Yesterday I wrote a post critical of Sarah Palin for her remarks about church/state separation, and her advocacy for returning the U.S. to it's supposed "Christian roots." As criticism of Palin goes, it was pretty mild stuff. I made it clear in that post, and in others, that I don't accept that left's hate-infused caricature of Palin.
Most of Palin's policy positions fall well within the GOP mainstream. I'm not a fan of hers, and I would not be happy to see her as the Republican nominee for president. I was not impressed with her performance in 2008, and have other problems with her as well. But she isn't in any way terrifying, or some horrific threat that "responsible" Republicans have an obligation to oppose.But even on this blog, which has a small audience, my minor criticism of Palin managed to attract an angry Palin-worshipper, who among other things, labeled me a "cultural Marxist" for daring to object to Palin's words. That type of reaction is typical among fanatical Palin followers. I'm not too worried about Palin herself, but many of her followers exemplify the worst elements of the right -- the clowns who want to narrow the GOP to only true believers who fit all of their litmus tests, and who demonize anyone who deviates from what they see as "true" conservatism.
A couple of days ago, Quin Hillyer at the American Spectator also wrote a post critical of Sarah Palin called, "The Problem With Palin." Needless to say it didn't go over too well with Palin fans. I noticed that someone even called Hillyer, whose conservative credentials are long-established, a "liberal troll." The reaction of Palin's fanatical supporters to any criticism of her is eerily similar to that of Obama drones: demonization of the critics. Instead of calling critics racists, Palin-worshippers call fellow conservatives "liberals."
Really now, I was the one that made the comment about Cultural Marxism and, as it happens, I am not a Palin supporter, rabid or otherwise, at least so not so far as a POTUS run goes.
ReplyDeleteI commented on your loony and ahistorical views of religion and politics in the American tradition and nowise did I promote Plain as a candidate for national office.
Thus you have:
1) Failed to address my points
2) Put forward a strawman argument to dodge issue #1 (this point is particularly puerile and odious)
3) Put words in my mouth.
4. Jumped up on your hobby horse and missed the whole issue altogether, and done so willfully in and with deep intellectual dishonesty.
As you hallucinate a completely fictitious cultural tradition for the USA, you likewise dream up "rabid Palin supporters". You have been called on your pseudo-intellectual nonsense not your support for Palin. You are projecting here.
Go get those chill pills--you need them.
If you do not want to be called a "Cultural Marxist" or a "Liberal" (but I repeat myself) then stop behaving like one.
"I commented on your loony and ahistorical views of religion and politics in the American tradition and nowise"
ReplyDeleteNo, actually you didn't. Since nothing I mentioned was in the slightest bit "looney" or "ashistorical."
"1) Failed to address my points"
I answered every one in the previous post comment section. Most of them were strawmen anyway.
"2) Put forward a strawman argument to dodge issue #1 (this point is particularly puerile and odious)"
That's pretty funny coming from you, someone who responded almost entirely with strawmen and ad hominems.
"3) Put words in my mouth.
See number 2.
"4. Jumped up on your hobby horse and missed the whole issue altogether, and done so willfully in and with deep intellectual dishonesty."
Nothing I said was in the slightest way "intellectually dishonest." I'm guessing you aren't too clear on what that means either.
"As you hallucinate a completely fictitious cultural tradition for the USA"
Wow, another strawman. Big surprise.
"you likewise dream up "rabid Palin supporters""
Yeah, there aren't any rabid Palin supporters out there. Try reading the Quin Hillyer piece comment section.
" You have been called on your pseudo-intellectual nonsense not your support for Palin. You are projecting here."
I haven't been called on anything. You didn't even address my actual post, but rather beat up on some strawmen and made ad hominem attacks.
"Go get those chill pills--you need them."
I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. Given that this is a blog, I post about topics that interest me. If you want to respond to my points, you are free to do so. But obviously I'll continue to post whatever I feel like posting on.
"If you do not want to be called a "Cultural Marxist" or a "Liberal" (but I repeat myself) then stop behaving like one."
Feel free to call me whatever you want. You are just helping to illustrate some of my points. Anyone who has read this blog for any length of time is well aware that I'm no liberal, let alone a cultural Marxist. The fact that you would continue to label me as such just makes you sound even more ridiculous that you did previously.
I think you're onto something with the Obama comparison. Obama was elected in large part because he was a blank slate from which there issued enough vague, high-sounding rhetoric for people who don't think too deeply to simply project onto him whatever they wanted to see and hear. I think Palin is serving the same function for the opposite end of the political spectrum.
ReplyDeleteKelly,
ReplyDeleteThey do seem to have a similar mentality and fervor, and obviously the same hostile reaction to criticism of their hero. Unfortunately, charismatic leaders do seem to attract those types of followers.
There is no constitutional doctrine of the "separation of church and state". The founders were religious believers, and the very concept of inalienable human rights stemming from "nature and its god", are the legal & philosophical basis of the declaration of independence. The constitution merely forbids congress to make any law concerning the establishment of an official state religion. Religion in public life is not forbidden, or discouraged, and dozens of examples, from our currency, to the great seal, can be used to demonstrate these facts.
ReplyDeleteGovernor Palin was simply referring to these facts I have mentioned.
No big deal. The country is deeply in need of the change she rcommends.
There is no constitutional doctrine of the "separation of church and state". "
ReplyDeleteWhether there is or not is obviously subject to interpretation & debate. Thomas Jefferson specifically referred to the "wall of separation" between church and state in his letter to the Danbury Baptists. The writings of Madison, Jefferson and other founders also support the concept of separation of church and state as applying to the first amendment, as do other factors, such as their influence by Enlightenment thought.
"The founders were religious believers"
That's debatable with regard to certain of the founders. I seriously doubt that most Christians would regard someone (Jefferson), who excised large sections of the Bible in order to make something more to his philosophical liking, as a believer.
"the very concept of inalienable human rights stemming from "nature and its god", are the legal & philosophical basis of the declaration of independence."
Irrelevant to anything that I've argued.
"The constitution merely forbids congress to make any law concerning the establishment of an official state religion."
That is the most narrow interpetation possible, and obviously much in debate. And that interpretation was apparently not shared by some of the founders. See Madison for example.
"Religion in public life is not forbidden, or discouraged, and dozens of examples, from our currency, to the great seal, can be used to demonstrate these facts."
No kidding. I never said it was, and I am personally not opposed to traditional ceremonial deism. Unlike some atheists, I have no problem with retaining things like "in God We Trust" on the coinage. I don't even object to the National Day of Prayer, although I think it is pointless.
"Governor Palin was simply referring to these facts I have mentioned."
I had specific issues with Palin's statements which I described in the post in question. If she had simply attacked the idea that we need to expunge all references to God from public life, I wouldn't have even commented.
"The country is deeply in need of the change she rcommends."
The change she was recommending was returning to our "Christian roots." As I pointed out, the country is no longer 99% Christian. Talking about returning to Christianity in a country where 20%+ (and growing) of the country is non-Christian, can be construed as an attack on non-Christians. And it certainly didn't sound like she was talking about just preserving our ceremonial deist traditions.