Click here for DaTechGuyBlog.com Same Fedoras, Same Cannoli different domain.
Please Help DaTechGuy pay Da Bills
Click for the latest show
…another organization operating under the banner of the CABC (Catholics against being Catholic).
There is a word for people with said beliefs, it is a perfectly good word that has been around for centuries. They are called Protestants.
If a person doesn’t like the church there are plenty of other denominations out there that are bleeding members and would welcome them with open arms.
This story is an excellent example of making up a headline to fit one’s template. Here is the headline:
here is the actual quote:
I asked Palin spokesperson Meghan Stapleton for comment on Rush’s rant, and she emailed me this:
“Governor Palin believes crude and demeaning name calling at the expense of others is disrespectful.”
What is missing from this sentence? Does Governer Palin think that Rush Limbaugh’s “rant” as Mr Sargent refers to it amounts to: “crude and demeaning name calling”?
Do you get that from that statement? I don’t. Do you see Rush mentioned in that reply? I don’t. Do you see an attempt to make a fight between Palin & Rush where there isn’t and to take the heat off Rahm Emanuel? Yup.
This is the same type of wishful thinking reporting that allowed the Boston Globe to believe that Martha Coakley was 15 point up 9 days before the election. And apparently the wishful thinking is not confined to the left.
Guys I don’t get paid to report (but feel free to kick in here). I expect better from people who do.
Oh and by the way, lets quit this “R” word idiocy. The word people were talking about was retard. r-e-t-a-r-d. It is a perfectly good word and is defined in the dictionary here. We should as a rule treat people with respect and not be crude and insulting to others, but lets also not be afraid of words nor treat ourselves with such fragility that we can’t cope with them.
The weaker we make ourselves the weaker we will be.
Update: If I’m reading Ann Althouse right she is with me on the Palin camp rips Rush nonsense.
Update 2: Rush says the same.
A while back I talked about Crazy Uncles, the proposition that 1% of any given population is composed of “Crazy Uncles” people who might be normal in a bunch of ways but whose views are very out there.
In any crowd you are going to have some crazy uncles. At the Boston Tea Party there were a few Ron Paul guys, at least two LaRouche guys and one vulgar sign about Barney Frank that I think crossed the line.
It added up to 5-10 guys out of 1000. The Boston Globe would have surely highlighted it…if they bothered to cover the rally.
Highlighting the crazy uncles in a group is method that the media has used to discredit movements that don’t have their imprimatur. One of my early disputes with Charles Johnson on his blog that led to my eventual banning at LGF (I posted there under my name not DaTechGuy) was my critique of his use of the Crazy uncle method to go after the Tea Party rallies.
The danger comes when you use that 1% of “crazy uncles” to reinforce your view of a group you already hate. By painting with that broad brush you don’t have to engage, your own bigotries and prejudices of the other 99%. Thus can a person sit back in the comfortable chair of affirmation. The certainty of their own moral superiority, unchallenged by the pesky facts around them…
…and that brings us to Joe My God’s post today. He has found a radio host who is a crazy uncle. A host I’ve never heard of or listened to. A host I’ll bet a lot of other Christians don’t know much about, and uses him to paint Christians with a broad brush:
Remember folks, the Christianist right is not about hatred and bigotry. It’s about the gentle redemptive love of Jesus, forced upon you at the barrel of a gun in prison as they beat the gay out of you.
According to this site 71% of Americans self identify themselves as Christians. 159 million adults (2001 figures). I have been a Catholic all my life and have spoken to Catholics and other Christians for all of my life concerning religion. I’ve heard ministers preach and been around their congregations. I’ve never heard any priest or minister advocate anything remotely like this. If I had to think of all the Christians I’ve known in my nearly 5 decades, maybe 2 might share this guys opinion and his twisting of scripture to his own ends. It is highlighted for the same reason why Chris Matthews goes after the birthers, it’s low hanging fruit and easier than going after Churches sending millions to Haiti; after all that doesn’t fit the template.
But such an acknowledgment wouldn’t support the “Christianist” template. So let’s play a game, let’s ask a few intelligent questions and invite our friends who use the term “Christianist” to enlighten us:
1. Define “Christianist”
2. Does belief in Roman Catholic Doctrine make one a “Christianist”
3. Name the protestant denominations that are by definition “Christianist”
4. If you are “bible believing” christian, does that make one a “Christianist”
5. Is the current Pope a “Christianist”, was the previous one a “Christianist”? If you answer yes to both, can you name one that wasn’t?
6. Can one by definition avoid the label “Christianist” without rejecting the Bible?
It will be interesting to hear the answer to these questions.
…in the Sherlock Holmes story Silverblaze The Left bank of the Charles notes the something missing in an old e-mail that he received before the election.
Might I suggest to the person he is referring to that she read about Tip O’Neill specifically page 65 of Tip O’Neill and the Democratic Century (my Amazon review from 2001 here)
Da Techguy's (no longer backup) Blog 