One earnest Gather writer reprints rants from extremist right-wing web-sites. She claims that she has permission to do so, and this may be so.
The rants, however, are filled with lies and untruths, and the writer argues that she has "permission" to publish these because she "searches her heart" and knows that what she does is approved by God.
How can one, claiming to be a Christian, write such nonsensical lies as, " The liberal media immediately gives top national billing to attacks on abortion clinics, yet leaves attacks on Christian churches to coverage by the local guys."
Where are these mythical attacks that the liberal media refuses to cover?
The largest wide-spread attacks on Christian churches have been made by racist groups burning down black churches in several epidemics of violence and arson over the past years.
These attacks were covered extensively by the media.
Of course this coverage is more noteworthy than random acts of vandalism at any local church. The author cites no evidence for her accusations that attacks on churches are ignored.
The largest demonstrations at Christian churches in the past few years have been the anti-gay protests by Fred Phelps and his incestuous gang of extremists who protest at funerals. These have been well-covered by the media, with large out-pourings of support for the right of Christians to worship in peace.
Unless one concludes that the author is delusional, how can one interpret a sentence as laughable as this one:
"If a liberal-minded person like the Unabomber commits a deadly act, the press can't really do anything with his act of terrorism that would be positive."
Does the author think that an anti-industrial anarchist like Kaczynski is a "liberal"?
Does she have a clue about what she is writing?
The manifesto of the Unabomber, "Industrial Society and It's Future" begins with an attack on "leftism". Sounding very much like the pseudo-scientists on Fox News, the Unabomber writes: " The two psychological tendencies that underlie modern leftism we call "feelings of inferiority" and "oversocialization."
What a joke. The Unabomber was more like a bunch of heavily-armed Ron Paul supporters.
Does the author, in her pure heart, believe that the press approved of the Unabomber's attacks on universities and professors? Does she, with her pure heart and addled mind, even care if her rants are truthful?
One can find the same ignorance in the claims that the "liberal media" use labels unfairly. It is very hard to find "fairness" on this issue, because none of the advocacy groups are "fair"
The pro-life groups call their opponents "pro-abortion", not "pro-choice"; and those favoring choice call their opponents "anti-choice", not "anti-abortion".
Every assertion in this untruthful diatribe can be refuted, and is no more concerning than the general ignorance and fear that floats across the sites of right wingnuts.
But, the author reveals the triumphalist assumptions that underlie her disregard for the truth.
In her comments, she adots the age-old heresy of national redemption, as though God saves "nations" in the sense of national states, rather than the scriptural meaning of nations as people (Hint to clueless literalists: there were no modern nation-states at the time that the Apocalypse was written.)
Furthermore, she adopts the very modern heresy of proclaiming that the Church will achieve wordly triumph through the exercise of worldly power.
There is no warrant in the Gospels for such an un-Christian claim. The dominationists who espouse this belief were invited to the Pentagon by heretics like Rumsfeld and Cheney in order to use armies to achieve spiritual ends.
It cannot be done, and the desire of fearful and hateful believers to make it so is a dangerous belief.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 161
Well spoken, as always.
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
:)
Spin, spin, spin, all in the name of hate. Fortunately, this does not apply to all Christians, but they sure give the others a bad name.
BTW, did you see my article on Christianity and socialism? One of the things I discuss in the article is the difference between socialism and the welfare state, a difference that conservatives, and especially apocalyptic Christians, have no end of trouble understanding.
Thank you Steph...so many fail to realize the difference between Christians and "vocal" Christian minorities. :o)
Yeah, she's a fricking genius.
If you will look at this woman's belief you will find that she is avidly anti-abortion and she feels it is her moral duty to discredit anyone who diagrees with her. She has no moral compass that keeps her from slandering, lying or distorting the facts in attacking anyone who opposes her view on abortion. She feels she is on a holy mission and she can do anything required to acheive her holy mission.
And she is not the only one on gather. If you look at the posts and comments of all the people who use the same tactics you will find the great majority are anti-abortionists and they have no qualms about lying, cheating and stealing to advance their holy mission.
Too bad their is no Hell because they are perfect candidates for admission.
Sadly, I think she does. She isn't the only one doing this and I most of them know that they are spreading lies and trying to rationalize it by saying they know what their god wants them to do.
I don't understand why people give them so much attention (points). We need to go in and debunk the lies, but hanging around to argue for 200 comments just gives them attention, points, and reason to keep doing what they do.
Notice now and cringe along as we are offered the next poisoned apples, the next UNgodly plan, they are adopting the formerly dreaded and dispised, LOUD black hammers as their own, putting black faces on their now favored weapons of choice. GOP hip hop??
Time for some lightening hitting them and some enlightening hitting those that can not see it for what it is.
Oh, Ape. That hip hop thing had me laughing so hard I almost rolled off the couch last night. Does he really think he's fooling anyone? I hope this first week is just the beginning of Steele's craziness. If so, he should completely finish off the Republican Party.
Worrying about the liberal media is pointless as they are all drying up. I actually think that it's entertaining to watch them fall in their stupidity. The fairness doctrine might be able to bail them out but I don't think that law would get passed the current supreme court.
How typically liberal of you.
(What I find weird, by the way, is how she keeps using her grandson to model diabolical stuff.)
Thanks for the kind words of Debbie, Grems, Don, lea, Nellie.
You hit on an excellent point, Doyle.
The extremist right NEEDS to wrest the Unabomber into a "liberal", because every other act of domestic terrorism, burning churches, bombing clinics and parks, blowing up government buildings, has been done by right-wing fanatics.
In the case of Kaczinski, right-wing blowhards who are not well-educated or very smart (see the comments by Jeff H. below) have to ignore what the guy actually said in order to pretend that the greatest dangers to American lives and peace have NOT come from extremists like themselves.
I viewed "spin" as the practice of putting an attractive frame around some bit of nastiness, or of offering a far-fetched interpretation that obscured the wretchedness of the facts.
In the case of the "Liberal Media" article, there were only untruths and gross distortions of reality.
Of course, during the Bush years, "spin" did come to be mean bare-faced lying.
(One recalls the smooth lying toady, Tony Snow, denying that the White House had clainmed that US Attornies were fired for "competency reasons" - which he had announced himself only two months earlier.)
P.S. You can easily spot the “liberal media” as they are the ones who get strange feelings in their legs whenever Obama speaks. They often confuse commentary with journalism. They often confuse rumor with facts. They are also currently in massive decline. The “conservative media” on the other hand at least labels their commentary as such but on the other hand know that if you stir the audience to anger they will stay around and actually be attentive enough to listen to the commercials that mostly fill the airwaves of “talk” radio.
This is the kind of comment that gives conservatives a reputation for ignorance and thoughtlessness.
It was years before reports of sex abuse in the Catholic Church were taken seriously, in large part because victims were not willing to come forward for decades.
There have been numerous reports of abuse by Hassidic religious leaders who have enormous and unchecked authority in their communities, but there have been few opportunities for verification or follow-up.
(Conservatives don't seem to trust any media that does not go off half-cocked and without regard for verification - such as the news outlets to which they listen. Or, in the case of Rush Limpbough, "half-coked")
In a conservative, inward-looking community such as the hassidim, of course it will take some time for victims to gain the individual ego-strength and collective strength to name names and make a public case.
Sexual abuse by Catholic Clergy in the 1970's is still being reported NOW.
The size and influence of the Hassidic community is a more recent phenomena.
Confusing these two setuations is the kind of false analogy that the right-wing noise machine does well.
You must knnow that there have been two scandals involving Conservative rabbis and under-age children, and they were very much in the front section of the NY Times for weeks.
Likewise, the case of the murdered wife of the rabbi in New Jersey.
Probably true, Roy.
But, one cannot stop defending truth just because habitual liars won't listen.
Anybody else wonder how these guys know what others are feeling in their legs? I think the only possible explanation is that this refers to what they feel in their own legs and they're hoping like hell everyone else is feeling it too.
Longer answer, they certainly can but you'd think that common sense would stop them from spreading nonsense that's contrary to easily verifiable facts.
Of course they can. The better question is, "Should they?"
They often confuse commentary with journalism. They often confuse rumor with facts.
Of course, at first I assumed you were talking about Rush Limbaugh, but then I realized that no, Limbaugh doesn't even rely on rumor, let alone journalism. He simply makes up his hateful, divisive, sick commentaries. Then he screens his calls to make sure no one disagrees with him on the air. And you have complaints about the fairness and veracity of the liberal media! You should have your head examined.
btw, I certainly did hear about the Hassidic community. I even read the articles. Imagine that!
I think the speeches had that effect on many but not the conservatives of course, they get their chills in some other way.
Talking to this people is like talking to aliens, autocratic, close minded and arrogant.
They are also proud, belligerent and lie like the devil...or maybe suffer from delusions.
"How can one, claiming to be a Christian, write such nonsensical lies as, " The liberal media immediately gives top national billing to attacks on abortion clinics, yet leaves attacks on Christian churches to coverage by the local guys." "
You call such things "lies" . . . but, I wonder just how you know they are? How would you know if "attacks on Churches" were not covered by the mainstream media, if they were not? Is there not a presumption inherent in this line of thought, that YOU know all that happens in the world? If not, what are you basing your declaration that this is not happening, on?
On the internet you can find anything from everywhere, no excuse...but it may depend on what else is going on that day.
Matthews the liberal is a catholic by the way, very catholic, Christopher.
Do you think she even realizes that Jesus was a liberal?
"We had some burn churches down, those are the crazy people who hate everyone, and we heard that on national news."
And . . . you extrapolate from that instance, that coverage of "attacks on "Churches" are not given less attention than "attacks on abortion clinics"? I can understand how one could know ALL attacks on Churches did not go unmentioned, but I cannot understand how one could possibly no a negative fact, that one was not treated, for whatever reason, as more "newsworthy" in general. In order to declare such a possibility a lie, one would have to have awareness of far more than what was covered on the mainstream media, obviously. Peter called it a lie, but I do not see how Peter could know such was a fact, and so, how it is not Peter that is a bit delusional . . . in this matter at least.
Whosoever therefor shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Definately some "conserving" going on there . . . ; )
If we are to compare what others say to what we imagine to be true, and call all that does not conform to our imagination; Lies . . . well, that's a bit more "liberal" of a definition than this old liberal is willing to indulge in ; )
Like this, apparently:
Anyone can lie, or speak truth, for any reason. If I might relate it to mathematics, however, a negative (lie) times anything equals a negative (lie). One cannot make a truth from a lie ... but a lie will, in time, reveal that it is an untruth.
I have not claimed that this or that "church burning" did not make the 'liberal' media. That is not really the issue I am addressing. I am speaking to whether it is in fact "liberal thinking", to denounce all that does not conform to one's own imagined reality as "lies". That, when I was young, was precisely the sort of "close-minded" approach, that liberals were opposed to. Back then, liberal, meant liberal, not a set pattern of ideological notions that one was to defend by accusations of dishonesty or foolishness, against any that expressed other notions.
This "neolib" attitude, of trying to silence all views unlike one's own, was considered old fashioned, and overly regimented. I knew at the time that many did not grasp the actual nature of liberal thinking, and suspected it would fade into obscurity, once the "lightweights" got hold of it . . . they like their "liberal" in nice neat packages of presumed truth, just as the folks the real liberals were attempting to awaken to some degree. I was right, it seems, and the neolibs now dominate one side of a war of stereotyping and regimented thought, and have become their "enemy", so to speak.
I never left the "old school", of open-minded thinkers, that insisted on freedom of the mind. I'm still liberal, actually liberal.
Sandy you are correct, the same mindset tried to argue that slavery was OK and is OK since it still goes on all over the world.
Forgive me, I suppose it is a sort of "presumption" to conclude we are not gods . . . but I feel fairly confident none will demonstrate otherwise, though, feel free to have whack at it, if you like ; )
This a very good point, Peter. They have to lie. I heard a conservative commentator say that Christians are tired of hiding in basements to practice their faith. Of course, she was lying. Christians enjoy a public place in our culture that is often envied by religious people of other countries. Of course, Jews and Muslims enjoy a public place in our culture, as well. That is what happens when there is religious freedom. Only an idiot claims that in America, Christians have to subvert their government or culture to practice their faith. And, the liberal media is a red herring that has been refuted by thinking people throughout the history of the term.
In answer to your question: No, it is usually not all right to lie. Lie when a woman asks you if she looks fat in her dress. But, never lie about cultural matters. It is a sign of demagoguery which is always damaging to the greater good.
John you can talk about this forever and nothing will be accomplished, nothing will be gained from it and nothing will be ascertained. Nothing of great value .
It is like spitting in the wind.
I do appreciate you lesson on liberalism, damn I think we are all liberal in our own way.
I have always disliked labels and I am getting fed up with this one.
I just wish I could be liberated from people who embrace their cross with fervor and try to use the bible to make a point.
It is irrelevant to those who have no confidence in its infallibity and even those who do have confidence, do not always agree.
I suppose we have to agree to disagree.
I like this image, Sharon.
Peter called many things "lies", and I feel that is not justifiable based on nothing more than one's own imagination. Turning the situation on it's head, by claiming I must prove anthing at all, makes no logical sense; for that is essencially saying that Peter is a god, who can rightly can call others liars any time he likes, without anything at all to back that up. "Guilty till PROVEN innocent", basically.
I should have noted it.
The failed Bush administration did everything it could to sabotage this congressionally-mandated tracking -so 2007, I believe, is the last year for which full statsistics are available.
You have to wade through table after table to get the detail you want - which is why I usually use compiled stats from other organizations.
In any event, there were a significant number of attacks on individuals for religious reasons (about 13% of hate crimes -I recall, but these include a large number of attacks on non-Christians as well. There are very few attacks on religious instiutions or buildings.
You can quickly confirm that the arson attacks on black churches were the most serious religious hate crimes - the FBI has a seperate Arson Project devoted to it..
There are hysterical rants sbout alleged "leftist" and "sexual deviant" attacks on churches on several web-sites - but, curiously, these "attacks" never seem to be reported to the police or identified as hate crimes.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/hate_crime/index.html
Since when are "black churches" not churches? Does it not occur to you that attacks on "blacks" have been specifically classified as "hate crimes" ? Does it not further occur to you that a basic tenet of Christianity is forgiveness, so naturally, those truly of that faith, are far less likely to report or press such matters, and therefor they are far less likely to call up the news media and make a stink that might rise to national media attention?
If I did not give the link to the so-called "Unabomber Manifesto" (in which he denounces liberalism and the "left"), I will do so.
Here you go - paragraph 6 on the first page (the paragraph numbers are the Unabombers own "chapter and verse" designations) provides the same tortured and eliptical rationalization (except in clearer prose) that your writing exemplifies.
John, try to read my comments really slowly -and ask for help with the big words.
How can you possibly deduce that I suggest black churches are not churches?
I noted the arson of black churches as the most serious "attack on churches" which the author of the "Liberal Media" article claims to have been ignored.
Are you agreeing with her in suggesting that the media has "ignored" these events?
I'm calling you a bigot, that feels it is his right to call all who do not see things as he does; Liars. That's bigotry, you see.
"To be anti-bigot, and to say so, isn't being a bigot."
It certainly can be. Bigotry is intolerance of views other than one's own, and saying one is against bigotry, does not actually confer the "title" of anti-bigot on anyone. Either one is open-minded about views they have not held themselves, or not. What one declares about such things means nothing, really. Anyone can say they are open-minded, it's just a phrase.
Am I a bigot for denouncing the Bishop who denies the Holocaust because I am intolerent?? In that case, call me closed-minded - because my mind is closed to opinions clearly out of keeping with the facts?
Am I a bigot because others others deny the Holocaust too? Gosh, now I'm bigoted against a whole group. And here I thought I was just a person who prefers to spend at least some of their time in reality.
As to your 'old liberal/new liberal' stance. Got me. I have no idea what you could be talking about....
Someone point to the liberal media please? What stations would those be? I am Sans-TV, so you'll have to give me website addresses. "Liberal Media." Liberal Media. LIBERAL MEDIA. Sure has a ring to it, doesn't it? So where is it?
Just like anyone can say they are christian, it's just a phrase.
John, I believe you will agree with me when I say, Hatred and Division, Fear and Loathing are not desirable christian traits? Yes?
Then how can you spout your xtian scripture one second and then advocate for someone spouting hatred, division, fear and loathing in the next bubble? Oh. Because you do that yourself. I guess that makes it A-Okay!
Sincerely, do you argue just for the sake of argument? Are you christian? Are you a "divider?" Or are you in for the "public righteousness" of your posts? Because, sincerely, you just come off as being argumentative, and that is not the way to balance out to concensus, or to reach agreement. Not much on peace talks, eh?
And, damn, I swore I'd never respond to another of your "bb's in a cigar box" rattles.
Now, I'M a liar.
Sorry. I'm done now.
Wilka
Your rambling is nonsense, as far as I can tell. It appears you can't answer what I said, so you said what you feel are more easily refuted things instead, and pretend I did . . or something like that . .
"Then how can you spout your xtian scripture one second and then advocate for someone spouting hatred, division, fear and loathing in the next bubble?"
Don't suppose you'd let me in on what the hell you're taking about . .?
"See, John, that's you all over. Peter answers all the points you bring up, gives you links to the original data, and even provides the location in the document of the relevant information."
Why, yes, Peter implied once again that all who do not see things as he does, are wrong by default. And, he provided "links" to "data" that supposedly prove something or other . . but, that's not relevent to what I have broached here; The insane notion that to be "liberal minded", is to dogmatically adhere to the thoughts one has found pleasant or self reassuring, and simply call all who do not see things as onself, stuff like liars and "closed-minded'. This is the very opposite of what liberal minded means, and I tire of the phony liberals (I've decided to call the neolibs ; ) mechanically profess.
Liberal, means open to alternative views, not militantly against them. Such folks are giving actual liberal thinkers a bad name, I feel.
Nor is anything you've broached here relevant or rational, John. Why do you do this? Can you, one time, answer that question honestly? It's obvious, to many, that you purposely come into conversations and do everything you possibly can to twist people's words. It seems you would be embarrassed when everyone else "gets it" and you are still trying to argue that your twisting makes sense and everyone else is wrong. Watch Sue B. and John-boy. You do the same thing they do, and surely you must know by now that they fool no one. Is that how you want to appear? Honestly?
John, I termed the ridiculous assertions that the author of "Libreral Media" cribbed from a web site, "lies". because she attacks institutions and persons without any evidence or reason.
Whether I agree with her or like her is irrelevant.
She makes unfounded charges, and I answer with some evidence.
A reasonable person might disagree with the evidence or point out where my conclusions are not justified, but you are unable to do either of these things.
Instead, you take the coward's refuge in playing semantic games.
I did not "imply" anything -I stated that this silly woman's arguments were rubbish.
I do not say she is wrong because she disagrees with me; I state she is wrong because she is making up fanciful explanations for things that alarm and confuse her.
Your last post is evidence of a desperate person fleeing reason rather admit truth.
Your idiotic claim that it is "bigotry" to call something a falsehood makes rational discourse impossible.
Every time your arguments fail, you will argue that it is "bigotry".
According to his usual pattern, John will now deny that he ever said what he has posted, and will claim that his life-changing" experiences have enabled him to see past the duality of self and non-self, and the teleological and the ontological, and he now percieves things according to the illumination of the uber-gibberish that renders anything that disturbs him inadmissible.
Don't you get tired of spinning around inside that tiny nutshell that your mind has become, John?
Odd as this may sound to you. I don't believe that calling oneself "open-minded", actually means one is. If that constitutes confusing rhetoric in your eyes, so be it, but I ain't gonna pretend this is rocket science. Nor is it true that all who can utter the words "I am a Christian", are actually that. Surprise surprise, people can say just about anything, and it's up to each of us to check if what they say bears out in reality-land.
I know damn well there are oodles of "neolibs" that don't like me to speak of this blatant truth, but then, surprise surprise again ; )
" . . . I answer with some evidence"
Sir, your whole freakin' article is just you saying how those who don't see things as you do are liars, and an appeal for others to come tell you how right you are about that, which many did.
"A reasonable person might disagree with the evidence or point out where my conclusions are not justified, but you are unable to do either of these things."
Do tell, O wise one . . . then why did you take the approach you did? You did not speak of how a person might disagree with the evidence, or speak of how that person's conclusions are not justified, did you? No, you decided to tear into a whole freakin' religion, in a rather underhanded and self righteous manner, and call folks liars instead . . . I just tried to point out what you just suggested, that's all.
I say again, it is one thing to claim oneself is "liberal" in their thinking and atitude, and quite another to be.
Actually, to some of us, you are a dream come true. No one demonstrates the fallacy of your thoughts and beliefs as well as you do.
John, you're hallucinating again.
Please indicate who was addressed in my article except the author who published demonstrable falsehoods?
Again, you miss the point, obvious to any rational reader, that objecting to falsehood is not a matter of personal disagreement.
Please, also, point out where anyone is importuned to come and offer agreement or disagreement?
You can't do it, so we will be treated to another off-the-argument fit of your anger.
Come now, surely you can grasp that you ain't practicing what you preached to me in your recent comment, in the way you approached this article, can you not? I really thought you might "get it" . . . but I too misjudge at times, being merely human and all.