Chinwendu's tears

It looks like Randal Rauser is now accusing me of the following:

Do you agree with me as well that it is inappropriate to put a picture of my daughter on the triablogue website? I love to debate, and I have had all sorts of people on my website, but nobody ever went so far as to drag my daughter into it.

and

Yesterday on the Triablogue website an individual posted a picture of my daughter and wrote something about an 8 year old being lobotomized. Apparently nobody thought that was inappropriate. It was only after I made a request that the picture was taken down. I have now removed all pictures of my family from my website. I have never experienced such hostility from anyone before.

and

I certainly didn’t anticipate anybody doing that, let alone a fellow “brother in Christ”. Imagine what fun they could have with a child that has a disability.

By way of response:

1. Just so people know, this is the post to which Rauser is referring.
   
   I've already replaced the original photo with another photo. (Originally, there was a photo of Rauser in what looked like a plush and trendy setting. Rauser was holding what looked like a coffee mug. If I recall, his daughter was on his lap. Update: Of course, Steve rightly points out in the combox: "I'd add that Randal is the one who identified the girl as his daughter. What's obvious to him isn't obvious to a bystander.")
   
   
2. Not that it's likely Rauser will believe me, but I wasn't intentionally "dragging his daughter" into the debate. Rather I used the picture because I thought the posh setting fit well with the image of a sophisticated suburban progressive Christian professor sipping his cafe latte and so forth. For better or for worse, his daughter didn't cross my mind at all.
   
   
3. At worst, he might construe it as an unintentional or inadvertent swipe at his daughter. But why immediately jump to this conclusion? Does Rauser give me the benefit of the doubt, especially as a "fellow brother in Christ"? Nope.
   
   
4. Ironically, I notice Rauser gives a lot of the atheist commenters on his website far more leeway than he does conservative Christians. He's so inimical toward us, yet so welcoming and friendly toward many atheists.
   
   
5. As has been the case throughout this whole debate, Rauser's reaction is once again over the top - e.g. "nobody ever went so far as to drag my daughter into it," "I have never experienced such hostility from anyone before."
   
   Calm down, R-dawg. Please, chill. Relax. Chillax. I ain't skewering your kith and kin, yo.
   
   Although I'll admit I am skewering your strange brew of café Christianity au progressive, espresso Christianity con Rauser, passionfruit blended Rastafarian Rauserian Christianity, or whatever people wanna label it.
   
   BTW, perhaps Rauserian Christianity deserves a spot on this liberal and progressive minded list.
   
   
6. Again, such a reaction (or should I say overreaction) shows Rauser's knee-jerk imputation of poor motives to "a brother in Christ." But is this in keeping with Rauser's own call for a higher standard in tone and discourse? Is Rauser displaying the sort of tone etc. that Rauser demands others, particularly other Christians, display toward him?
   
   
7. In case this is what he's trying to imply, I didn't remove the picture out of a request from Rauser. Rauser never contacted me - or, as far as I know, anyone I know - and asked me to take down the picture. A friend pointed out the comment, I read it myself, and then I took down the photo out of courtesy to him.
   
   
8. Mind you, I don't think it's unethical or immoral for me to have posted the picture in the first place. After all, it was a picture that was on Rauser's own website which Rauser himself had originally put on his own website. It's not as if I somehow hacked into his home network, downloaded private photos of his family, and subsequently posted them online. No, all I did was take a photo that he had already made available in the past on his own public website, and reposted it in my post. It's a public photo which Rauser himself (or someone who manages his website for him) made public.
   
   BTW, sheeple Frege (mind if I call you Gottlob?) made a comment which seems to assume the photo in question was a private one: "If you disagree, then send Randal pictures of your family and let him post them in his own satirical articles."
   
   (On an entirely different note, Frege also wrote: "[A commenter with the moniker] Some1 doesn't realize their IP address is logged...coward." I'm not "Some1." But I should point out that it's possible "Some1" could be using an app for online anonymity such as Tor to avoid this. Not to mention, unless Frege is his real name, by Frege's own lights, does this mean Frege is cowardly hiding behind a moniker? If Frege is his real name, then why not his full name - is Frege behaving cowardly by failing to disclose his full name?)
   
   
9. I think Rauser's example about the lobotomized eight year old being "inappropriate" is rather ridiculous: "Yesterday on the Triablogue website an individual posted a picture of my daughter and wrote something about an 8 year old being lobotomized. Apparently nobody thought that was inappropriate."
   
   First, there's no necessary connection between "a picture of [Rauser's] daughter" and "an 8 year old being lobotomized." If Rauser is drawing the connection, and pronouncing it "inappropriate," then I'd think it reflects paranoia more than reasonableness.
   
   At the risk of stating the obvious, what I posted was a parody. A parody of what Rauser himself wrote. As such, it's closer to, say, someone taking issue with Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal" because it involves cannibalism. "Gasp! How could Swift joke about babies being eaten?! How utterly inappropriate!" Alas, I didn't expect a progressive Christian to be so uptight. But maybe it's the stuffy prof in him speaking.
   
   Plus, I could make the same allegation of inappropriateness about what Rauser originally wrote and on which my satire was based. Here's what Rauser originally wrote: "her legs had been amputated and somebody had rammed a large blade up her vagina." So, if what I wrote was inappropriate, then wouldn't what Rauser first wrote be inappropriate as well? How is "an 8 year old being lobotomized" inappropriate, while "legs . . . amputated" and "a large blade [rammed] up her vagina" appropriate or at least less inappropriate?
   
   However, if you ask me, I'd think anyone with a modicum of reading comprehension ability would understand that what Rauser originally wrote was itself meant to be an evil in the context of his story about Dr. Z, just like what I parodied was meant to be in the context of my story about Prof. R. It's not as if either one of us is striking an approving stance or somehow endorsing these things even in the context of the story or satire.
   
   
10. Finally, this is the original post on which I based my parody. Please check it out first, then check out my parody.
    
    Now please check out commenter Chinwendu's comment:
    

    Saturday, January 15, 2011 at 11:16pm
    
    Dear Dr. Randal Rauser, greeting to you from Little Congo. I am Congolese and mother to Abweti, the young girl in you pictur. She is carrying her half brother, Abidemi. This her father son. I write to you to say I have wet eyes and hurt heart to see you post a pictur of my daughter in your battle of the head with you enemy. I do not think approprate to do this. I lived through our war and was treat vary badly by men of Pascal Lissouba, but I should say I never been treat this badly. Shame on you.

    On the one hand, Rauser chastises me for posting a picture of him and his daughter.
    
    But on the other hand, Rauser himself posted a picture of what appears to be a young Sub-Saharan African girl or woman and likely either a younger sibling or her own child (son or daughter). Given that Rauser or someone on his website has either named or left named the jpeg file "A-victim-of-the-civil-war-in-the-Congo.jpg," I'll presume the individuals are from Congo.
    
    So I ask: why is my posting the picture I posted wrong while Rauser posting the picture he posted fine?
    
    Moreover, I could similarly say of Rauser, in his use of the woman and child from Congo picture: "Imagine what fun Rauser could have with a child that has a disability." Would Rauser sanction this sort of "tone" let alone statement?
    
    As Steve pointed out, Rauser is a playactor.