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.
Beverlee,
To quote President Lyndon B. Johnson: “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.”
I could re-phrase that ten ways, but hope the first one does it for you.
People are here for their own amusement, not to entertain others.
Particularly NOT those who bore or are defective. Life is that way. Haven’t you been kicked the last year?
Yes.
And today I was first to kick Enoch—-but only today did his weakening reveal his faults to me, but those I am proud that I have answered. Pardon my hubris, if it is that.
Not all beliefs are equally worthy of respect. The Nazis had a very definite ethos no matter what else you can say about them. Most would agree that their ethic is certainly not worthy of respect. You have a right to have and express your opinion. That does not mean it is right automatically just because you hold it, it does not mean it is superior simply because you hold, it does not mean your beliefs cannot be challenged by critical scrutiny, and it does not guarantee you a right not to be offended.
Respect and offense are individual in nature.
Logic, reason and evidence are not based in subjective perception and any beliefs predicated thereon, but rather objective standards that follow rules that can be checked for error and relevance in making decisions, even if the speak engages in insult (which is not the same thing as the logical fallacy of ad hominem attacks).
If someone says something about your beliefs you think is wrong?
Prove it wrong using the proper tools to do so: logic, reason and evidence.
If someone says something about your beliefs that you find offensive?
Suck it up, buttercup. No one cares if you are offended but you. That’s your reaction and as such entirely your property and under your control. It has nothing to do with anything but your feelings and in the big pants world, your feelings are simply beside the point.
Beverlee,
Did you mean that you dislike casting “aspersions?” What have you read that sounds so hateful and intolerant? Can you be more specific?
I dislike casting dispersions…however, the anti-____________(Romney, Republican, Religious, etc,) by the posters on this site is beyond the pale. You may feel that with the big words you use, you sound justified. You do not. You sound as intolerant and hateful as the Texan that put up that sign. Don’t expect respect for your beliefs when those with whom you disagree, you disparage.
There it is.
I wrote: “Regarding right or wrong evolving and changing as if there was something wrong with that, in my own lifetime I have seen this evolving change and some of it was good.
Jim Crow no longer was constitutional.
Jews were no longer discriminated against.
Homosexuality was no longer a crime.
For instance. I could go on and on with change.”
Enoch responded: “Mike – Did slavery become wrong, or did law and society finally catch up with the notion that they had always been wrong? Were Jim Crow laws ever right?”
Enoch,
Here’s the problem. You misconstrued what I was talking about and added slavery to the discussion, which I had specifically not mentioned. Slavery was unmentioned because I was obviously referring to the acceptability of social beliefs, rather than legal systems. If the country’s attitudes hadn’t changed regarding the three specific issues I mentioned, they never would have been redressed by law. My comment was responsive to the theme of this blog post, which is the anomaly of a Christian church preaching hatred and how that fits into the bounds of social acceptability.
That you turned it into a slavery issue was thus non-responsive and off the point. I suspect though, given your writings, that it was your attempt to raise that issue, so that you could make a further point of the thrust of your philosophy, which is that taxes are essentially theft. You seem to be someone who can only discuss an issue on your own terms, which certainly bespeaks a rigidity of thought.
GBK likewise was onto your game and he replied:
“This is a specious response, enochwisner. One cannot ignore the fact that slavery was morally acceptable and legally permissible for much of human history and encompassed many times and cultures.
To pretend that this was not so and that the world’s cultures have finally caught up to an absolute “notion” that only libertarians such as yourself have recently uncovered is laughable.
You show your true colors in using your comment to slip in your anti-taxing rant suggesting that the issue of taxation is a wrong notion that only the brilliance of libertarian thought can expose, and that we less insightful persons must again catch up with.”
You responded to him with a discussion of the entomology of the word slave which was a “non-sequitur” to avoid answering his valid point. This was i the tradition of Bill Clinton parsing the meaning of “is”, though he seems to be a far better debater overall than you can aspire to be.
Then you went further with this Enoch:
“You remind me of someone else on this board, which forces me to ask you to give the distinctions between עבד כנן and עבד ‘שראל
“I’m sorry, but the request is necessary, gkb. How you define these will determine your understanding of the use of the word, “slave,” particularly across cultures and i history.”
The only problem being that you failed to address what GBK was saying, which I agree with, which was that you gratuitously added slavery to the discussion. This was done so that you could then follow up with your view of taxation. This is why I and others have attacked your use of logic being non-existent and fundamentally dishonest. Now your use of the Hebrew words עבד כנן and עבד ‘שראל was done for two purposes the first being to show your “erudition” thus trying to give yourself credibility and the second to illustrate your “non-responsive” point by indicating that within the Torah there were different meanings for someone who worked toiled for others and toiled for the priestly class. They both fail for the same reason, they are “non sequiturs” to the discussion at hand in an attempt to turn it to the points which you want to discuss. I would say nice try, if it wasn’t for the fact that it was a disingenuous and also patently obvious gambit.
The truth of what GBK and I are saying lies in your last comment, Enoch, which contains this quote:
“You see, I work, and I get paid what I ask for what I do (in addition to 3 season farming, I also own and operate a sawmill in the winter). My brother (for example) is far richer than I – but he didn’t get that way in any way at my expense. If I were as good at what he does as he is, perhaps I would be richer. I’m not, and I’m not. And if there’s any blame to be assigned, it all lies with me.
And if anyone is richer than you, it isn’t their fault, it’s yours.”
First of all what does your working and your brothers relatively greater wealth have anything to do with this topic, excepting that this is what YOU really want to discuss? Please explain that Enoch? Secondly, that last sentence shows what a “Redneck” fool you are. I’ve no doubt that you’ve worked hard in your life, though possibly you inherited a large family farm. I guess then when my parents died when I was 18, leaving me nothing, that I was on equal footing with let’s say Paul Ryan, whose family owned the largest company in town ad who lived a prosperous youth after his father alone died when he was 18. Also Mitt Romney who talks of struggling through college and grad school on the million dollars of an investment portfolio that his Father gave him. Then too Mitt’s initial capital of $10 million, with which he started his company came from Daddy too. But I guess its my fault that I didn’t become as rich as Mitt.
The fact is that most of the wealth of this country was created via the help of government bought and paid for by wealthy individuals. While it is true that some like Edison and Ford built their wealth through innovation,
most like Rockefeller and Vanderbilt were added by being born to wealth and by bribing government officials, Your particular philosophy assumes an equal playing field, which I know your not stupid enough to believe in.
The fact is Enoch, that you, like many others with big mouths and greedy minds, see wealth as the measure of a person. That you try to hide this fact of your own sociopathy by philosophical obfuscation and by silly attempts at debate, only makes you more ridiculous. I’m sure that the friends, if any, that may surround you see you as erudite, but the truth is from your opening comment I knew who you were and how you would proceed, since there have bee so many before you here with the same overweening hubris and pitiful skillset. Now in this case, that last insult directed at you was not “ad hominem”, because I had already answered all your preposterous musings with logical/factual refutation. What it plainly was is my casting a direct aspersion on you and your character.
You amuse me mildly in your hubris, but mainly bore me with your obviousness.
I tried that argument on him. It did not bite, ie he ignored and replied with other skit.
Do you hover much?
Wow! We have a blatantly racist advertisement by an alleged church of God and then an Ayn Rand devotee decides that the law does not allow for taxation unless you get something back. How about national security, roads, FAA monitoring air traffic, how about social security and medicare and the justice system for getting something back for your tax dollar, the CDC and on and on?
Enoch,
You are tiring. You were very sharp yesterday, even oversharp, lots of new (for here) words, new for me ideas.
Today you come back like any would-be-alpha dog, going around pissing, scratching gravel and leaves after you, and watching to see who notices you. Now that is tolerable, we have at least two of those already. But when you put on the bully mask, that got me irritated
BTW, I was the first to attack today. So am not running in GeneH footsteps, like some other vultures here are doing. The last twitchings of a dying body entrances them.
———-
“And if anyone is richer than you, it isn’t their fault, it’s yours.”
Of course. But it is also so that the man who starts with a hundred meter handicap, ie ahead, usually finishes first in a hundred meter race.
Now what do you suppose “Dubja” would have done without his Poppy? Not crap.
And that goes for all those born to money or station, which is the same thing actually. They only learn how to talk the talk, walk the walk is usually not theirs. Dubja flunked out his flight periodic test and fled NG service after that in violation of his obligation, to avoid Vietnam.
Where do you usually play? This is a tough playground. Only old men are sometimes given quarter, or ignored.
SwM,
Most of Europe have already chosen Obama by a very wide majority.
He’s even popular in China. They do have internet there without an Obama filter, I’ve heard.
Aramaic (your spellings) was spoken by Jesus and his society—and is today by the Assyrians in about 3 different dialects. According to my Assyrian friends here.
enoch,
Maybe you should go back farther in tme, like you did with the word “slave.”
“Among the scripts in modern use, the Hebrew alphabet bears the closest relation to the Imperial Aramaic script of the 5th century BCE, with an identical letter inventory and, for the most part, nearly identical letter shapes.”
“The Aramaic alphabet is adapted from the Phoenician alphabet and became distinctive from it by the 8th century BCE.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic_alphabet
I guess palaeography isn’t your thing.
digress \dī-ˈgres, də-\, v.i.,
: to turn aside especially from the main subject of attention or course of argument
You can be irrelevant and diverting in more than one language.
Interesting.
gbk – “Azitiwada Phoenician script and Aramic are very similar.” But neither is like modern Hebrew, in which characters Aramaic survives as a living tongue, today.
And the words that began this digression are Hebrew, in modern Hebrew characters.
Just can’t seem to find that broad side of the barn, can you, gbk?
enoch,
“But a discussion of my argument cannot be more fruitful than the understanding of the person I discuss it with is good. Yours is not . . .”
It’s amazing how much you’ve learned of me in such a short time with so little information. I really do have to leave your esteemed illusions for a time though, but continue with them as I love watching train wrecks.
idealist707 – We being with different premises: I make no apology for the “1%”. If not for the inherent contradiction, I would wish there could be more of them – richer than Croesus, all of them, dripping money everywhere they go.
You see, I work, and I get paid what I ask for what I do (in addition to 3 season farming, I also own and operate a sawmill in the winter). My brother (for example) is far richer than I – but he didn’t get that way in any way at my expense. If I were as good at what he does as he is, perhaps I would be richer. I’m not, and I’m not. And if there’s any blame to be assigned, it all lies with me.
And if anyone is richer than you, it isn’t their fault, it’s yours.
Scholars also know that Azitiwada Phoenician script and Aramic are very similar. Hard to tell the difference with only a few scribblings.
I’ll leave you to your medieval musings and evasions, I have much to do today. However, if you want to discuss your absolute notions feel free to ramble, I’ll be back later this evening.
Awww.
Widdle Enoch pretends people who destroy his nonsense don’t have names or don’t exist. Next he’s going to sulk and call someone a dooty head. Maybe even take his toys and go home.
Poor widdle Enoch.
Unless of course, he’s responding like a pedant on what he thinks is a relevant point like “that’s not Aramaic” as if that’s even relevant. Then that person has a name. But then that person isn’t a “scholar” like Enoch is by implication.
Uh huh.
gkb – “My understanding of the word “slave” isn’t what’s being determined here, enoch, it’s the validity of your argument that’s being determined. So why don’t you look up slavery/slave in your Oxford circa 1955 and go for it.”
But a discussion of my argument cannot be more fruitful than the understanding of the person I discuss it with is good. Yours is not (“I can’t read your Aramic inscriptions” that aren’t even Aramaic). Please move on.