Leftists are as predictable as the sunset; you know it's coming sooner or later, and it'll be dark.
So it is with SouthDakotaMac (who can't seem to spell my name right--or is that just a juvenile cheap shot?). Once again proof that the Left isn't interested in intellectual honesty, logic, or truth. "Don't bother me with the facts--I have an agenda to promote."
SouthDakotaMac takes issue with my defense of the latest phony Media Matters controversy surrounding comments made by Ann Coulter. Predictably, those comments are being taken out of context by the Left in order to smear a conservative and thus hopefully undermine conservative ideals in the minds of the general public. And they are being taken out of context using one of the Left's favorite plays: the race card. They seek to paint Coulter as an anti-Semitic Jew-hater because she believes Christianity is the best way to find truth.
Let's examine some of SouthDakotaMac's points.
Yes because the My Religion Can Beat Up Your Religion has not emotional component to it at all. And it wasn't just a matter of "prefering" one religion to another, it was about ridding the world of the jewish religion.
Christianity is an intellectual religion. While all religions (even atheism) requires a certain element of faith, Christianity is not just a religion but a pursuit of knowledge, as it seeks understanding of the Author of all knowledge. But that isn't really what SDMs statement was about--it was about undermining my argument with a cheap shot without the need to bother with intellectual debate.
Also, "ridding" carries the connotation of a systematic, oppressive elimination of a group or belief. Coulter's statement said nothing of the sort. Christianity went from a religion of 12 to a religion of millions not by forcefully eradicating anyone's beliefs, but by proving itself to those who accepted it as the way to truth. That remains true today.
SDM is also upset with Coulter's statement that "we should just throw Judaism away and we should all be Christians" (which was her interviewer's choice of words, not hers). Again, there is no implication of an oppressive campaign. Anytime we abandon a belief, we "throw it away." When I became a Christian, I threw away my belief that humanism was better; no one forced me to, but I had no need of it anymore.
Then SDM resorts to a tactic which is quite popular these days, as personified by Media Matters and their war on anyone who doesn't see things their way. He quotes my previous post
We would probably agree to this supposition if it were a cure for cancer, the discovery of a clean energy source, or something that would make us all supremely happy? So why is it so wrong to want everyone to embrace the solution you've found to spiritual separation from God, in this life and the next? As long as no one's being forced, where's the harm?
Then proceeds to take it completely out of context (SDM must really be a star pupil of Media Matters):
So there you have it ladies and gentlemen, according to Bobbie and his ilk, being Jewish is equal to having cancer, or something else that is in need of solving.
SDM has already proved he/she/it (what is SDM's real name?) isn't interested in truth, but in misrepresenting, discrediting and thus eradicating (gee, isn't that what he/she/it accused Coulter of? Hmmm...) a point of view which he/she/it finds unpleasant. But I'll indulge anyone who is interested in an explanation for this out-of-context passage.
Contrary to what liberals would have us believe, there is absolute truth out there (e.g. 2+2=what, ladies and gentlemen?). Islam makes the claim that the path of Allah is the only way to find that truth. Judaism also makes a claim of exclusivity, in that Jehovah is the one true God. Christianity also believes the claim of Judaism, but also that Y'shua is God's son, and that faith in Him and His sacrifice for a sinful humanity is the only way to meet God's approval. We can debate which of these is correct or most correct, but the fact remains that the three major religions of the world make the claim that there is an absolute, exclusive truth. If you claim to be an adherent to any of these, then you believe there is a specific way to attain a more fulfilled life here on earth, and a specific way to meet God's standard and go to Heaven once you die. (Sidenote: even atheists believe in their own absolute truth--that humans would be better off abandoning belief in a deity and recognizing human reason as the ultimate intellectual force in the universe). So finding that solution isn't the sinister, hateful thing SDM makes it out to be. To proffer one more example, if you knew that a bridge was out on the road ahead, would the correct thing to do be to smile and wave at people as they drove past you and over the precipice...or to warn them? If you were the one driving unsuspectingly toward the precipice, would you want someone to tell you about the danger...or just smile as you drove ahead to your doom? (Feel free to take that out of context, too, SDM).
SDM then places what he believes to be the icing on his phony cake:
So where is the slippery slope for Bobbie and his Dakota Voice:
.
What other group viewed Jews as something that needed to be cured?
.
What other group sees their own superiority and views others as inherently inferior and in need of being "improved"?
Ah, now I understand. Bob is evil. Bob is Hitler. Bob is taking us down a slippery slope to genocide. Uh huh. (For the record, anyone who knows me knows that I love the Jewish people and have the greatest respect for them, even as I believe those who haven't accepted Y'Shua as Messiah are missing out on their promised Redeemer). Incidentally, many Jews who have accepted Y'Shua as Messiah also want their Jewish brethren to be "completed," so are these Jews genocidal Jew-haters, too?
Coulter's intent, which was to promote and defend both her Republican values and the predominately Christian heritage of this nation, is irrelevant when the opportunity for a smear arises.
SDM, in his out-of-context, likely intentional misrepresentation of what I said doesn't even realize it, but he has proven himself to be exactly what he claims Coulter and I are: an intolerant person who wants to eliminate a point of view from sight.
The difference is, I'd prefer to win over (those who have an interest in the truth in the first place) with persuasion, facts and logic. Others, meanwhile, would rather do so with emotionalism, demonization, misrepresentation, and fear mongering. Check out some of the comments to SDM's post for further examples of this behavior.
But then, what's new on the Left?
0 comments:
Post a Comment