Powered by
Movable Type 3.2
Design by
Danny Carlton





Made with NoteTab

June 08, 2005

Hiding behind false labels

I've known for some time now about the practice by many theological Liberals of adopting a handful of superficially Conservative concepts, then calling themselves Conservative, or even Fundamentalists. At heart and in practice they remain Liberal, with the same traits Liberals always have. They'll lie, yet change the subject or twist your words if you call them on it. They'll call people names, then complain when they are called what they really are. But the thing that really distinguishes them is their habit of censorship. They censor any ideas expressed within the realm of their control. Any Conservative that's tried to post at the Democrat Underground has seen this first hand in political Liberals. It's the same thing with religious Liberals.

I came across a piece awhile back full of lies and distortions by one of these fake-Conservatives. I responded on his blog, and it was deleted. So I responded on my blog, and he replied, with the typical Liberal methods.

Today I noticed he had posted a piece addressing extremism. I hadn't visit his site for obvious reasons and just stumbled across it again today. So I posted a response, asking if censorship was extreme.

He deleted it.

Typical.

Posted by Danny Carlton at June 8, 2005 01:50 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.jacklewis.net/cgi-bin/mt/jl-tb.cgi/1384

Comments

Danny,

I am not sure what I have done to deserve such treatment from you. I have previously tried to contact you in private about your attacks upon me but you have chosen to make this public. I will not sit back and let myself be slandered publicly. I'm not sure what theology would cause you to believe that you can slander another person, much less a fellow brother in Christ.

I most certainly did remove your comments on my blog. I have the prerogative to do so. Why would I leave links to a site that slandered me?

I am also puzzled by your claims that I am a Liberal. It seems odd to me that Ralph Reed would have sat down for a meeting with a liberal last year. It seems odd that Gary Bauer would have given financial support for a liberal's mission trip with Campus Crusade for Christ. It seems odd that one of the most conservative members of Congress, John Linder, would have had a liberal on his paid campaign staff.

It also seems strange that one who you call a religious Liberal would have books by Calvin, Sproul, and Stott on his bookshelf. That this same religious liberal would have been allowed to teach a class on theology at a PCA church, a denomination which is not known for theological liberalism.

As to your claims that I lied in my article about the Religious Right, I stand by every word I said and can back it all up. You mentioned that you were involved in the '88 presidential campaign and Operation Rescue. Did you work on paid staff for Robertson? Did you ever sit down and have lunch with Jerry Falwell and Charles Colson? Did Randall Terry live at your house? Was Jay Sekulow your attorney? I can answer in the affirmative on all those questions. So I know what I am talking about because I was there.

I would prefer to answer whatever objections you may have with me or my writings in private. A rather prominent Christian involved in politics contacted me with his concerns about my article. We were able to have a very nice phone call. I wish you would do the same. But if you continue to publicly defame me, I will defend myself and my reputation.

Peace,
Dignan

Posted by: Dignan at June 8, 2005 08:56 PM

I am not sure what I have done to deserve such treatment from you. I have previously tried to contact you in private about your attacks upon me but you have chosen to make this public.

When Liberals are criticized, they call it an attack.

I will not sit back and let myself be slandered publicly.

Slander would imply something said (as opposed to written, which would be libel) is not true. Wrong on both points.

I'm not sure what theology would cause you to believe that you can slander another person, much less a fellow brother in Christ.

"And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them." — Ephesians 5:11

I most certainly did remove your comments on my blog. I have the prerogative to do so. Why would I leave links to a site that slandered me?

First it neither slandered nor libeled you, I simply told the truth. Second, having the power to do something doesn't automatically make it right to do it. The irony of you whining about extremists, while censoring those who would expose your own hypocrisy was the whole point.

I am also puzzled by your claims that I am a Liberal. It seems odd to me that Ralph Reed would have sat down for a meeting with a liberal last year. It seems odd that Gary Bauer would have given financial support for a liberal's mission trip with Campus Crusade for Christ. It seems odd that one of the most conservative members of Congress, John Linder, would have had a liberal on his paid campaign staff.

You can put a loaf of bread in a garage, but it doesn't make it a car.

It also seems strange that one who you call a religious Liberal would have books by Calvin, Sproul, and Stott on his bookshelf. That this same religious liberal would have been allowed to teach a class on theology at a PCA church, a denomination which is not known for theological liberalism.

I've heard the same argument being made by Liberals for years. You seem to be oblivious to the fact that Conservatism and Liberalism in theology are not just about superficial accutriments, but about a fundamental understanding of scripture and reality.

As to your claims that I lied in my article about the Religious Right, I stand by every word I said and can back it all up.

I showed that you did indeed lie about Jerry Falwell. I asked that you provide proof that Operation Rescue has used violence — you wanted to offer it via email, which would protect you from it being exposed and allow you to claim you'd proved it when you hadn't. Even then, you've never even come close to showing why OR should be called a terrorist organization.

You mentioned that you were involved in the '88 presidential campaign and Operation Rescue.

No, I mentioned that I have been involved in politics since before then, but I never said I was ever involved with OR.

Did you work on paid staff for Robertson? Did you ever sit down and have lunch with Jerry Falwell and Charles Colson? Did Randall Terry live at your house? Was Jay Sekulow your attorney? I can answer in the affirmative on all those questions. So I know what I am talking about because I was there.

Yet you still offer no proof of what you say, only easily disproven lies, name calling and more false accusations.

I would prefer to answer whatever objections you may have with me or my writings in private.

I would prefer that you be exposed for what you are.

A rather prominent Christian involved in politics contacted me with his concerns about my article. We were able to have a very nice phone call. I wish you would do the same. But if you continue to publicly defame me, I will defend myself and my reputation.

Again vagaries from someone who has already demonstrated himself to be an unrepentant liar. It means very little.

Defend your lies or apologize to those you've lied about and stop censoring those who disagree with you and you'll actually start behaving like a Christian.

Posted by: Danny Carlton at June 9, 2005 04:37 AM

Danny,

What beliefs and actions specifically delineate "a liberal" and "a conservative"? If you would post the variables that comprise these labels, then we could know how one can sort people like Dignan into one camp or the other objectively. Dignan says he's a conservative, you say he's a liberal. So it's not just he said, he said, why not post the criteria? Then we could objectively assess a whole list of people, like Billy Graham, Tom DeLay, John McCain, Bill Clinton, Tom Wright, Adrian Rogers, etc.

Secondly, you might avail yourself of the SpelChek listed under the "Comments" box. Your intellectual credibility would be enhanced if you didn't spell accoutrements incorrectly as "accutriments." Perhaps you come from the school of thought that believes writing English correctly doesn't much matter and that correcting someone in public is gauche. Clearly I do not.

Posted by: gamma at June 9, 2005 10:54 AM

What beliefs and actions specifically delineate "a liberal" and "a conservative"? If you would post the variables that comprise these labels, then we could know how one can sort people like Dignan into one camp or the other objectively. Dignan says he's a conservative, you say he's a liberal. So it's not just he said, he said, why not post the criteria? Then we could objectively assess a whole list of people, like Billy Graham, Tom DeLay, John McCain, Bill Clinton, Tom Wright, Adrian Rogers, etc.

The problem is that the new wave of pseudo-Conservatives will quickly redefine the meaning of almost any definition given. They will say they believe in the infallibility of scripture, but not mention that they define the term "infallible" quite differently than it would usually be understood. The best way to spot a pseudo-Conservative is the pails of water they carry for Liberals. Criticizing Christians who defend religious liberties while defending Liberals who fight to strip Christians of their Constitutional rights. Criticizing Christians who hold firm to moral boundaries of marriage and the sanctity of life, while defending Liberals who mocks Christians, such as in the recent Liberal propaganda film "Saved". Dignan exposed himself with his lies about Jerry Falwell and Operation Rescue.

Secondly, you might avail yourself of the SpelChek listed under the "Comments" box. Your intellectual credibility would be enhanced if you didn't spell accoutrements incorrectly as "accutriments." Perhaps you come from the school of thought that believes writing English correctly doesn't much matter and that correcting someone in public is gauche. Clearly I do not.

Well, first off, I wrote SpelChek. It's my service. Second, misspellings are very common on the internet and if I got by with just one in a comment that size then I'd say I'm doing much better than average. Third, it's generally considered to be petty to comment on minor spelling and grammar mistakes, unless the person making them has already made a stink about someone else doing it. I'd much rather appear "gauche" than condescending and opprobrious.

Posted by: Danny Carlton at June 9, 2005 12:12 PM

Danny:
Here is what Falwell's Feb. 1999 National Liberty Journal said:

Tinky Winky Comes Out of the Closet

The sexual preference of Tinky Winky, the largest of the four Teletubbies stations, has been the subject of debate since the series premiered in England in 1997.

The character, whose voice is obviously that of a boy, has been found carrying a red purse in many episodes and has become a favorite character among gay groups worldwide.

Now, further evidence that the creators of the series intend for Tinky Winky to be a gay role model have surfaced. He is purple -- the gay-pride
color; and his antenna is shaped like a triangle -- the gay-pride symbol.


Furthering Tinkys outing was a recent Washington Post editorial that cast the characters photo opposite that of Ellen DeGeneres in an In/Out
column. This implies that Ellen is out as the chief national gay representative, while Tinky Winky is the trendy in celebrity.


These subtle depictions are no doubt intentional and parents are warned to be alert to these elements of the series. However, many families
are allowing the series to entertain their children. In the January 10 Blockbuster Hit List of the top-ten selling videos, two Teletubbies titles appeared on the list. The itsy bitsy Entertainment Company will release interactive Teletubbies dolls in March."

I am not making this stuff up.

As for Operation Rescue, are you not familiar with Jim Kopp? Jim was an active leader in OR who shot and killed an abortion doctor in Buffalo. At his trial, Jim confessed to the murder. Is this not a form of terrorism?

I am amazed at your vitriol towards me. You do not know one thing about me. What sort of behavior are you modelling for your kids?

I Corinthians 13:1 "If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal."

Peace,
Dignan

Posted by: Dignan at June 9, 2005 01:17 PM

Danny:
Here is what Falwell's Feb. 1999 National Liberty Journal said:

Tinky Winky Comes Out of the Closet

The sexual preference of Tinky Winky, the largest of the four Teletubbies stations, has been the subject of debate since the series premiered in England in 1997.

The character, whose voice is obviously that of a boy, has been found carrying a red purse in many episodes and has become a favorite character among gay groups worldwide.

Now, further evidence that the creators of the series intend for Tinky Winky to be a gay role model have surfaced. He is purple --the gay-pride
color; and his antenna is shaped like a triangle -- the gay-pride symbol.


Furthering Tinkys outing was a recent Washington Post editorial that cast the characters photo opposite that of Ellen DeGeneres in an In/Out
column. This implies that Ellen is out as the chief national gay representative, while Tinky Winky is the trendy in celebrity.


These subtle depictions are no doubt intentional and parents are warned to be alert to these elements of the series. However, many families
are allowing the series to entertain their children. In the January 10 Blockbuster Hit List of the top-ten selling videos, two Teletubbies titles appeared on the list. The itsy bitsy Entertainment Company will release interactive Teletubbies dolls in March."

I am not making this stuff up.

An uncredited article in a journal he publishes he points out facts, quotes a secular media story, and you then accuse him of saying Tinky Winky is gay. You still haven't shown where Jerry Falwell himself said that Tinky Winky is gay. You've simply shown what I showed, that he did exactly what the secular media had already done in pointing out the very obvious intentions of the producers of the show. You join in with the anti-Christian bigots and accuse Jerry Falwell of evil, when he has done nothing more that point out the obvious --something the MSM had already done several times. You lied when you said Jerry Falwell called Tinky Winky gay. He never said it.

As for Operation Rescue, are you not familiar with Jim Kopp? Jim was an active leader in OR who shot and killed an abortion doctor in Buffalo. At his trial, Jim confessed to the murder. Is this not a form of terrorism?

Have you never heard of Charles Manson? He once ate ice cream, therefore ice cream must be evil and murderous, right? Your logic is Liberal logic. Someone does something bad who was at one time associated with a Christian group therefore that group is as bad as the person once associated with them. You use that warped logic to then lie, once more, and call OR a terrorist organization.

I am amazed at your vitriol towards me. You do not know one thing about me. What sort of behavior are you modelling for your kids?

LOL, "vitrol - when a Liberal's lies, illogic and agenda are exposed"

(Oh, and better watch out or "gamma" will call you "gauche" for misspelling "modeling".)

I Corinthians 13:1 "If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal."

Were you showing love when you lied about Jerry Falwell, OR and other Evangelical Christians? Hardly.

Posted by: Danny Carlton at June 9, 2005 01:35 PM

Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)

Security verification

Type the characters you see in the image above.