthirsty, evil god of killing Jesus and that I stand by that. I never mentioned my "political opponents," but if the shoe fits...
In fact, I summed it up by saying, "And shame on us all - to the degree that we worship at this god's feet."
And again, I repeat, if the shoe fits my political opponents, my friends or me, then indeed, we should be shamed.
Does this mean I hate my political opponents, my friends or me? I wouldn't suppose so.
One difference between pacifists making such strong statements and war-supporters making them, is that war-as-solution supporters have indicated that they believe killing "the enemy" and many of those around them is an acceptable way of dealing with "evil" people. People who commit deicide, for instance.
The pacifist, on the other hand, has said that we must find a way to resolve the problems peaceably. And so using strong language is designed to shock people into action, as well as to simply express a prayerful outrage at injustice.
And that is a big difference, seems to me.
Talk about DISTORTION...!
You should be happy! Now Algore is the only viable leftist wacko hopeful for the Dems in '08!
Madcap, may I say that I've enjoyed reading your perspective on all this. Thanks for the comments.
I agree with both you and Miss Marty that it is entirely reasonable to expect that most of those who are of age and who support this war to enlist. I'd further say that those who support this war and who are not of age ought to be working to change the rules so they could enlist, too.
It's important that those who believe in war-as-solution and who support a particular military action to enlist because if our leaders (who remain largely untouched by their warring) decide to wage a war that has NO popular support, that war WILL be a disastrous failure.
Even if you believe in war-as-solution - ESPECIALLY if you believe in war-as-solution - you're going to have to agree that you need popular support for a war. In a democracy, no support for a war means failure for that war and the costs for war failures is huge.
Dan, since you are posting again, perhaps we could return to the reason I'm even subjecting you and me to my presence here?
Over at Daniel Randle's blog, you accused those who believe that war is sometimes morally permissible of being disobedient to the clear teachings of Jesus Christ, and you framed the issue by invoking the criterion of WWJD. I believe that you presented a loaded version of that criterion, and I proved the point by showing that your rhetoric would render immoral obviously permissible behavior.
To wit, you wrote the following:
"My only remaining question, Miss Marilyn, Bubba, is the already asked: What Would Jesus Do?
"If asking that question before we take actions means that we're not believing and following in Jesus' Way, well then it's a rather upside down world.
"If your answer is, Yes, Jesus would bomb innocent children and bystanders, then I'd suggest you're following another Jesus than the one preached in the Bible (and I would rebuke THAT murderous Jesus in the name of Christ)."
I showed that the same sort of argumentation can make illegitimate any prison system, since no system can guarantee against wrongful convictions...
"What would Jesus do? Would he support a system that permits the wrongful imprisonment of utterly innocent men?
"If your answer is, Yes, Jesus would imprison innocent men, then I'd suggest you're following another Jesus than the one preached in the Bible, and I would rebuke THAT tyrannical Jesus in the name of Christ."
...or even amputating a man's leg without an anesthetic.
"What would Jesus do? If your answer is, Yes, Jesus would take a knife and cut off the man's leg -- first cutting through skin, then muscle, finally through bone and sinew, all while the man is screaming at the top of his lungs -- the I would suggest that you're following another Jesus than the one preached in the Bible.
"And I would rebuke THAT sadistic Jesus in the name of Christ."
In several subsequent comments, you had no substantive response, except to assert without explanation that the amputation analogy is a "poor analogy."
I don't think it's all that poor an analogy, but the point is not to show that war is analogous to an amputation: it's simply to show that the criterion you upheld at Daniel's blog (or at least how you presented that criterion) is not a trustworthy guide for moral behavior because it would cause us to label some moral acts as immoral.
If there is a good argument for why Christians must always oppose all wars, you didn't present it at Daniel's blog.
Now would be a good time to start.
I'm sorry Bubba for not responding sooner. Life sometimes takes precedence over blogging...
You asked:
"If there is a good argument for why Christians must always oppose all wars, you didn't present it"
It is self-evident to most people that when a God commands you to love your enemies and to overcome evil with good, then it would be difficult to kill them while loving them and overcoming their evil with good.
I'd propose that this is what I, the early church and I'd suppose a majority of humanity think of when they hear Jesus say these words. Call us crazy, but killing an enemy seems counterintuitive to loving them.
Now, as to unanswered questions, I don't believe you answered mine: Do you think Jesus would drop bombs on an enemy - knowing in the process that he'd be killing innocent men, women and children - in order to stop that enemy?
How does that quote go? Jesus is obviously a pacifist to everyone except Christians?
Your amputation analogy? The problem there is the doctor is taking action upon one person, in these days, generally with their permission, to save their life. It is that patient's call on his own fate.
War, on the other hand, is one entity deciding to kill others' without their permission. For that reason alone, it is a poor analogy for war.
Your prison analogy? Again, it breaks down as a comparison to war because of all the damage done to innocent bystanders.
It is entirely reasonable to take actions to stop dangerous people. I can do that and still love them. I've some experience in dealing with folk with mental issues and violence issues. I had a dear friend that we had to take a EPO out on. And I can do that in love.
I could send a person to prison in love, as it may be the best place for that person to be at a given time in their life. But I can't kill a person in love.
For traditionalist Christians, I'd think it would be even harder to kill someone you believe to be evil to death, inasmuch as you're saying, "to hell with you." I can't see doing that in love, which we are commanded to do.
If you want to rely upon a gov't, Bubba, insofar as you think the gov't has been ordained to "bear the sword," then believe that if you wish. But until you could offer some explanation of how one can kill a person in love and overcome their evil with good by killing them, then I can't see how you can adhere to Christ's teachings and encourage war - especially a non-defensive war. A chosen war.
Understand, we must strive to stop wrong-doing. But we believers must do so within the parameters we were given.
Give me a little more time and I could respond further, or there you have my brief explanation.
Bubba: "sometimes protecting people entails killing the man threatening them, sometimes letting an enemy live allows him to murder other innocent people."
As a point of curiosity, do you consider it a righteous thing to kill another, if your murder prevents him from killing another?
I think such behavior -- say, killing someone to protect your family -- would be perfectly human, but not particularly Christlike.
We are weak -- human -- and prone to using evil acts to our own ends, and this is something to be understood and acknowledged . . . but certainly not admired.
Would a man be justified in killing one to save another? Possibly. But to do only what we can rationalize philosophically is not Christ's law. What we aspire to is to let our own works only do good -- not to use the evil of others to justify our acts.
Christ did say that we need to submit to secular authority. That hardly constitutes an endorsement of war. Jesus stayed the hand that held the sword, when the Romans came -- and healed the wounded soldier. Could the disciples have justified fighting back? Sure. But that was not the mission.
Again in Romans 13 -- read the passage. Paul says that governments are there because God has placed them there, and we must submit to their authority. Does that mean that all actions taken by governments are inherently good? (Mind you, that would include the massacre for which Saddam Hussein was sentenced to death.) Or does it mean that governments will try us, and we must not let these trials sway us from the righteous path?
Bubba: "There is clearly more in the New Testament about watching our language"
There's also plenty of incendiary language in the New Testament.
"What you would need to do is not simply explain how amputation and prison is sometimes morally permissible, but how they could possibly be justified with the loaded criterion you give here."
I did briefly cover this: The amputation is done in hopes of saving someone's life and it's done at the individual level. Similarly for the imprisonment, it's done at the individual level, it's done to punish an individual perpetrator and can be done in hopes of rehabilitation in addition to penalization.
I can clearly see Jesus stopping a thief (that Jesus loves) and sending him to prison, telling the thief that he needs to serve his time, but he can use it as a time to turn his life around.
I can't see Jesus shooting the thief.
But let me back up a bit. Maybe it's the word, "pacifism" that's disturbing you, Bubba. Set it aside.
Jesus clearly tells us to love our enemies. The fact that he taught us other stuff doesn't negate that teaching.
Clearly, peacemakers agree with you that we can't let oppression go unchecked. But Christian peacemakers (and others who accept the teachings of Jesus) want to do so without committing evil ourselves.
I can work at finding ways to stop an oppressive leader like Saddam and that is as it should be. But as soon as I start killing innocent people - children! - I am clearly no longer following the teachings of Jesus.
Now, I'm not so sure of myself as to say that I'm ready to condemn every single war situation. I can't see myself trying to kill people, but in a situation where people are trying to defend themselves from an actual invading force (the Contra terrorists in Nicaragua attacking villages, for instance), then I can understand people trying to defend themselves.
But when we start firebombing cities, killing innocents, then WE are participating in an evil. If you want to make the argument that it is a necessary evil, then start from that position. But we must understand that killing innocents IS always an evil.
Your assertion that I'm discounting scripture is not sound. I've pointed out, as has Catastrophile, that Paul saying that the gov't is used by God to wield the sword is not the same thing as an endorsement for Christians to do the same.
Now, I apologize for any folk who aren't all that interested in inter-church squabbling. It's an ugly and boring thing, I know.
Bubba said:
"and you furthermore pat yourself on the back for doing so, displaying tremendous hubris and comparing yourself to an Old Testament prophet."
Bubba, do you ever have things you believe are basic Christian doctrines? Do you ever feel a need to address heretical statements when you hear them? People who say that God is A, when you believe the Bible says God is Z?
Do you ever strongly want to stop oppression when you see it happening? Do you believe in addressing these issues boldly?
I understand that you disagree with me. But you should understand that, IF I think some folk are portraying God in a seriously dangerous way, I'd be wrong NOT to stand up strongly to them.
For instance, consider the Muslims who say that God is a vengeful God who wants his followers to kill all the Great Satan followers - Kill their children and cut off their heads.
Tell me: Do you let those sort of lies about God be told or do you tell everyone that this Allah of the extremists is NOT God?
I'm saying that this Jesus who endorses pre-emptive wars, who oppresses the poor and kills innocents is NOT God. And I won't apologize for saying so using strong language.
Cat, you ask, "do you consider it a righteous thing to kill another, if your murder prevents him from killing another?"
I'm not sure such an act qualifies as murder: not all acts of killing are acts of murder, you presume that an act is evil, which you and Dan do a lot.
You write, "What we aspire to is to let our own works only do good -- not to use the evil of others to justify our acts."
Again, there is this presumption that war is inherently an evil act, a presumption that I do not believe can be justified by either Testament.
You note, correctly, that the Apostles' fighting back in Gethsemane would have hindered Christ's mission; that is hardly proof that the use of violent force is always and in all places forbidden by God.
I have read Romans 13, and Paul writes that the government's authority includes the use of force: "He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer."
Do I think every government act is just? OF COURSE NOT. I believe that some wars are just, not all.
And, certainly, the New Testament has incendiary language, but it's also clear that we should watch ours, and it's much clearer on this subject than it is on warfare.
Dan, you miss my point.
I'm not asking for a justification for either amputation or imprisonment, as I believe that both are sometimes morally permissible. What I want to know is, how could either act hold up under the loaded way in which you ask, what would Jesus do?
I submit that neither could and that therefore the way you have been asking the question is illegitimate.
I also believe that you confuse military acts in which the deaths of civilian casualties are an undesirable but unavoidable consequence and those in which such deaths are the goal.
Let me offer an analogy: on the subject of imprisonment, you write, "I can clearly see Jesus stopping a thief (that Jesus loves) and sending him to prison, telling the thief that he needs to serve his time, but he can use it as a time to turn his life around."
The problem is this: since we are not omniscient, we can't possibly know with 100% certainty whether the accused is guilty of a crime. No matter the safeties we put in place -- trial by jury, protection from self-incrimination, the presumption of innocence, a lengthy appeals process -- we cannot guarantee that an innocent man won't be wrongly imprisoned. While we ought to ensure that such things are rare, they are unavoidable if we want to honor the duty to enforce the law.
There's another analogy I'm sure you won't like. We're commanded to feed the poor, but do that long enough, and you're gonna kill someone. A soup kitchen that is open long enough and feeding enough people will eventually either cause food poisoning or will trigger some hidden but deadly allergy.
An innocent man who dies from food poisoning from a Christian soup kitchen has two similarities with an innocent man who died during a war: both are innocent, and both have been killed. On the subject of imperfect soup kitchens, do you dare write, "this Jesus who endorses the killing of innocents is NOT God"?
Of course not: it's only the subject of war where we see such demagogery.
You write, "Jesus clearly tells us to love our enemies. The fact that he taught us other stuff doesn't negate that teaching."
True, but the teachings can sometimes conflict: our love for neighbors A, B, and C may compel us to use deadly force against the murderous neighbor D, despite our love for him.
A man who does not think that our Biblical duties can sometimes conflict is not one who is facing reality head-on.
And you write, "Paul saying that the gov't is used by God to wield the sword is not the same thing as an endorsement for Christians to do the same."
True, so far as it goes, but nowhere does the Bible prohibit Christian participation in government. Who better than a mature Christian to take responsibility for deciding when and how the government uses force? Who better to fight our enemies than one who acknowledges our duty to love them?
Perhaps my position can be best explained with a quote from Teddy Roosevelt:
"Barbarism has, and can have, no place in a civilized world. It is our duty toward the people living in barbarism to see that they are freed from their chains, and we can free them only by destroying barbarism itself. The missionary, the merchant, and the soldier may each have to play a part in this destruction, and in the consequent uplifting of the people. Exactly as it is the duty of a civilized power scrupulously to respect the rights of all weaker civilized powers and gladly to help those who are struggling toward civilization, so it is its duty to put down savagery and barbarism. As in such a work human instruments must be used, and as human instruments are imperfect, this means that at times there will be injustice; that at times merchant or soldier, or even missionary, may do wrong. Let us instantly condemn and rectify such wrong when it occurs, and if possible punish the wrongdoer. But shame, thrice shame to us, if we are so foolish as to make such occasional wrongdoing an excuse for failing to perform a great and righteous task." [emphasis mine]
Civilian casualties are a regrettable thing; for that reason war ought to be rare. It's probably not rare enough: not all wars are just.
Nevertheless, wars are sometimes morally permissible and perhaps even necessary.
Dan, you seem to leave open at least the possibility that some wars are just, writing, "I'm not so sure of myself as to say that I'm ready to condemn every single war situation."
Good. Such humility is a good place to start.
I would suggest you take that humble admission and go further:
1) Acknowledge that all acts committed by imperfect humans with their limited knowledge have unintended consequences: even the soup kitchen can kill in cases of food poisoning or allergies.
2) Acknowledge the difference between unintended but unavoidable civilian casualties and the deliberate killing of innocents.
3) Acknowledge that the way you've been framing this issue has been unfair, that such a framing would put a negative spin even on obviously moral acts.
We can agree to disagree about the particulars of any specific war; you can even hold to a belief that war is always wrong, if you acknowledge that you're stepping outside the clear teaching of Scripture to do so.
But in no way are you justified in smearing those who believe that war is sometimes just as men who are clearly disobedient to the Bible. Had you never engaged in such slander, I would have never insisted on continuing this discussion.
Drop the slander, and we can both move on.
But I DO believe that folk who insist on using war as a solution AND WHO SAY that doing so is a Christian thing are clearly wrong according to the Bible. What would you have me do? Ignore my belief system?
You said, "you seem to leave open at least the possibility that some wars are just"
I'm not sure that I'm going that far at all. I, along with my church, believe that all wars are evil. What I said is that I understand that people of good will - even Christians of good will - may think that there are times that the evil accomplished by war would be lesser than the evil committed by refusing to war and those people may feel a need to go to war, not knowing what else to do.
I'm okay with Christians who are starting from that position - I may disagree with them, but at least we'd be starting from the same point. BUT that point is the position that war is an evil and by choosing to go the route, we would be forced into engaging in evil.
From there, some may say, "The evil I'm choosing by waging war, I do grievously and only because I think a greater evil will be accomplished if we don't wage war." And some of us may say that we will continue to fight evil without embracing evil to do so - knowing that all manner of evil will happen either way.
If we can agree upon that starting point, we can move on. But we'll move on with my continuing to call war an evil. And especially so when the war is especially evil and uncalled for.
Bubba, I don't see anywhere in that chapter where it distinguishes between just and unjust rulers. If you're going to pluck that one verse out of the passage about submitting to authority and call it a justification of war, it certainly seems that it would apply to any war a government chose to start.
On the other hand, if we were to look at the passage as a whole -- such as the very next verse: Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience.
It seems obvious that this is not an allusion to "rights" held by governments, which are not men and do not have souls, but an admonition to people as to how we should act when the government's agents come against us.
Don't fight them! They'll kill you! That's what governments do!
Is that an acquittal of the hands that do the killing? Hardly. But the avalanche and the flood and the hands that do evil are all challenges sent by God, aren't they?
Bubba, I'd ask that you keep in mind your biblical argument, the peacemaking biblical argument and how it sounds to us.
On our side, we have:
Blessed are the peacemakers
Love your enemies
Turn the other cheek
Overcome evil with good
Put away your sword
Do not repay anyone evil for evil.
If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone.
Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace.
Do not repay evil with evil.
For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example that you should follow in his footsteps... When he was insulted, he returned no insult; when he suffered, he did not threaten; instead, he handed himself over to the one who judges justly.
For starters.
On your side, you have a couple of verses that say we ought to submit to the authorities, that they have the power to wield the sword (an argument we don't disagree with, but suggest that this is not normative for Christian behavior).
You have a few other verses (perhaps) that could be construed as supportive of violence for Christians ("I have come to turn brother against brother" "I have not come to bring peace, but a sword," for a couple).
Do you understand how we are not impressed with the argument that says Jesus does support war-as-solution?
"from His mouth a sword"
Literal?
If you choose to envision Jesus as leading tank columns and ordering air strikes, that's your vision. But war takes a good many forms, only a few of them physical. Wars can be fought entirely in the mind and the soul.
Indeed, a war is being fought today, here in the US, with hardly a shot fired.
"Why point merely to the commands to love our enemies and to overcome evil with good, when the former does not imply that we love them to the exclusion of everyone else and when the latter just begs the question?"
Why? Because it seems inherent in to the presupposition.
Let me ask this: The Bible in places indicates that we should be faithful to our spouses. That is the Right.
To be unfaithful would be the Wrong. With me?
But, using your reasoning (If your only options are acts with an evil rating of 3, 6, and 20, choosing the act with rating 3 would not be an evil choice), then unfaithfulness would be an evil - say a "3." BUT leaving your wife for another woman would be an even greater evil - say a "6."
By your reasoning, wouldn't it be easy to justify choosing the lesser evil (which would no longer be an evil) than the greater evil?
I don't really think your rubric is especially helpful.
Having addressed that comment of yours, I'm going to come back with a new post on the Bible, War and Peace to deal with some of your other comments.
Stay tuned...
Dan, that "rubric" was merely an aside, the point being that if one's only options were choices that should all otherwise be avoided but can't, the least evil choice could be considered morally good in those circumstances. But that was a digression.
I have no clue what you mean by, "Because it seems inherent in to the presupposition." It doesn't answer my question, at least not clearly.
Cat, the fact that Revelation almost certainly uses metaphorical language to convey truth doesn't diminish its use of martial imagery.
If war was inherently evil, why is it appropriate to use the imagery of war to describe Christ and His final victory over evil?
Adultery is inherently immoral, so it would be blasphemous to portray Jesus as even a metaphorical adulterer. Ditto with portrayals of Christ as a liar or a thief or a murderer.
But why not Christ as warrior? The simplest answer is, because war is not an intrinsic evil.
I agree that wars can be fought in the soul: if a spiritual war is moral, even though the stakes are eternal and the battleground permanent, why is a physical war intrinsically immoral even though the stakes and the battleground are temporary?
At any rate, I look forward to Dan's upcoming post.
"Adultery is inherently immoral, so it would be blasphemous to portray Jesus as even a metaphorical adulterer."
Ah! A great example!
Allow me to frame my argument thusly, as well.
Killing innocent people is inherently immoral, so it would be blasphemous to portray Jesus as a war-supporter, given the nature of war today.
As then-Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benectdine) said:
There were not sufficient reasons to unleash a war against Iraq. To say nothing of the fact that, given the new weapons that make possible destructions that go beyond the combatant groups, today we should be asking ourselves if it is still licit to admit the very existence of a "just war."
Just as you'd consider it blasphemous to portray Jesus as an adulterer, I find it blasphemous to portray Jesus as one who endorses killing innocent people.
It is, first of all, worth noting that much of our defense spending goes into precision weaponry -- the kind of ordinance that minimizes unintended casualties.
It is, secondly, worth noting that 900 years ago, the crossbow was considered an immoral weapon, so much so that Pope Urban II outlawed it. It's not clear that Urban was right then, and it's not clear that Benedict XIV is right now.
Read carefully before blowing your top:
I'm not sure that it's the case that "killing innocent people is inherently immoral." As I said before, if you have soup kitchens in every city, it's inevitable that -- if they operate long enough and serve enough people -- someone's going to die from food poisoning or from an allergy.
That doesn't make soup kitchens immoral, because the killing of the innocent man was presumably not deliberate.
Intent matters: the deliberate killing of innocent men is the outer bound, here: the boundary may be tighter still, but it's not any more loose.
I'm frankly tired of your rhetorical bait-and-switch, acting as if "war" is defined by "killing innocent people."
It's not, quit acting like it is.
You write, "I find it blasphemous to portray Jesus as one who endorses killing innocent people."
Well, I find it UTTERLY DISHONEST to act as if endorsing war and endorsing killing innocent people are one and the same.
Anyway, let's say that, for the sake of argument, Benedict's suspicion is right and technology has rendered just war impossible. Does that not mean that, prior to modern warfare, just war was possible?
If you're going to argue that war is an intrinsic evil, extrinsic things like the choice of weaponry is irrelevant.
Fists, sticks, clubs, swords, spears, battleaxes, slings, bows, longbows, crossbows, muskets, pistols, rifles, machine guns, grenades, bazookas, horses, tanks, bombers, daisycutters, nukes, phasers, photon torpedos, lightsabers, and the Death Star: if war is always evil, it doesn't matter what's being used to wage it.
Any discussion then about the modern American arsenal is a distraction from the question of whether war is a universal evil.
Let me write further, Dan, about blasphemy:
Just as you'd consider it blasphemous to portray Jesus as an adulterer, I find it blasphemous to portray Jesus as one who endorses killing innocent people.
You didn't directly address the point I made about Revelation 19, which clearly portrays Christ as a warrior.
A lot hinges on whether you think that "war" and "killing innocent people" are synonymous. If you don't think that, this bait-and-switch of yours is quite dishonest.
But if you DO think that, then do you think it's blasphemous to portray Christ as a warrior?
Does that mean you think that Revelation 19 -- that the Bible itself -- is guilty of blasphemy?
This is breaking the chain of this last discussion and I will make it brief. To madcapmom & Marty, I have never met bubba and neither of us has any idea what the other even looks like, but I would gladly claim him as my son. He and I do have the same Father and we share a bond in that relationship. I have no blog because I do not think I have that much to talk about, but I do read a lot of blogs and I did not know there was anything wrong with that or that it was wrong to have an opinion and state it. I have never made it a habit to be a bitter, sour person and don't really know where the attitude toward me came from unless it is because I see things differently than you do.
Marty, I believe your son volunteered for service and for that I thank him and I have prayed for him.
I have been gone for almost a week and am just now getting caught up with reading.
mom2, as a relatively unbiased observer, I would honestly say that you do come across as bitter and uninviting in many of your comments.
I offer that as constructive criticism and with no hateful intent at all.
For what it's worth.
I am always glad for you to come by and comment, even when we disagree.
If I ever were to come to Louisville, I would like to meet you face to face and have you tell me what you just said. I have been a teacher of 4 year olds for 30 years and then took care of old people for about 15 years. I don't think I am looked upon as a bitter, mean spirited person by people who know me. This is some of the things that bubba and I have written about. The caricaturization of people you disagree with, without the knowledge and at the same time, overlooking the way people write, as long as they are on your side.
Now see, that is what I'm talking about. I was offering what I hoped to be a helpful comment about how you come across to people when you write and you respond with a note that sounds like you're angry and attacking.
I have no doubt you're a sweet person. I fully understand that sometimes when we write in this context, tone and context can be somewhat missing. And so, I thought it might help for you to know that you come across as this bitter, mean-spirited person - when I'm sure you're not.
Again, take that for what it's worth.
Thank you for your comments. I will return you the favor. In all fairness, I am sure you are a well liked person also, but as your senior, I believe that you have fallen into deception. There is potential for you if you will take some time alone with Jesus and let Him guide you into all truth.
I am sure that with the election results, you are probably feeling elated. As I was praying one day, I felt that the Lord told me not to worry about the outcome of the election, because He is in control and that I should trust Him. That does not mean that everything is going to be grand, but His Will will be done and His Kingdom shall come. Hang on for the ride!
I see. That's the game we're playing. You automatically know better because you're older. And because you spent thirty years indoctrinating helpless four year olds. And old people. Folks, I notice, you are less able to protect themselves against such lovingkindness. What is it that your scripture says? "Lord, Lord, we did this and that in your name!" and the Lord said, "..." C'mon, now, what did he say? I'm sure you remember it. I do, and I don't even consider it my book.
So, shall we all make a list of the good things we do and claim immunity from dissent because of them?
Manure is manure, whether is being produced by a young cow or an old one.
If you're under the impression that this is the only post of Dan's I've read, you're wrong. I'm here every day, keeping up. And I've seen all the catty asides about "Must be nice to have time to blog. Wish I was some people who have all that time to comment on all these blogs. You must save a lot of time riding your bicycle to be able to spend so much time at your computer." And then on this post: "Amen, bubba. There's a difference in the tone of your post and some others on here." Nasty stuff from such a self-proclaimed nice lady.
And what makes you think that I'm on "Dan's side" or "your side", anyway? Have I expressed a side?
"I have no blog because I do not think I have that much to talk about, but I do read a lot of blogs and I did not know there was anything wrong with that or that it was wrong to have an opinion and state it."
Nothing wrong with it unless you're laying out that other people "must have a lot of time on their hands" because they do the same. I certainly don't doubt that you don't have much to talk about.
You come visit me too, Mom2, and I'll open doors for you, and hold out your chair and give you the biggest porkchop, like I would for my own grandma. And I'll also call your B.S. when I hear it, because I don't engage in the kind of disrespect to the elderly you seem to prefer, the smile-and-nod, yes-dear-I'm-sure-you're-right crapola.
Is that what you're looking for? Or would you prefer to be thought of as someone spritely enough to engage in real debate?
Thank you, madcapmom. You have done some speculating there! Have a nice day and don't worry, I read your blog a few times and didn't bother to comment.
God is, indeed, a merciful God. I appreciate your prayers, though.
Dan, I have been waiting to see your comments about madcap's comments to me, since you rebuked me. Beside the crude remarks made, she is from Canada and what concern is what is going on down here to her?
Crude!? Good heavens, I said "manure", didn't I?
Hosea, 8:7. The chickens came home to roost, Mom2. If you don't want things to get personal, don't get personal. It's like spitting against the wind. I hate that snide, sideways garbage. At least have the honesty to come out and insult Dan "face to face" rather than the poisonous murmuring in the background. We're in a public forum here, not church, you know.
There are no borders in blogging. That's kind of the point. What your plundering country does and thinks, affects the whole world. Even Canada, though we're shamefully complicit.
You have to remember that it works both ways and I have never attacked you, so why do you in your (I will call it honestly) ignorance spout a bunch of stuff about me that is totally untrue. You pretend to know such stuff as that I indoctrinated children and old people and that is low down, mean, untrue, malicious junk. I have not been this worked up before, but if you can dish it out, you can take it too. I notice by your age that your are young enough to be my grandchild, so if I would have had one of my own be as disrespectful as you, they would have gone to the woodshed.
C'mon over to my blog, and you can take me behind the woodshed if you like, old dear. I won't trouble Dan with this anymore.
If I had ever (which I have not even posted to you) attacked you, I could understand a little bit, but you do not know me from Eve and all that stuff you posted is just garbage and it is ridiculous. I am done now also and I will not even look at your site.
Post a Comment