Once again I am left virtually speechless but the sheer blind rage in this election. The moral leaders of the Church in the Valley in Leakey, Texas felt that it was appropriate to post this sign reading: “Vote for the Mormon, not the Muslim! The capitalist, not the communist!” Putting aside the violation of its tax-exempt status, church leaders thought nothing of the lesson given their children in making such false and prejudicial statements. It shows the dangerously thin line that separates the faithful from the hateful in our society.
Of course, in addition to repeating the false statement about President Obama’s religion, the sign adds the common and equally ridiculous mantra about his being a communist. A term that, when pressed, seems beyond definition for some of these protesters.
The Church in the Valley headed by Pastor Ray Miller (who came up with the idea of the sign) sees nothing wrong is defining people primarily by their alleged faith — whether it is falsely Obama as a Muslim or Romney as a Mormon.
Equally disgusting is the response of a least one local businessman who insist that the controversy will be good for business. Damon White is quoted as saying “I love it. Even if it’s bad attention, bring it on. Come to town, see what it’s about.” Well, Mr. White, we certainly now know what you are about. It does not matter if it is unfair, prejudicial, and disrespectful, it is good for business. Now there is a lesson for the children of Leakey, Texas.
Notably, on its website, the Church proclaims “We believe our faith should be visible in concrete forms and models of personal and social behavior.” That model appears to include insulting and prejudicial statements about people with whom you disagree as well as use of false claims to achieve your political ends. I don’t recall the passage where Jesus Christ led the smear campaign against Pontius Pilatus. Indeed, I seem to recall something out “So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.” Perhaps but it does not sum up Paster Miller or the good people of the Church of the Valley.
Source: KENS as first seen on Reddit.
“There is also a peculiar inversion of reality in supposing that what one says of something has any effect at all on what has been said.”
Really.
Defusing propaganda by unmasking it for what it is in a timely manner has been shown to be quite effective in negating the intent of said propaganda, i.e. to garner support for a position, proposition or person through the means of deceptive content and/or practices in messaging. Anti-propaganda doesn’t do so by changing what was said. It isn’t a time machine. It does so by altering the perceptions of those who have just consumed it to alert them that someone is acting toward them in a less than honest manner in ways that may not be in their best interests and the speakers of such and what they say should be considered with a more critical eye.
“C’mere. It’s not like I’m a dange-rous tiger or sumptin’ tryin’ to eat ya.”
“Duh. Okay.”
“Hey, buddy. That’s a tiger over there.”
“Thanks for the heads up. I almost went over there.”
It’s basic psychology, but it has the merit of working.
Mike – “I came here on a mission to spread my personal propaganda, believing that the people here would be as clueless as those hanging around my local Tractor Supply Warehouse and discovered that there were people like Gene who were more or less immune to my legerdemain. Having been shown that people weren’t buying, I’m going to switch my tactics by not engaging with the less gullible, but keep throwing the propaganda up there for those who I can propagandize.”
There is danger in believing that the world as you see it is the world as it is.
There is also a peculiar inversion of reality in supposing that what one says of something has any effect at all on what has been said.
I have been warned against pronouncing armchair diagnoses of mental and emotional illness, but I believe, if you do your own homework, you will find clinical terms for both delusions in their various degrees of acuteness.
Enoch, your own words betray you and you ripostes are getting boring in you trying to defend yourself through tactics of deflection. Ho hum.
And what Mike said.
Sorry, Enoch.
You’ll have to do better than that equivocation.
Really. That’s the argument of a child.
Snap!
Gene, you wrote, “Your comment from http://jonathanturley.org/2012/10/22/a-sad-sign-of-our-times/#comment-436870 was the very first mention of taxation.”
No. it wasn’t. JT was the 1st to mention “tax” (in any of its forms), not me.
It takes a big man to admit he’s wrong, Gene.
We now all have the measure of you.
Putting aside means putting aside as in “disregard”.
“Putting aside the violation of its tax-exempt status, church leaders thought nothing of the lesson given their children in making such false and prejudicial statements. It shows the dangerously thin line that separates the faithful from the hateful in our society.”
In other words . . .
“[Disregarding] the violation of its tax-exempt status, church leaders thought nothing of the lesson given their children in making such false and prejudicial statements. It shows the dangerously thin line that separates the faithful from the hateful in our society.” [emphasis added for the hard of understanding]
The primary question was about making false and prejudicial statements.
English isn’t your primary language, is it, Enoch?
Oh snap!
You trollish teabagger you.
Oh….snap!
““’Putting aside the violation of its tax-exempt status, […]‘. JT’s original blog,1st paragraph, 4th sentence.”
JT put aside a status of exemption, i.e. that a church doing as this one did ought to be required to pay its taxes, taxation being that which the church is exempt from, providing it follows certain rules.
But then, I wouldn’t expect a poor lawyer to be able to make such fine distinctions.
What is it about “comments” that eludes you, Enoch the Simple?
In the article proper, “putting aside” means to disregard tax issues that you promptly bring up first in the comments section.
You’re really not that bright if you think this gyration is making you look anything but more foolish as the instigator of the trollish attempt to derail the subject – the content of the sign – the more you drag it out trying to say that “putting aside” a subject means you should jump to it as your first and foremost topic in the comments.
However, as time moves on, that you’re not very bright is simply more and more apparent. A common affliction among tea baggers. Just because you can read doesn’t mean you understand it. Much like “putting aside” has completely gone over your head. In the words of Foghorn Leghorn, “You’re built too low to the ground, son! The fast ones go right over yer head! You got a hole in yer glove! That boy’s about as sharp as a pound of wet leather.”
But you keep on, Enoch.
It’s really funny.
it is a sad thing that people go to see a layman instead of GOD.
but what can you tell a fool. they make THE BIBLE a lie about knowing GOD to get to HEAVEN.
the good news is that there is lots room since those that speak against GOD don’t get in. just ask ask creflo dollar. one left from the pews on,
‘about explotativive christianity << group sects'
Gene wrote”
“Your comment from http://jonathanturley.org/2012/10/22/a-sad-sign-of-our-times/#comment-436870 was the very first mention of taxation, Enoch. It reads in relevant part:
“’As for tax exemption… the needful right of Congress to levy taxes notwithstanding, a tax is not just or proper simply because it’s lawful. Power, to lie in the people’s hands, should never be allowed to levy taxes by taking. Government should never have the power to take private property without just compensation and for a good that is not unconditionally, universally and equally available to all.’
“It’s the fourth comment of the thread and your first.
“That’s a fact.”
===
And I answered:
“’Putting aside the violation of its tax-exempt status, […]’. JT’s original blog,1st paragraph, 4th sentence.”
====
What is it Gene likes to write? “Snap!”?
And yeah, that “I’m not going to answer” tactic is going to serve you real well moving forward.
Like I said, if you choose not to defend your assertions then that is your choice too.
They will be questioned and attacked whether you like or not or whether you respond or not.
Your active participation in showing what a pantsload your assertions are is not required, tea bagger.
Enoch,
What part of “putting aside” didn’t you understand?
Aside from all of it.
You didn’t prove anything other than you’ve got a reading comprehension problem.
Gene – didn’t like being shown wrong, did you?
No. Don’t bother answering that (although I know you won’t be able to help yourself).
I made a strategic error engaging with you on my first day or so here, Gene. I hadn’t learned the landscape yet, the players and the devices they improvise for combat (and you are quite the combatant, Gene). I didn’t know that someone like you was here. I won’t make the same mistake twice.
That said, the lessons of asymmetrical warfare are apt here. A guerrilla fighter will pop up, incite return fire and disappear, leading the regular forces to disclose more about themselves than they should. When opportunity smiles on the guerrilla fighter, he might toss a grenade, actually inflicting damage great or small, but harassing, always harassing the regular forces, always making him fight on the guerrilla fighter’s terms, and inflicting casualties when and how he can.
And the regular forces always do return fire. They can hardly help themselves. Spraying and praying, though, rarely if ever harms the guerrilla fighters, who have retreated to their own refuge. It’s a strategic retreat, Gene, right out of Sung Tzu.
Post, Gene. Strike out. Write all sorts of nasty things to and about me. I read them – but I don’t care. As long as I choose not to answer you, you’re shooting blanks, And telling me everything I want to know.
You know history isn’t real when it conflicts with a political agenda, gbk. 😉
Just ask Akin.
enoch,
“First, I don’t participate on any pages other than this and the Washington Post’s ‘comments’ pages.”
This might be factually true at this point in time, enoch, but it seems you had quite a run at teapartynation.com until May of this year. I especially like this paragraph out of the sixty-seven threads you commented on:
“In this context, all that separates the conservative from the libertarian is the conservative’s pragmatic admission that government has a more expansive role to play than the libertarian admits. Civil rights laws are a good example of this: a libertarian would argue that I am free to contract with whom I please, even if that meant I DON’T please to contract with Mongols. A conservative would argue that there ARE no Mongols – at least, not that the law can take cognizance of as such – and contracts are law, so I am NOT free to make a legal distinction that the law refuses to make. And this is that reciprocity rule again – I am my neighbor, and my neighbor is a Mongol: I ought not to discriminate against myself.”
Then what part of putting aside didn’t register?
“Putting aside the violation of its tax-exempt status, […]”. JT’s original blog,1st paragraph, 4th sentence.
Also, if you choose not to defend your assertions then that is your choice too.
They will be questioned and attacked whether you like or not or whether you respond or not.