A friend’s recent post on FACEBOOK caught my attention, (as such postings usually do). I followed the link (http://foxnewsboycott.com/glenn-beck/rush-limbaugh-questions-glenn-becks-objective-in-keynote-speech/) and discovered the following posted under comments to the article and post it here because the writer articulates better than I can a frustration I have with the Democratic Party (I am uncomfortable with using the word "hatred" on such a public forum, but I must admit that I have spoken like this in private, so I leave it unedited - please forgive me any offence):
Azarkhan says: February 23, 2010 at 10:51 am
For those on the left who “can’t figure out the point” Rush and Mark Levine are making, let me explain it to you.
Like me, they have a deep and abiding hatred of the Democratic Party and its sympathizers. Over the years we have seen the Democratic Party lie, cheat, deceive, and exhibit outright contempt for the law, all the while exhibiting a sanctimonius, “holier then thou” attitude. In their arrogance, the Democrats refuse to even entertain the notion that perhaps, just perhaps, some of their prescriptions for
The words of a professor who witnessed the 1968 student takeover at
“Again and again one is struck by the posture of complete self-righteousness and of unyielding moral absolutism in the attitudes and actions of the radical leaders. “I am totally right and completely moral, and you-if you disagree with me-are absolutely wrong and wicked….You have no rights that I must respect, and you must agree to accept everything I demand….” ”
These same radicals later disrupted the Democratic convention in
This is why many conservatives do not agree with Glenn Beck’s attack on Republicans. While the Republicans may indeed be corrupt, they are not a threat to the Constitution or our individual freedoms.
On the other hand, the Democrats are “true believers” who will stop at nothing in their drive to impose their values on American society. For the Democrats, the Constitution is a hindrance, a mere scrap of paper to be ignored whenever circumstances dictate. And the only individual freedoms they recognize is their “freedom” to do whatever is necessary, legal of illegal, moral of immoral, to impose their will on the majority.
My friend, in reply, wrote:
“… it truly amazes me, how similar both sides rant at each other. Liberals "fee" that Conservatives are the ones who try to ram their moral, "holier than thou" beliefs on the rest of us. I find the comment almost satirical, though I realize it was meant to be serious.
I seldom meet a Liberal or Progressive who is sure of anything, that is the problem, there is no "one" way, opinion or any kind of "group think", unlike the litmus test being touted by Conservatives.
It is the Democrats who insist on preserving our personal liberties and rights. Republicans preserve the liberty and rights of those they agree with or want to change.
To clarify, I was not confused by what Limbaugh was saying, but HOW he said, the sentence lacked substance, was confusing and seeemed to use circular syntax.
To feel "hatred" for a political party seems to me a very sad thing. I may disagree with conservative politics, and I certainly dislike bush, cheney and the rest, and feel they were disrespectful of the American people and our Constitution, but I blame each of them for their personal actions not the "party".
There is no room for conversation across a chasm, and beck, limbaugh, rove and the rest have no interest in building a bridge, it is their way, or no way. That is why they spend all their time spreading falsehoods and attempting to discredit the logical and diplomatic efforts of our President.
President Obama is the repudiation of 8 years of conservative politics. The economic collapse is the culmination of "small government, less taxes". I hope that enough Liberals will stop sipping their chardonny and remember that and get out and vote. Unfortunately, history tells us that the mid-term election after a Presidential election almost always goes to the opposition.
You and I seem to agree on the common goal of "preserving our personal liberties and rights." We, without doubt, disagree on which political party is more insistent on doing so. Hypocrites and fools populate all parties, so all can be targets of satiric critique.
Personally, I would rather our discussion be more focused on coming to a better understanding of what is implied in "preserving our personal liberties and rights." Sniping at political opponents muddies the waters. Caring conversation calls for clarity rather than discombobulative wisecracks and ad hominem attacks.
My point in posting the previous comment regarding my frustration with the Democratic Party was to give some historical perspective to my contemporary views. You continually complain about the last 8 years prior to the apotheosis of Barack Obama. My complaint comprehends a time beyond that back to the 60's when I first became involved in the political process with my parents in Richard Nixon's first presidential campaign (it is interesting to note that the catch-phrase at the time to describe "us" was "the Silent Majority"). I went through a hyper-conservative phrase in the '80s while serving as an Army officer under President Reagan while he led the world against the evil of communism and shook up the political establishment with his popular conservatism; at the time I was an avid suscriber to the National Review and even had very close connections to those in the Christian Reconstructionist movement whose Dominion theology dominated much Evangelical political thought.
What happened, however, was that, while stationed in
I can go on, but let me just say that I like to think I am still undergoing reformation. I am very hopeful that my desire for right relationship disciplines my drive for righteous society. Athough sometimes my sympathy for certain political viewpoints may seem repulsive to you, please realize that I DO NOT allow politics to be the grid according to which I live and move and have my being. I hope I am always ready to reform myself according to what is right rather than remain rooted in some wrong-minded reputation of my own making.
3 comments:
Replying to my post, my friend asked:
"what rights are being damaged by this administration?"
My answer:
In regard to "rights being damaged by this administration" - what immediately comes to mind is the mindset of many appointees in the administration, Cass R. Sunstein, for example, who currently is the Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Obama administration. Consider the following quote from the abstract of a paper he co-authored in 2008:
"Because those who hold conspiracy theories typically suffer from a crippled epistemology, in accordance with which it is rational to hold such theories, the best response consists in cognitive infiltration of extremist groups." Would not such a plan violate prohibitions on government propaganda aimed at domestic citizens?
Read the whole abstract here: (retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1084585).
I am wary of political organization given my severe aversion to the cancerous effects of institutionalization on person to person interaction. People may be jerks, but institutions tend to become Juggernauts which crush human personality. Such an image of political society is the stuff of nightmares, a never-ending contest between "us" and "them." I prefer the image of community as a family, a body of people - all of us - continually committed to caring communication with one another.
My friend then, in another reply, wrote that "eroding anyone's rights, either private or state, ... is the entire basis of the so-called tea party and patriot opposition groups." This is quite a sweeping statement that I cannot accept as true. I am also concerned about identifying all dissenters with "extremist groups" in order to justify the allegedly "historical method of police and investigation ... to utilize stealth infiltration techniques." This is on par with calling opponents of President Obama "racist" in order to discount their dissenting opinions.
Deep distrust is at the root of much dissent these days. This is why I prefer to build trust first before engaging in political debate with others. I hope this is what we are doing.
I suppose much of the problem of public debate is that the tone is too often set by how issues are presented in the mass media. People are provoked in some way, pro or con, than the provocation is promoted even more by various media outlets who want to grab some measure of the market share. Division in debate becomes defined by simplistic description like "red" or "blue," "left" or "right," etc., etc. Rarely is any issue so simple.
This is why I so appreciate our community conversation here in Phoenixville. It is probably inevitable that we will be influenced by the mass media, but let us be resolved to have local personal relationship trump national political propaganda, trusting we mean well toward one another despite even the most fervent disagreement.
From FACEBOOK ...
Nick Tavani wrote:
The problem is the Left is real and it's Tactics unchanged, well known and published. They are using the playbook. Why not just accept that fact and act accordingly. Why waste time in worthless "dialogue" with idiologues out to destroy us?
Craig Tavani wrote:
Because they are my friends.
Nick Tavani wrote:
I had plenty of leftist friends - they overan my high school and colege halls. Still, that did not stop me from recognizing, acknowledging and acting on Truth - eventually to help them; and also, lest they take you down in their sinking canoe.
Craig Tavani wrote:
The One I'm with walks on water.
Nick Tavani wrote:
... and set the course for our nation
about an hour ago ·
Craig Tavani wrote:
I'm serious, Nick. The "us" and "them" mentality troubles me. We have got to come to grips the relational implications of being "in the world, but not of it." To be friends with sinners yet not sin was exemplified in the life of our Lord Jesus Christ. What it means to be a friend is as significant to faithful doctrine as anything else in theology; we are foolish to think we understand the word "fellowship" if we fail to comprehend "friendship."
I wonder if the "holiness" movement suffered from this sociological flaw, being so intent on teaching separation from sin that it sowed seeds detrimental to healthy society. The proper pursuit of holiness challenges us to consider personal relationship with God AND others - we are to love the One God in Heaven AND the many others God has created to be in the world with us.
One result is that we, who may participate in some faulty concept of holiness, group ourselves together apart from "worldly" society, then are faced with the human task of ordering the society of our separated group. We may speak about the Spirit moving us to order ourselves to God, but the politics involved in our particular polity sure seem similar to how politics play out in the world. I am sickened by this apparently inevitable process that has played itself out throughout Church history.
Will we never learn? I do not want to play by the rules of this world, but we must figure out a better way to participate in the political ordering of our society. It is not "us" versus "them" but all of us before God who loved the world in coming among us to live, die, and be resurrected to new life so that we can be with Him to live without death determining our destiny.
a few seconds ago ·
Post a Comment