tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-114002885429445588.post614001069199771278..comments2023-06-06T09:45:25.974-05:00Comments on This Tent's Just Right: Playing the Race Card to Stifle DebateDave Millerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01637750764381837761noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-114002885429445588.post-42348297219278796662009-09-20T19:19:37.585-05:002009-09-20T19:19:37.585-05:00Dave,
You are right about the racism charge. Jimm...Dave,<br />You are right about the racism charge. Jimmy Carter was wrong to try and blame the opposition to Obama on race. Bill’s comments are also on target. There is a lunatic fringe that may not be so much fringe any more that is an embarrassment to those of us who want to make reasoned rational arguments for or against Obama’s policies. Unfortunately much of it comes from the evangelical Christian community. <br />As far as Clinton is concerned, being from Arkansas, I followed the Clinton scandals very closely. The Clinton Chronicles covered all the misinformation on murders, money laundering, etc. Even the Republican newspaper in Arkansas went through the film line by line and showed it lies from beginning to end. It was distributed and partly financed by Jerry Falwell and his political organization. When asked, Falwell admitted there was much untrue in it but Falwell was never been very particular about being telling the truth. Maybe he got that from his friend Sun Myung Moon.<br /><br />Maybe those playing the race card are taking lessons from the Conservative Resurgence. Whenever someone opposes one of their actions or does not support their political agenda they are portrayed as a liberal or moderate. This has been a deliberate tactic since 1979. I know when I have pointed out the theological or moral inconsistencies in their actions I have been referred to as a moderate on this and other websites. Actually I am a theological conservative and an inerrantist and that is why I oppose the pseudo-conservative resurgence.Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01406273128237121474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-114002885429445588.post-78241756515959403422009-09-17T12:05:29.743-05:002009-09-17T12:05:29.743-05:00Dave: I do remember those Clinton theories now tha...Dave: I do remember those Clinton theories now that you mention them. I still don't think they rise to the level of the vitriol I'm seeing with the current president but perhaps my memory is faulty. Did you see the reaction to John Piper's post about wanting his daughter to see the hear the President's education speech? Commenters were literally ready to write off Dr. Piper's entire life and ministry because he had the audacity to suggest that his daughter ought to hear a presidential speech. The webmaster ended up deleting the most outrageous (Hitler references). The big problem isn't that these are isolated fruitbats who got out of their cage. I see this everywhere.<br /><br />Our reaction to the President speaks to the very heart of what we claim to be as Christians. When Pres. Clinton was going through the Monica Lewinsky scandal, I stayed glued to the TV just about 24/7. I wanted him to fall, and fall hard. Maximum humiliation was what I hoped for. I was consumed with it, and I wasn't the only one. I was wrong, deeply wrong. Perhaps he didn't get as much as he deserved from our justice system, but he got much more than he deserved from me. I learned from that and hopefully won't make the same mistake again, but I fear a lot of Christians are indeed making that mistake now.Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04864810365424064220noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-114002885429445588.post-84040535573138422332009-09-17T10:04:52.585-05:002009-09-17T10:04:52.585-05:00I think you are right - we need to respond with re...I think you are right - we need to respond with reason, not anger and conspiracy theories. (Did you see the one about how Obama is the Antichrist?) <br /><br />There is one part of your statement that I disagree with, Bill. You said that you didn't see anything like this with the Clintons. I did. There were the (probably true) rumors about sexual affairs. But there were wild rumors about Whitewater, rumors about murders and other such things - the Arkansas mafia. <br /><br />To be honest, I had a more visceral reaction to Clinton (and his wife). With Obama, it is his policies and the way that he is bankrupting America that bother me. Its not quite as personal.Dave Millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01637750764381837761noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-114002885429445588.post-10000499151701476112009-09-17T07:28:42.058-05:002009-09-17T07:28:42.058-05:00Dave: Like you, I'm not a supporter of Pres. ...Dave: Like you, I'm not a supporter of Pres. Obama (although calling Kanye West a jackass did make me happy). And like you, I have generally relegated the racism accusation against his opponents as liberal bloviating. But the amount of overwhelming hatred for this president that I am hearing from my conservative associates (particularly evangelicals) is giving me pause. I saw nothing like this during the Clinton years. The sheer number of false rumors and exaggerations that spread like wildfire through conservative communities is amazing. I've heard that Obama is the anti-Christ. I was told by a friend that his coworkers were stocking up on assault rifles and ammo because Obama was coming to take our guns. Someone in our church told me Obama-care was already in place because she was denied a medical procedure by her insurance company. Of course there are the infamous "death panel" statements and the sneering use of the president's middle name when disparaging him. The idiotic backlash against his address to students. <br /><br />I won't say it is racism, but something is going on. My deep concern is that conservatives are going to cry wolf so often, and look like such idiots ("you lie!") that our legitimate concerns are going to be swept aside because we won't have any credibility left.<br /><br />We need a reasoned, firm, but intelligent response to the policies we oppose (and there are many). Unfortunately, it isn't the reasoned, firm, intelligent people that make the news. We need William F. Buckley, not Glenn Beck.Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04864810365424064220noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-114002885429445588.post-84061685328339087432009-09-16T13:12:05.141-05:002009-09-16T13:12:05.141-05:00That's interesting. Never heard of Bulverism....That's interesting. Never heard of Bulverism.Dave Millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01637750764381837761noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-114002885429445588.post-42540928598427081872009-09-16T12:48:10.033-05:002009-09-16T12:48:10.033-05:00I think what you're actually seeing is part of...I think what you're actually seeing is part of the pervasiveness of <a href="http://oloryn.benshome.net/2007/12/bulverism.html" rel="nofollow">Bulverism</a> (also see <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulverism" rel="nofollow">here</a> and <a href="http://www.barking-moonbat.com/God_in_the_Dock.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>) in modern public discourse. Bulverism's basic tactic is to assert an invalid or irrational motivation on the part of an opponent instead of trying to refute an opponent's arguments. It is not at all limited to the left, though there are some times I wonder if the left have turned it into something of an art form (e.g. the typical use of the term 'homophobia' makes it a one-word Bulverism, implying that anyone who disagrees with homosexual behavior is motivated by an irrational fear, and their arguments thus can be dismissed). As you note, no proof is ever offered of the alleged motivation - it's just asserted, assumed to be true, and the opponents arguments are dismissed or ignored on that basis.<br /><br />One of the big problems with pervasive Bulverism is that, as Lewis put it, "Until Bulverism is crushed, reason can play no effective part in human affairs". This is because if Bulverism is accepted as valid, everyone tends to use it (it's much easier than the tedious and difficult process of actually thinking about the arguments involved - it's much easier to dismiss your opponent's argument than to try and disprove them), and everyone ends up merely pointing fingers at their opponent's alleged motivations rather than reasoning on the merits (or demerits) of the arguments involved.<br /><br />And Bulverism is ancient. The serpent's deception of Eve appears to me to be Bulverism: "You won't die! God knows that if you eat, you'll become like Him". The serpent asserts that God has a nefarious motivation for the command not to eat - that He's trying to prevent man from becoming His equal (the original version of "The Man is just trying to keep you down!"), and on that basis the command can be ignored. <br /><br />We need to not only reject Bulveristic arguments when we hear them, we need to watch out that we don't fall into them ourselves. It is easy to spot when the 'other side' uses Bulverism. It is tempting, though, to let it slide when 'our side' uses Bulverism, as it seems so 'obvious' to us that the other guys are wrong, and zeroing in on their motivations rather than their arguments becomes easy at that point. That way, though, lies chaos, and reason becoming irrelevant.Olorynhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17042191530693591797noreply@blogger.com