I want to point out the touchiness of certain bloggers. These bloggers are famous for
crying about any critical comment that they post. I can and have disagreed with Mr. Beamish, Nanc or AOW without them going postal. The over the top responses seem to indicate that there is perhaps more substance to my critique than either would admit publicly.
For people that cry about personal attacks this dynamic duo certainly engages in them
quite frequently. A response to criticizing an author of whose book they have not bothered to read is met with the standard "you are a liar". My response is to demonstrate how a personal attack should at least contain some originality. For example what was the last book you have read? Did it have a man in a yellow hat or an over sized red dog? My response at least was original, but being usual suspect number one deleted the whole exchange this is lost.
I will respond to the usual suspects. They know who they are without my saying so. Person A from moment one was always an imbecile. You can search his writings, which he deletes frequently, for intelligent content and you will find nothing. This person
demanded I drop a certain gas masked friend whom he calls evil and the house bigot.
In fact he states that there are many bigots here. He doesn't bother to name these bigots.
His greatest crime was claiming I write these posts to impress my "fundamentalist"
friends. Who these friends are he doesn't name? The positions on this blog are written because it is a representation of what I believe. Oddly, had this person half a brain, he would have seen similar discussions on MZ's site. Why would I dissent from MZ on this subject as far back as two years ago. Moreover, who was I trying to impress on that site?
This person literally reinvents himself every other week. Who knows what person we are dealing with this week or next. Perhaps he is going to be a New Age Folk Singer
next week or perhaps it will be a combination of tarot cards and rap music. While he has been all over the map and has become increasingly hateful I am still the same man. He was tolerable because he was a decent sort with a good sense of humor. He is
now neither a decent sort nor has he evidenced any sort of humor. It is very hard to
have a sense of humor and you are in a self righteous mania at the same time.
On to the last of the dynamic duo. It is with great reluctance that I even start this. I am well aware of words said in anger because a close friend is hurting over whatever ails him. I am also aware of a person desperately trying (not you) to regain credibility within his community by attacking innocent people and saying the most outlandish hateful comments about "fundies".
It is one thing for a TMW or even a Nanc to criticize the remarks about "radical Christians". It is quite another for a non practicing secular Jew to notice this theme. While I do not deny that some dreadful homophobic comments are made there is no mass movement by Brill Cream haired men high on the 700 club to herd gays by force
into NASCAR events, make them eat red meat and make them heterosexuals. There is no mass movement towards a Christian theocracy and this is Henny Penny. The sky is not falling.
Ironically, person A has criticized me in terms that some of his mutual friends have said to me in private. I could switch my name for his in his critique of me and produce identical comments. I honor the man who served his country and was a decent thoughtful person and someone I valued as a friend. His words do not bother me at all because I am aware of the desire and context to protect a friend. I would remind this person that sometimes we try too hard to protect our friends and there is truth to every one of my critiques and points. The truth is also said by a person who has similar training to his own. There are jobs that are best handled by professionals and if you are honestly interested in helping this person you should encourage this person to seek guidance and listen to that guidance.
Person B has reinvented himself several time. At one point he was a Catholic Priest.
Then he was unaffiliated and when we last met him he was claiming to be a messianic Jew. Oddly, I came to his defense, which he forgets, and thanked me at the time. I respect messianic Jews, I respect Christianity in general and I respect the right of gays to individual dignity. I do not respect liberation theology as it is an attempt by Marxists to subvert religious denominations. Oddly, my criticism of this malady is meaningless as the membership either dies or forms a cha cha line to a more traditional Church. When person B talks of "radical Christians" he is leaving out the
people who think the communist manifesto is a sacred text. I am neither the first nor
likely the last to Rowan Williams a Marxist. Moreover, one can take the time and read
the entire entries on "Liberation Theology, Social Justice" and Williams on Discover
Person B has not even bothered to read this material and seems to think my critique
on this point is contrived out of thin air. In fact two Popes were quite clear about
liberation theology and agreed with my position. It is a fallacy to say Jesus cared about the poor so we will act in their name to liberate them from oppression. If you wish to serve the poor as a calling it is a noble thing. The poor suffer from many things lack of education, mental illness, substance abuse, domestic violence but they
are in no definition oppressed. A social worker who mistreats her charges is guilty of malfeasance, not oppression. In reality that social worker is likely a dedicated professional who has helped more people than bug eyed Marxist clerics running between protests, jet setting to every Marxist hot spot, cocktail parties and press interviews. The social worker has rules, procedures and works for the government. Sometimes the self righteous types who seek to exploit (not B) the poor for political
power deliberately exploit their needs.
I am no longer welcomed on their site, but this is merely stating something in public
that has been an unwritten policy for a while. Unlike this blog where we allow dissent that blog pays lip service to dissent. This blog has always allowed dissent
but we do not allow criminal threats or spam. The Duck comes here almost daily and is
almost never if ever censored.
Neither A nor B are banned from this site. They are free to comment if they so desire. I have no interest in A as a friend. It was his choice initially, but upon reflection I concur for reasons of my own. I still consider B a valued friend with whom I disagree even if he no longer describes me as such. I salute B for his service
to America and wish him well.
There will be no changes as a result of this parting of ways. The content of this blog is determined by the way I see things. It is apparent that those who claim the content of this blog is written to please "fundies or bigots" are projecting their
own foibles on me. The over the top shrill hateful rhetoric of A is clearly an attempt to regain credibility within the gay community. Then again when one is all over the map who knows what the real A is or will be next week. It is almost like watching Dr Who regenerate every two months.
This blog has been clear about our respect for religious people. If you look carefully you will even note that we do not say a word about Islam. It is quite possible to be a patriot and be concerned about your faith as Stephen Schwartz has clearly demonstrated. Schwartz literally places himself in danger for his convictions
and even when I disagree with him it is respect. The limits of religion in this country is when your religious practices violate the law, incite people to criminal acts or infringe upon someone else's liberty.
I believe gays and lesbians should be left alone as a matter of civil law. I also want freaks in black robes, like Bader Ginsberg, as far from religious terms as possible. All religious denominations have strict rules about marriage. Gays are entitled to civil unions that would carry the same legal benefits. This should not be available to heterosexual couples who may marry legally.
I have always been for humanizing both gays and so called "fundamentalist" Christians. One can only hate what one has dehumanized and pointless hate is something I have always been against.
Now B might point out that I hate liberals. This would be amusing if I were a conservative. I hate Utopians and given the crimes against humanity they have committed this is justified. Communism is a religion (Toynbee) that is deceptive in nature and deadly in practice. Communists will practice entryism and seek to subvert
and manipulate people. Liberation theology is an attempt by Communists to subvert religious institutions.
I respect genuine liberals who have the decency to step away from the communists. Freedomnow and Jams are examples of liberals I respect. Pro American social liberals
left the Democratic party long ago when the Harkin, Rangel and Gomer Kerry types started appeasing communists. In fact the Democratic party has allowed these same subversive types into the party. A quick check of the writtings of the Daily Kos crew, Moveon maniacs and Code Pinko cast congregate proves my point. Pro American liberals need to step away from the Marxists who write such wonders as "General Betrayus" or write Jewish conspiracies to blow up the WTC.
While I am still the same guy with the same positions the critics of this blog are always reinventing themselves. This also includes the person in Chicago who is a Kahanist, an ex Kahanist seeking truth, a born again Kahanist and now back on his way to being an ex Kahanist again. Who knows maybe next week he might be a retro beatnick. He has already started the dreadful Prozac poetry and all he needs is a goatee, bongos and some pot.
At least some of the cast remains stable.TMW, Nanc, Warren, AOW, Mr B and many others
are still the same. Sonia is still unclothed and even more anti communist than I. Pagan is still himself as is the ever decent Jams herding befuddled felines through