Sunday, July 29, 2007

Wishy Washy?

I have been accused of being wishy-washy. I don't know if I am, or not. Actually, I don't really think I am, but on the other hand.....

It has been constantly amazing to me to read the responses I receive from time to time from articles in the Rutherford Reader and my blog site ( Rarely, if ever, do the responses deal with the entire content, intent, or message of the piece itself. They almost always are little snippets taken out of context, which have little or nothing to do with my intentions as the writer of the piece, and therefore makes it very easy to distort the basis of the message.

One response was very interesting. I wrote an article about the Episcopal Church, and why I was leaving. I specifically stated I was leaving because of the church's position on unrepentant sin and remaining true to scripture. The response accused me of hating gay marriage. Oh well! I never mentioned gays or gay marriage anywhere in the piece.

From time to time I write very opinionated articles about politics. Anyone who has followed this column is very aware that I sleep on my right side. I am a card carrying conservative, no doubt. Not necessarily a Republican, mind you, although that is usually the way I vote because there are very few conservative Democrats out there. Not that I am aware of, anyway.

I view liberalism as a true danger to our society. I view political correctness as an erosion of our collective wills. I view secular progressiveness as evil. An honest look around you will confirm that these ideals have dragged our culture down over the years.

Quite frankly, I am allowed to my beliefs and I am allowed to share them with the world, whether people agree with me, or not. I am not such a fool as to believe everyone thinks as I do. And, I am not such a fool as some folks out there would like to make me out to be. The so-called elitists obviously operate at this level of the food chain, too.

Some have called my beliefs absurd. It has been suggested that I am not intellectually capable of developing my own thoughts or theories. It has been suggested (in so many words) that I am nothing but a parrot, expounding other people's ideas. Seriously, that hurts. In a recent response, the writer mentioned Ann Coulter two or three times in a piece that never mentioned her name!

I could go on and on.

Don't get me wrong. I really and truly want feedback. This is all for naught without an exchange of ideas. BUT, most of the time I receive nothing but arrogant criticism based on bits and pieces of information which totally miss the point and intent of the article itself. Tired of it. Don't need it.

So, here's the plan: Rather than enjoying yourself by killing the messenger, why don't y'all read the ENTIRE article, then respond with YOUR ideas. I've already given you mine. If I have a thought and you respond with a thought of your own, then we have TWO thoughts, and we are all much richer for it. But please stop taking things out of context.

There. I said it. And I don't think that was wishy-washy at all. Do you?

1 comment:

Larry Whinnery said...

Since I posted my response in the wrong blog, I thought it my duty to re-post correctly. Other responses can be found under "I Don't Have A List"

You "really and truly want feedback", so here goes. You want everyone to "read the ENTIRE article, then respond. I have read, now I respond with MY ideas. I am probably the one who used Ann Coulter's name "two or three times" (shudder), but not to respond to your use of her name (I know you didn't). I was either unaware of the "rules" regarding responses or didn't succeed in getting my message across. Be both careful and aware that there is a vast difference between being a "card carrying conservative" and a fanatic political paranoid ideologist, such as Ann Coulter(shudder), to which I would hope you do not subscribe. I used her as an obvious example of this dangerous fringe political view in our present day society. Aim your "arrogant criticism" comment in her direction. She's the expert in that area. My point is this: if you are taking "an honest look around" at our culture, seeking evil, please add her name and anyone like her to the list.
So you see, there was purpose in my using her name, even if you didn't use it.

I am sorry you "view liberalism as a true danger to our society". There is a very long list of liberal accomplishments (not room here) that can be made by anyone who is willing to take the time to work on it - not the least of which (in spite of all their problems) are Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. You have every right to think and write about your political views vs. liberal points of view - but come on, "a true danger to our society".

In my opinion (which you asked for) political correctness is a catch phrase that, like many others, will eventually go away, rather than erode our collective wills. There are plenty of examples in American History & Literature that bgear that out.

Secular aggressivness is a relatively new term for something that has been around for a long, long,long time. I don't like it, but I don't fear it either. Once again, just my opinion.

I somewhat agree about your amazement regarding the response about your leaving the Episcopal Church. However it is not really much of a leap from your good reason for leaving to "hating gay marriage" for anyone who had even the smallest amount of keeping up with the news. You din't have to mention it for someone to make the small leap. That's the thing about writing editorially, you have to expect all kinds of responses, and you can't make or even request only certain kinds. Scripture is not open to taking "little snippets out of context", editorials (as well as many other writings) are fair game.

In any case, I hope I have done as you asked - "read the ENTIRE article, then respond".

By the way, I hardly ever see any other responses but mine on your blog - is no one reading it, or are you not publishing all the responses.