Skip to content

Dissent is not allowed

September 28, 2009

I had this predictable exchange with a leftist on Twitter yesterday.  Rebecca Jaramillo made a post on the top conservatives group (#tcot) defending Obama’s issuing a Ramadan greeting to Muslims saying:

Pres sends greetings fr all major religious holidays.[abbreviations as in Twitter]

Fair enough, but I wondered:  did he issue a greeting to Christians on Easter?  Did I miss it?  My reply:

Pres sends greetings fr all major religious holidays. | Cud U pls send his Easter msg? I missed it

I got this response:

Um…the White House has a HUGE Easter Egg Hunt every year! It is one of the BIGGEST events if [sic] the WH calendar.

Hmm.  Not exactly on point.  One could argue with both of the capitalized words but I didn’t.  When you can’t answer the question you are asked, politicians answer the question they want to.  That’s called “spinning.”  I simply replied:

LOL Nice try, though.

It really was a nice try at defending an indefensible position.  I thought that was the end of it, but when the left can’t win the argument on its merits, attack the messenger.  That’s called an ad hominem attack; my post elicited a torrent of replies:

Really, us Christians (I’m a Catholic) get the entire month of December, the lighting a a National Christmas Tree, the EE Hunt..


Also Thanksgiving a day of prayer to give thanks (& 100% Christian Pres’s) & minor religions gt a dinner & a press release…

Obama hasn’t been in the White House long enough for any of those events to happen this year, so we’ll see–but they still don’t answer the original question.  Nevertheless, the posts continued:

Bt you Obama HATERS (supposedly “Christians”) act like VICTIMS & whine lke Toddlers. Do you think God cares abt PR stuff? Shame!

“Christians” like you make me sick. BE a Christian, not a fucking religious SCOREKEEPER!

I apologize for the profanity.  I guess she goes to Father Pfleger’s church.  I don’t read my question as whining or acting like a victim.  Does asking for a fact to back up a statement make me an Obama HATER all-caps?

I never wrote that I was a Christian (I am) or that I was somehow insulted by his indorsement of Islam.  I certainly never implied that God cares which religions Obama indorses: what he did was clearly a political act.   I was simply asking whether that act showed preferential treatment of one religion over others.  One might have expected the ACLU to ask a question like that, but it didn’t.

I report this so the reader can see an example of how the left attempts to stifle debate, as I first wrote about in July.

By the way: today is Yom Kippur, a day of atonement and fasting for the Jewish faith.

Comrade Jaramillo:  Did I miss Obama’s Yom Kippur statement too?

  1. Ron permalink
    October 9, 2009 1:41 pm


    Your description of the Twitter conversation is revealing. Even though the divide between truth and fantasy has been apparent for far too long in our supposedly well-educated society, I hold little hope for near-term improvements.

    Nearly four years ago, I challenged Newsweek on its canard tactic in a feature article on evolution versus intelligent design (November 28, 2005). I received absolutely no response, let alone a correction.

    The canard was boldly summarized in its concluding paragraph, which started off with “Where is God? It is the mournful chorus that has accompanied every new scientific paradigm over the last 500 years, ever since Copernicus declared him unnecessary to the task of getting the sun up into the sky each day.”

    Copernicus never declared God unnecessary. He merely sought a more scientific explanation for the universe as he observed and understood it. In Book One of his Revolutions of Heavenly Spheres, Copernicus asserted, “[I]n the case of the other planets I shall try–with the help of God, without Whom we can do nothing–to make a more detailed inquiry concerning them, since the greater the interval of time between us and the founders of the art–whose discoveries we can compare with the new ones made by us–the more means we have of supporting our theory.”

    Newsweek’s concluding paragraph then went on to say “The church eventually reconciled itself to the reality of the solar system, which Darwin, perhaps intentionally, invoked in the stirring conclusion to the ‘Origin’: ‘There is grandeur in this view of life . . . that whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.’ For all his nets and guns and glasses, Darwin never found God; by the same token, the Bible has nothing to impart about genetic relationships among the finches he did find.” This is a pretty compelling argument to support the “Where is God” implication.

    What is blatantly offensive about this particular passage in Newsweek’s conclusion is that the ellipsis in Darwin’s quote is a method to eliminate text that is meaningless or irrelevant to the argument. In this case, the ellipsis elimintates “, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and”.

    There were six versions of Darwin’s seminal work. The first version read identically to the other five, except “by the Creator” was not part of the text. But the Creator was implied with the expression, “with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one . . . “. Versions two through six were more explicit by including “by the Creator.”

    There are far too many people on both sides of the aisle that believe one can only subscribe to one or the other theories. Even the Roman Catholic Church accepts the theory of evolution as plausible and not incompatible with its teachings and doctrine. Discover magazine had a great article on this when discussing the Academy of Science within the Vatican (See “How to Teach Science to the Pope,” September 2008 edition).

    Al, keep up your professional approach to challenging fantasy positions.

  2. acmaurerco permalink*
    October 9, 2009 2:08 pm

    Aren’t these people “special”?

    Although they would hotly deny it, they’re all about “belief” and not reason.

    “Reason does not contradict faith” Thomas Aquinas.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: