Lee Irons has posted a rather odd response to prolife opponents of Obama. He says he is “respectfully” requesting that they tone down the “overwrought rhetoric.”
Before we turn to the specifics, let me say something about “respect.” There is more to respect than tone. If he’s really concerned with the respectful treatment of his opponents, then he needs to treat their arguments with respect. “Tone” is a very superficial criterion of respect. If you stereotype your opponents and caricature their positions, then you’re not being very respectful.
It’s also rather incongruous to place a priority on “tone” and “rhetoric” and “respect” when we’re talking about life and death issues where one candidate favors unrestricted abortion up to and including infanticide.
It’s morally shallow to take offense at prolife rhetoric, but not take offense at proabortion policy. One is about words, the other about actions. Shouldn’t Lee be less indignant about the rhetoric, and more indignant about the reality?
It’s like discussing table manners with a cannibal. There are bigger issues than whether the cannibal is using the right knife and fork. There’s the underlying issue of his culinary preferences. Should we call a butler or a policeman?
It reminds me of an old Vincent Price movie—Theatre of Blood. As long as you’re a homicidal gentleman, does that make it better?
However, I just hope that those of you who think voting for Obama is a sin are consistent. I trust that you will have the courage of your convictions and do the following.
Once again, before we delve into the details, suppose, for the sake of argument, that prolife opponents of Obama are inconsistent? So what?
If you’re inconsistent because your belief in A conflicts with your belief in B, that doesn’t necessarily mean you should stop believing in A. Maybe you should stop believing in B.
Take Lee’s own example. He says that McCain’s position on abortion is inconsistent with his position on embryonic stem cell research. And he’s right about that.
Does this mean that McCain should liberalize his position on abortion to bring it in line with his position on stem cells research? That would be consistent—consistently wrong!
It’s better to be inconsistent as long as you’re inconsistently right than to be consistently wrong. So even if prolife opponents of Obama are inconsistent in their support for McCain, this doesn’t mean they should back down on their opposition to Obama.
Moving to the specifics:
(1) You will not vote for John McCain, since he (a) supports federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, which would kill just as many millions, and (b) is opposed to a federal ban on abortion (he thinks the states should be allowed to decide).
i) Of course, this is fatally equivocal. The question at issue is not a comparison between fatalities due to abortion over against fatalities due to stem cell research, but the combined fatalities of both. Both candidates support stem cell research, but in addition to stem cell research, Obama also supports abortion. Lee is artificially isolating the consequences of each position as if it makes no practical difference whether you support one or both. But the net total is quite different.
If one candidate supports a policy which entails the death of 5,000 innocents while another candidate supports a policy which entails the death of 50,000, it would still be the lesser of two evils to support the candidate whose policy lowers the overall body count rather than raising the overall body count.
ii) In addition, a center-right candidate who is fairly prolife to begin with is more susceptible to pressure to move him further to the right, in a more consistently prolife direction, than a far left candidate.
Obama wants to sign into law a bill which would sweep away all state restrictions on abortion.
While a Federal ban would be better than leaving it up to the states, that would still save more lives than Obama’s alternative.
Frankly, one wonders what value Lee places on the life of an individual. In his book, how few lives are still worth saving?
During WWII, some brave Christians sheltered Jews from the Nazis. The number of Jews they saved was a small fraction of the number who perished at the hands of the Nazis. Does Lee think their efforts were misguided? Who cares about a few Jews? Who cares about a few babies? Or nursing home patients?
(2) In future elections, you will not vote for any candidate who has adopted a stance similar to McCain’s.
Is Lee even trying to honestly represent the prolife rationale at this point? The question at issue comes down to a choice between two candidates. It’s not an endorsement of McCain’s position. Rather, it’s a question of the contrast between his position and Obama’s.
In future elections, if we have a better choice, we should go with a better choice. That’s irrelevant to this election.
(3) In the still farther future - who knows, 20, 30, 40 years from now? - when the Supreme Court concludes that stare decisis means that Roe v. Wade is settled law and no longer open for re-consideration, and there is no viable political party that seriously intends to implement a federal ban on abortions, you will withdraw from electoral politics and stop voting altogether.
Once again, is Lee even trying to honestly represent the prolife rationale at this point?
If, hypothetically speaking, the abortion policy were frozen in place so that no candidate’s policies would either increase or decrease the rate of abortion, then that would cease to be a distinguishing issue in choosing one candidate over another.
But that’s irrelevant to this election. And it’s also a highly artificial scenario.
(4) You will seriously ponder the arguments in favor of lawful killing in defense of the innocent and explain to the rest of us why you find those arguments to be morally repugnant. I am not accusing you of holding this extreme position either explicitly or implicitly, but in view of your overwrought rhetoric, you have an obligation to give us a more cogent explanation for why your rhetoric does not, should not, and cannot lead to such a violent conclusion. It won’t do to merely claim that you disagree with it.
Lee is now descending into demagoguery. Trying to intimidate prolifer opponents of Obama into silence by implicitly comparing their position to folks who firebomb abortion clinics and assassinate abortion “providers.”
There are several problems with this comparison:
i) Does Lee have any moral threshold in politics? Would he use this same tactic to silence critics on other issues? Suppose liberals follow up on abortion and infanticide with involuntary euthanasia? Or abolish the age of consent (so that homosexuals can seduce underage minors). Would Lee say that Christians dare not speak out lest they implicitly endorse violence against the perpetrators?
Why is Lee attempting to censure moral discourse and gag the church? I suppose the reason is his radical church/state separatism, which he inherits from Kline.
Yet Lee is very selective in this regard. After all, he’s been plugging Obama. What it comes down to, then, is that if you agree with Lee, it’s okay to voice your political opinions, but if you don’t agree with Lee, that’s out-of-bounds.
ii) There’s a fairly simple answer to his challenge. The Greco-Roman Empire was very decadent. The Apostles found pagan social morality repugnant. But they didn’t espouse vigilantism.
We’re not responsible for all the evils in the world. We can’t prevent them all.
But that doesn’t mean we should stand back and do nothing. We can pursue responsible remedies.
(5) You will advocate that members of your churches who voted for either Obama or McCain be subjected to church discipline for “material cooperation with evil.”
Lee is resorting to a bluff. Indeed, his whole line of argument, if you can call it an “argument,” is “daring” prolife opponents of Obama to be more consistent.
But why shouldn’t we call his bluff? As a rule, a pastor doesn’t know how a parishioner voted. Not unless the parishioner volunteers that information.
But there are situations in which a church member’s political preferences would be subject to church discipline. What if he voted for David Duke?
Or what if he’s voting for Obama because he agrees with Obama on the social issues? What if he agrees with Obama on the morality of abortion, infanticide, and sodomy, &c.?
At that point you have to ask yourself if he has a credible profession of faith. Does he believe the Bible? Does he believe in Christian ethics, as defined by Scripture?
BTW, arguments (1)-(5) are not a set of 5 independent arguments. Rather, (1) is his primary argument. (2)-(5) are contingent on (1). If (1) is unsound, then (2)-(5) fall by the wayside.
He may be able to get a few more moderate conservative justices like Roberts and Alito, but not extremists like Scalia.
What does he mean by calling Scalia an “extremist”? That’s ordinarily a pejorative epithet.
In a best case scenario, if he does succeed in getting a few more Scalias on the court, and Roe is overturned, McCain has said he is opposed to a federal ban on abortion and merely wants to “de-federalize” the issue, i.e., to allow each state to decide. Add to that his stance on embryonic stem cell research, and “the mass murder of millions of innocent human beings” will continue under a McCain administration!
I’ve already touched on the equivocation here, but this is misleading in another respect as well. Lee is disregarding the role of Congress. Social policies don’t rise and fall on Executive policy alone. If we had a majority of social conservatives in Congress, they could improve on McCain’s position.
As Christians we all have to live and vote in the real world and that involves making pragmatic decisions that don’t always align perfectly with our theoretical ideals. None of us can cast a morally pure vote. We vote for the candidate we think is best suited to lead our country at this particular junction in history and to deal with the issues that seem to us to have the greatest moment. Perhaps you think abortion is the number one problem facing our country right now. I think you’re wrong, and we can agree to disagree on that. But unless you have the courage of your convictions and are willing to be consistent, then I would respectfully request that you tone down the rhetoric a tad.
i) Lee is trading on the stereotype of the “single-issue” voter. The insinuation is that prolife opponents of Obama agree with Obama on every other issue except for abortion. And so they jettison every other issue in deference to this solitary issue.
Now Lee has certainly spent enough time in the company of the religious right that he knows this to be a parody of the religious right. As a rule, prolife supporters of Obama think he’s wrong on a whole raft of issues.
They highlight abortion because they have moral priorities. There’s a difference between a sin and a mistake. One can be mistaken about some aspect of foreign policy or economic policy without endorsing sin. But abortion ratchets up the moral register in a way that many other issues do not.
To a large extent, abortion is not a single issue. Rather, it functions as a hendiadys for a bundle of social issues. Implicit in abortion is a whole eugenic agenda. Likewise, folks who support abortion are socially liberal on abortion in particular because they’re socially liberal in general. Support for abortion is not an anomalous position in an otherwise conservative outlook.
ii) Also, the fact that Lee doesn’t think abortion is the #1 issue facing our country right now is not much of a justification for his alternative if Lee allows someone of Andrew Sullivan’s ilk to do his thinking for him on other, more “important” issues.
In sum, Lee has failed to show that prolife opponents of Obama are being inconsistent. And even if they were, that’s a purely ad hominem objection.
Given a choice, I still prefer a “hypocrite” who does good to an ideological purist who does evil.
Check out my blogspot for apologetics. My latest blog is on 1 Timothy and its context.
ReplyDeletehttp://innovationapologetics.blogspot.com/2008/10/1-timothy-212-looking-deeper.html
Are you suggesting a church member's vote for David Duke would be grounds for discipline?
ReplyDeleteThis is the point where you and Irons become identified as standing on the same side of the line that demarcates conservatives from liberals.
Yeah, man, you are seriously going leftist on us all. Must be the Obamessiah's hypnotic powers giving you the workover.
ReplyDeleteCONFEDERATE SAID:
ReplyDelete“Are you suggesting a church member's vote for David Duke would be grounds for discipline?”
If you prefer, we could skip the preliminaries and move straight to excommunication.
“This is the point where you and Irons become identified as standing on the same side of the line that demarcates conservatives from liberals.”
If you define me as a liberal, then liberals have been getting a bum rap.
However, that’s not where I’d draw the line. There’s a line that demarcates smart conservatism from stupid conservatism. Guess which side of the line you stand on.
Finally, people like you don’t have a monopoly on what it means to be a white southerner. My mother’s side of the family has lived in the south since Colonial Jamestown, Virginia (then N. Carolina).
My grandfather (b. 1883) was a southern preacher and itinerate evangelist who publicly denounced the Klan and desegregated the camp meetings where he spoke. You don’t speak for all whites, you don’t speak for all southerners, and you don’t speak for Christians at all.
rhology said...
ReplyDelete“Yeah, man, you are seriously going leftist on us all. Must be the Obamessiah's hypnotic powers giving you the workover.”
Forgive me, Alan. I tried with all my might to resist the One, but I finally succumbed to the suggestive power of his Svengali-like oratory.
When I pull the lever for Obama on Election Day, my hand will not be under my own control. I will be just another Obamaton, possessed by the departed spirit of Franz Mesmer (whom Obama has been channeling at rallies).
Speaking of zombies for Obama:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTI1NmUxYjA4ODczZjgxOWJhMzQ3ODI0MDRkOWFlMDQ
Steve,
ReplyDeleteYou're a very arrogant man. You're willing to suggest church discipline for someone who might vote for a David Duke, you countenance the consideration of deposing Butler of his church office and possibly his livelihood for saying things that Christian fathers have said for centuries, and you even have the unbrideled tenacity to pontificate who and what I represent thought you don't know which views you're considering.
The reason you are liberal is you're a wordist. You throw people under the bus based on guilt-by association...with a word. For Butler, its "antisemitsm" and "conspriacy theorist"; for me it's "confederate" (I guess?); for David Duke, probaably "(former)KKK."
Steve the Wise says, "You don’t speak for all whites, you don’t speak for all southerners, and you don’t speak for Christians at all."
Classic. Outrageous, but classic.
A few questions:
1) What view(s) am I offering, that recieved such a label as "stupid conservative"?
2) Would speaking for "all" of any class protect me from being a "stupid conservative"? Why?
CONFEDERATE SAID:
ReplyDelete“Steve,__You're a very arrogant man.”
Now you’re hurting my feelings.
“You're willing to suggest church discipline for someone who might vote for a David Duke.”
The Reformed tradition is not a latitudinarian, anything-goes tradition, like the Episcopalians. We have standards.
A church member who votes for a former Grand Wizard of the KKK (and it’s not as if Duke has ever recanted his views—quite the contrary) should, indeed, be subject to church discipline. This is not a Biblically tolerable position for a professing Christian to hold.
“You countenance the consideration of deposing Butler of his church office.”
Why not? To be a church officer is to belong to an accountability system. As a church officer, he is subject to the same accountability system. He is answerable to the session and presbytery.
“And possibly his livelihood.”
Indeed. A Jew-hater and Jew-baiter like Butler has no business representing the Reformed faith in any official capacity, or poisoning the minds of seminarians.
The Reformed tradition is a philosemitic tradition, not an anti-Semitic tradition.
“For saying things that Christian fathers have said for centuries.”
Yes, there’s precedent for anti-Semitism in the church fathers. How does that make it any better? Is evil better if it has a genealogy?
“And you even have the unbrideled tenacity to pontificate who and what I represent thought you don't know which views you're considering.”
I judge you by the information you volunteer about yourself. When you identify yourself as a confederate, and rush to the defense of a church member who votes for a Grand Wizard of the KKK, it’s not as if you’ve left your own sympathies shrouded in mystery.
However, you can take this opportunity to disown the views of Klan, kinism, and other suchlike.
“The reason you are liberal is you're a wordist. You throw people under the bus based on guilt-by association...with a word. For Butler, its ‘antisemitsm’ and ‘conspriacy theorist’.”
I didn’t call him an anti-Semite and conspiracy theorist by association with anti-Semites and conspiracy theorists. Rather, I cited his own material to document that charge. Pay attention!
However, by your own yardstick, I’d be perfectly warranted in judging him via guilt-by-association. After all, you try to excuse him by associating his views with the church fathers. Well, that appeal cuts both ways.
“For me it's ‘confederate (I guess?)’."
Which isn’t by association. That’s your own moniker.
“For David Duke, probaably ‘(former)KKK’."
Yes, corroborative evidence.
And the fact that he left the KKK doesn’t mean his ever retracted his views. He clearly has the same views he had back when he was a Grand Wizard.
“What view(s) am I offering, that recieved such a label as ‘stupid conservative’?”
Defending people who vote for Klansmen. That’s a start.
“Would speaking for ‘all’ of any class protect me from being a ‘stupid conservative’? Why?”
Try starting from a respectable position for a change.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteYou are indeed a wordist… and the one that needs to pay attention. I’ll narrow my response to a few points.
1. I never said you “called [Butler] an anti-Semite and conspiracy theorist by association with anti-Semites and conspiracy theorists.” I said “You throw people under the bus based on guilt-by association...with a word.” Clever swicheroo, though.
I’m not so much concerned about how you came to attach a name to someone; I’m concerned with the way you liberals often deem true conservatives demons. To you Butler is an anti-Semite, and anti-Semites are evil. That you read his own material before making the charge doesn't mean the charge follows. Hence the guilt by association with a word.
Butler is associated with an “ism” which in your mind is a position which can't be right, no matter the arguments. Arguments for taboo "isms" are out of bounds because they treat certain topics which are forbidden by PC ethics. Just like when you take my moniker “Confederate” and make judgments based on the word. Whatever you understand “confederate” to mean is unknown to the reader; it’s just bad—and evil.
And so are our anti-Semitic and confederate fathers.
2) I never excused Butler by associating him with church fathers. I don't think he needs excused, for his views hold on their own merit. I only rhetorically referred to your brazen arrogance in condemning faithful men because they are “anti-Semitic.”
So here is an assignment for you.
Let it be that Butler’s post shows that he is an anti-Semite. Now, please define anti-Semitism, and show me from Scripture how such a definition is evil. That is, make good on your major premise in a way other than just announcing it.
All anti-Semites are evil.
Butler is an anti-Semite
Butler is evil.
Wait let me get this straight...perhaps I'm guilty of not following arguments like many that post comments here.....You are accusing Steve of being a liberal?!?!
ReplyDeleteNow, please define anti-Semitism, and show me from Scripture how such a definition is evil.
ReplyDeleteYou sound like one of our other recent interlocuters. He denounces anti-anti Semitism on his blog then turns around and says he doesn't know how to define anti-antiSemitism.
Are you suggesting that there is, in fact, a wall of separation between Jews and Gentiles under the New Covenant proper or the Covenant of Grace?
1. If (A), then this is false, viz. by Paul's own words.
2. If (B), the CoG supercedes ethnic Jewry's very existence.
3. And if you think the distinction is merely spiritual, then I would draw your attention to the food laws abolition by none other than Jesus' himself.
4. But let's grant the ethnic distinctions. We could define anti-Semitism in general terms as a dislike of Jews for racial/ethnic reasons.
Where in Scripture are people hated because of their Jewishness or their non-Jewishness? Groups like the Canaanites come to mind - but they were not "hated" because of the "Amalekiteness." They were "hated" because they were enemies of the covenant community, and the covenant community was prohibited from hunting them down outside the borders of the nation.
Just like when you take my moniker “Confederate” and make judgments based on the word. Whatever you understand “confederate” to mean is unknown to the reader; it’s just bad—and evil.
ROFL...come now, why don't you open up your profile so we can read it and find your blog. Indeed, you came here crying about Steve using these labels, and you're the one invoking David Duke's name. You were given the opportunity to deny kinism, et.al., and you did not do so. You're just one more of that sub Christian sect who has come here since this subject was introduced here. So, let's just drop the games and lay the cards on the table. My great-great grandfathers fought for the Confederacy. They had honor. You obviously do not.
Lee Irons links Andrew the Smearbot Sullivan in his blog roll. Lee Irons has a discernment problem.
ReplyDeleteMDC,
ReplyDeleteYes, I'm saying Steve is a liberal.
Gene,
Why you wonder whether I believe Jews can be saved is strange. That's the problem with the label game you libs play. So please stop this, and listen, read, engage. Avoid visceral reactions due to pseudo-titles. Breathe.
"We could define anti-Semitism in general terms as a dislike of Jews for racial/ethnic reasons...Where in Scripture are people hated because of their Jewishness or their non-Jewishness? "
Nice move from "dislike" to "hate". But let's take "dislike" for starters.
I dislike any class of people who are organized by religion and race to promote jewish supremacy, which involves deep hatred for Christians and malicious xenophobia toward white gentiles. In general, this description describes the modern Jew. If you disagree then I think you do not know much about Jews, other than they are made in God's image with equal access to heaven... and the the historical recpients of anti-Semitic treatment.
Our disagreement is not whether its appropriate to dislike and beware of a class of folks who are waging war on us. I'm sure we would agree. It is a disagreement over whether today's Jew is such a class. But such can easily be verified. However, in doing your research, you guys will fail to get beyond the fact that many making these claims are "anti-Semites".
So anti-Semitism, if anything, should be seen as a natural self-defense reaction of white Christians toward a group trying to kill and enslave them and their children.
My suggestion is that you drop the label and research the thesis. If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong about my history or mistaken in my logic. I'm open to correction. However, by being wrong about this I am not a hater or an "anti-Semite" vacuously defined.
CONFEDERATE SAID:
ReplyDelete“I’m concerned with the way you liberals often deem true conservatives demons.”
I realize that, for you, anyone to the “left” of David Duke is a “liberal.” But since, unlike you, my moral compass isn’t made in the KKK, I operate with a different set of coordinates than you do.
“Hence the guilt by association with a word. __Butler is associated with an ‘ism’ which in your mind is a position which can't be right, no matter the arguments. Arguments for taboo ‘isms’ are out of bounds because they treat certain topics which are forbidden by PC ethics.”
Your argument is self-refuting since, by your own yardstick, you too are a “wordist” who uses taboo “isms” and labels like “PC” and “liberal” to affix guilt-by-association.
Here’s an assignment for you. Try to express yourself without self-contradiction.
“Just like when you take my moniker ‘Confederate’ and make judgments based on the word.”
Words have connotations. There’s a reason you chose “Confederate” rather than “Marxist” or “Queer.”
“I never excused Butler by associating him with church fathers.”
That’s exactly what you tried to do.
“Let it be that Butler’s post shows that he is an anti-Semite. Now, please define anti-Semitism, and show me from Scripture how such a definition is evil. That is, make good on your major premise in a way other than just announcing it.__All anti-Semites are evil._Butler is an anti-Semite_Butler is evil.”
God inspired Jews to write the Bible
Butler is a Jew-hater
Butler is evil
Why you wonder whether I believe Jews can be saved is strange. That's the problem with the label game you libs play. So please stop this, and listen, read, engage. Avoid visceral reactions due to pseudo-titles. Breathe.
ReplyDeleteApparently, your reading comprehension skills are so lacking that you can't understand what is written before you when you can go back and reference it by just scrolling down a tad when you comment.
I never questioned your beliefs about the salvation of Jews. Rather I asked you think there is a wall of separation of Jew and Gentile within the New Covenant or the Covenant of Grace. Try to follow along.
I also pointed you to several items that condemn racism of your kind.
To take one of your own now...the OT forbad any pursuit of nonJews outside the borders of the covenant community, a proposition necessary to your POV's validity. Is it your conviction that America is a Gentile Christian nation? If you think so, then where can we find any covenant between Gentile Christians and God that makes America a Christian nation in the way Israel was and gives them license to treat Jews with hatred the way you do?
Avoid visceral reactions due to pseudo-titles. Breathe.
In your comment you refer to me as a liberal. Try to avoid visceral reactions due to pseudo-titles. Breathe.
I dislike any class of people who are organized by religion and race to promote jewish supremacy, which involves deep hatred for Christians and malicious xenophobia toward white gentiles.
But it's fine and dandy for you to organize by religion and race to promote white supremacy, which involves a deep hatred for Jews and malicious xenophobia toward Jews.
In general, this description describes the modern Jew.a
If true, in general you're their mirror-image.
If you disagree then I think you do not know much about Jews, other than they are made in God's image with equal access to heaven... and the the historical recpients of anti-Semitic treatment.
That's funny. I've been good friends with the Jews who are descended fro those who founded the first synagogue in Wilmington NC for quite some time. I worked at a Jewish temple in Boca in 2000. Sorry, but there is no Jewish conspiracy to destroy white Gentiles.
What there is, however, is a misunderstanding on the part of Jews that to become Christian is to mean they have to stop being Jewish and have to become Gentiles. Tell you what stop reading the KKK propaganda and read the work of Micheal Brown.
By the way, if there is secret conspiracy, why do you know about it? If it's so secret, it must be a really badly kept one. Nobody knows about it except white racist nutjobs who fly the Stars and Bars.
So anti-Semitism, if anything, should be seen as a natural self-defense reaction of white Christians toward a group trying to kill and enslave them and their children.
So, you're an anti-Semite after all. Wow, how many posts did it take for you to actually admit it?
Yeah, Jews are fire bombing American subways and buses, flying planes into buildings, and trying to enslave the children of white Christians. That's what's really going on down in West Palm and Boca Raton.
Sure, right. I'm not concerned one jot about "white Christians" because there is no such thing as "white Christianity" in Scripture. I'm concerned about Christianity qua Christianity. I'm concerned about the churches as whole, whatever racial composition of which they are made. The churches have lost the Gospel all by themselves without the help of the Jews. Christians are doing just fine running their religion into the ground all by themselves. They don't need Jews to hate them.
My suggestion is that you drop the label and research the thesis.
Been there, done that. Besides, I don't need to go too far to see how big of a racist you are, for you tip your hand every time you say "white Christians." It's not enough to talk about Christians or evangelicals. Your dividing line is "white."
If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong about my history or mistaken in my logic.
Oh, I should think it goes much further than that. If you're wrong, and you certainly are, its proof you are just another racist who's in sin. Go burn your cross elsewhere.
“I never questioned your beliefs about the salvation of Jews. Rather I asked you think there is a wall of separation of Jew and Gentile within the New Covenant or the Covenant of Grace. Try to follow along.”
ReplyDeleteI’m sorry. Legitimate oversight on my part. The answer is no, I’m not suggesting such a separation.
“Is it your conviction that America is a Gentile Christian nation? If you think so, then where can we find any covenant between Gentile Christians and God that makes America a Christian nation in the way Israel was and gives them license to treat Jews with hatred the way you do?”
No such connection in my mind. Why do you keep wasting your time with this “hate” stuff. I told you that what you consider anti-semitism is a reaction toward the warfare Jews bring upon goyim.
“In your comment you refer to me as a liberal. Try to avoid visceral reactions due to pseudo-titles. Breathe.”
I defined why I think you are a liberal, and so far the bill fits. You still can’t define anti-semitism in way that indicts MRB, or myself for that matter. You keep referring to “hate.” Such judgments are reversible. You hate anti-semites. We need a word for folks like you. Anti-???
“But it's fine and dandy for you to organize by religion and race to promote white supremacy, which involves a deep hatred for Jews and malicious xenophobia toward Jews.”
More of the hate stuff. Just how deep is my hatred of Jews? Abe Lincoln was a white supremacist; which in your book makes him a Jew-hater becasue it involves “deep hatred for Jews and…” The movement today is referred to as kinism or White nationalism. (Didn’t David point this out on the kinist thread). Please visit that thread if you haven’t read his detailed response to Steve’s ignorance.
“If true, in general you're their mirror-image.”
Not even close. I don’t have a religious book that says Jews are cattle who prefer sex with cows, that their savior was a whore who is burning in shit, that we goyim can lie to them, kill them with immunity; nor do I invade Jewish nations enslaving them with usury and promoting blasphemy and faggortry, have a history of being expelled from said nations; nor did I lead the Bolshevik revolution that murdered 20-40 million Christians, invent psudeo-anthropology to justify tearing down the constitutional right of free association so that multiculturalism could ruin a nation; have a monopoly on mass media which produces misinformation and filth;run prominent universities and government departments of Jewish nations…on and on.
Other than that, though, yeah I’m the mirror image of modern Jew.
“That's funny. I've been good friends with the Jews who are descended fro those who founded the first synagogue in Wilmington NC for quite some time. I worked at a Jewish temple in Boca in 2000. Sorry, but there is no Jewish conspiracy to destroy white Gentiles.”
That’s even funnier. Reasoning by anecdote. I’ve worked in Jewish temples too. In fact, I used to work for a Jewish organization for years. You have a penchant for using reversible debate tactics.
“What there is, however, is a misunderstanding on the part of Jews that to become Christian is to mean they have to stop being Jewish and have to become Gentiles.”
I’ll let them keep their Jewish blood, but they need to renounce their anti-Christian sins, and burn the Talmud at their baptism. True Jewish converts should make break with the anti-Goyimism that pervaded their religion. Kind of like this guy: http://www.realjewnews.com/
“By the way, if there is secret conspiracy, why do you know about it? If it's so secret, it must be a really badly kept one. Nobody knows about it except white racist nut jobs who fly the Stars and Bars.”
We racist nutballs get special powers from waving our Stars and Bars flags. We don’t care to make demonstrable claims. We resort to esoteric revelation. I’m glad you noticed.
“So, you're an anti-Semite after all. Wow, how many posts did it take for you to actually admit it?”
If an anti-Semite is one who fits my definition, sure slap it on me. Again, we can create a label for you too if you would like.
“Yeah, Jews are fire bombing American subways and buses, flying planes into buildings, and trying to enslave the children of white Christians. That's what's really going on down in West Palm and Boca Raton.”
I’ve described some of their tactics, and don’t remember listing planes and fire bombing.
"Been there, done that. Besides, I don't need to go too far to see how big of a racist you are, for you tip your hand every time you say "white Christians." It's not enough to talk about Christians or evangelicals. Your dividing line is 'white.'"
Just how big of a racist am I? Great big, or great great big? As big as Lincoln? In between Jeffeson and Thornwell? What is a racist, bty? Someone who acknowledges that race exists? Someone who is critial of other races?
"If you're wrong, and you certainly are, its proof you are just another racist who's in sin. Go burn your cross elsewhere."
Good form to end your post with your favorite reservable tactic. If you are wrong about me, and you are, its proof that you are just another racist-hater who's in sin.
Thanks for the time...sort of. I would have been better off using all this energy reading Luther and Dabney, fellow anti-semite and racist.
CONFEDERATE SAID:
ReplyDelete“You still can’t define anti-semitism in way that indicts MRB, or myself for that matter.”
Sure we can. Both you and he supply the raw materials. Both of you and he lump all Jews together in one sweeping smear. You don’t distinguish between Jewish prophets and Apostles, ethnic Jews, secular Jews, observant Jews, Marxist Jews, Messianic Jews, modern Jews, ancient Jews, Pharisees, Hassidim, neocons, &c. You tar them all with the same broad, poison-dipped brush.
“(Didn’t David point this out on the kinist thread). Please visit that thread if you haven’t read his detailed response to Steve’s ignorance.”
Which I rebutted several days ago.
It’s also revealing that Butler/Harris blog is a haven for so may “kinists” who get their news for the likes of David Duke.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteI see your responses to DanielJ, but not to David a few comments up. Have a look.
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/09/free-baloney-loose-screws.html
---
ReplyDeleteThat's the problem with the label game you libs play.
---
Oooh, the irony!!!
And yet he's too dumb to grasp it.