Fred Phelps and his group are corrosive dolts and their antics are stupid and vile.
I agree with Tom Bevan of Real Clear Politics:
These folks are every bit as bad - and yes, unpatriotic - as the despicable Code Pink anti-war protesters who stood outside the Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington D.C. with signs that read "Maimed for a Lie" and "Enlist here to die for Halliburton."
[I wouldn't call them "folks" in their capacity as attention-seekers. Corrosive Dolts, that's the term I'd use. -- Jessica]
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteYes, these people are as derranged as any i've ever seen. A tiny cult, that reminds me of Jim Jones and David Koresh.
ReplyDeleteI pray they don't all meet the same sorry fate.
Here is a comment I left at the blog of an SSMer who published a hateful image and maliciously associated it with On Lawn's family and with this blogsite.
ReplyDelete* * *
The photo of the little children with the hateful message on their t-shirts?
That does not accurately represent On Lawn's family.
It does not accurately represent the views expressed at The Opine Editorials.
We have explicitly stood against that very thing.
See:
Nuts and Dolts
That picture, and your use of it, both exemplify the distorting effect of identity politics.
* * *
Seda, thank you for your heartfelt and reasonable comment clarifying your regret regarding your previous remarks that appeared to condone what JK clearly intends to let stand as representing her extreme hostility toward defenders of marriage.
Chairm
* * *
Note: As of tonight it appears that my comment was not allowed at the other blogsite.
I've published it here because Seda did respond to my inquiry about this and because when an SSMer responds fairly on such a thing, I feel it is necessary that I go on the record as supportive.
Trust can be built on clarification of the actual disagreement on marriage. Distrust abounds on the confusions that create misunderestandings and misrepresentations of all sides on this issue.
Rather than add to the noise, Seda chose to speak to her friends to whom she said, in part, It's so easy to empathize with you. But it's so much more needed to empathize with them.
* * *
From another SSMer:
you would do better to try to see things from our perspective FOR ONCE. Can you try that for me Chairm?
I responded:
You mean like this comment that I made in response to your misreading what was actually written?
Chairm: [If he] had said what you have re-presented him as having said, there would be a direct and obvious link between his words and your feeling hurt by those words.
* * *
See, I can do both defend the content and empathize with your misreading. I did, in fact. But I only point it out since you asked and so probably missed that.
The proponents of SSM constantly insist that they are the more logical, more reasonable, and less emotion-driven in making the case for what they want of society.
Yet, time and time again it proves otherwise. Sure, there are some good arguments based on the idea of SSM, but these don't amount to proof of superior reasoning over the idea of marriage. Yes, all sides can get mired in namecalling and spitefulness, but we need to stand on reason and sometimes that is enough to convince people. Sure, sometimes emotion helps open minds and hearts to the product of reason -- and that's the difference between convincing and persuading. I think too often people on all sides leap to attempts at persuasion without laying the groundwork with reason and attempts to convince.
That said, it is very helpful to constructive dialog to recognize, and honor, open arms that empathize and embrace rather than smother the feelings on all sides of the contentious issues we discuss at Opine.
The proponents of SSM constantly insist that they are the more logical, more reasonable, and less emotion-driven in making the case for what they want of society.
ReplyDeleteAs a sincere proponent of marriage equality, let me say here that I am, first, a human being. I stand firmly on the solid ground of emotion, and I hope that the passion and feeling I hold in my heart shine through every comment I make with more power than the best reason, the best logic, I can summon to my aid.
:-)
Touche, Seda.
ReplyDeleteHowever, it is not by trying to stand on the shifting sands of emotion that a society can best provide justice for its most vulnerable.
The pro-child social institution of marriage stands on firmer stuff. When it does not, its foundations become unsound.
LOL.
ReplyDeleteTouche, yourself, Chairm!
One of the wonders of being human is that we are all both logical and emotional creatures. Let's face it - logic does not move us, by itself. You feel strongly about this issue - otherwise it wouldn't be important to you, and you wouldn't bother to create this site and dedicate so much of your life to it. Likewise, my own passion guides me to the choices I make. Interestingly, the best choices I make are almost always guided more by passion than by logic; the worst ones are made with the opposite hierarchy.
That is because the human heart is wiser than a slide rule.
Which is not to downplay the value and importance of either reason or a slide rule, nor to downplay the folly of following emotion without reason. Without reason, our emotions would be of no more use than the basic "fight or flight" instinct dominant in most animals. Without feeling, our choices would be dead, as cold and lifeless as a stone, and our lives meaningless.
The magic, the power, the beauty of being human is this incredible gift - our feelings and our reason in tandem.
The folly of our civilization is to elevate reason as superior to and wiser than emotion. And folly would be just as great to do the opposite.