Inherintly Dishonest

Doug left a comment to one of my posts..

Please, jerk, don't assume what I know and don't know. . . your mischaracterizations of me is becoming tiresome.

He's also written a long, I guess you could call it a rebuttal, to a number of my posts here.

I'm going to do a dissection of his post, so this is going to be long. I'm also going to do my usual quoting of Doug's own words, and linking to his posts, as I go. This is standard convention in blog debating, but since Doug is inherently dishonest, and can only argue against straw men, you'll notice that he never quotes what I've written, nor does he link to my blog. This is because Doug is not arguing against what I've said, but rather he is arguing against what he wants his readers to think "liberals" say.

Doug also claims that I "mischaracterize [him] constantly claiming you use [his] words when you do so out of context". I don't know how it's possible to take someone out of context when you quote exactly what they wrote. I guess Doug is claiming that what he wrote was not what he meant. In any case, I'm quoting every single word of his post this time.

The fear that Doug displays in using these debating tactics is classic. I've called him a coward many times - and it's simply more evidence. I quote Doug word for word because he makes my case for me better than I could do just arguing against some esoteric "Christian conservative", lurking out there waiting to take away everything I hold dear.

You sir, are a coward and a liar.

And now, on with the show...

While playing a game of cards with my wife last night I got to thinking about my competitive nature. Humans are naturally competitive. We desire to win. And when there are winners, naturally, there are losers as well. In that sense, one can say that the natural by-product of winning is losing.

There's a difference between being competitive and adversarial. Doug seems to think in a binary fashion, if I am to win, you must lose. Life is not that simple, and many people can "win".

But Doug has a very distorted view of what "winning" means;

In a competitive world, success is naturally defined in the terms of money, power, and influence. These are fine things, and each individual has every right to attain such, but more important is one's relationship with God, and in the development of a mature and constructive personality.

It's not unusual for people without money, power, or influence to value it excessively. Doug says it's "natural" that those characteristics defines "success". He seems to think that everyone measures success in that way. That's not true.

Doug is simply caught up in what he's been told is the measure of a man. The problem isn't in desiring to be successful, but rather his weird view of what it means. It's a warped sense of values, and it's rather common in Americans. It's a complete lack of balance, and an assumption that his bizarre priorities are the same as everyone else's.

I posted a youtube of a song last week.. and quoted the lyrics that I thought captured the essence of the issue.

an ordinary boy
an ordinary name
but ordinary's just not good enough today

The friction in our society is the assumption that being ordinary is not good enough. It is, if the ordinary person is satisfied with that for themselves. If ordinary is the limit of ones capabilities, then it's quite fine to be ordinary. It's the difference between an "A" type and "B" type personality. Many young people are tortured by not living up to other people's expectations of them. That's ultimately destructive. Some people change and become more goal oriented, and some don't. Either way it's okay.

The ordinary person may have what they consider to be a wonderful life of modest means, filled with people they care about. It's unique to each individual, and some individuals simply don't need a life defined by money, power, and influence.

Doug stops there to argue against the straw man, but as I've always said, there is a flip side to that. Just as there are ordinary people with ordinary aspirations, there are type "A" personalities that measure their own worth in terms of Doug's values of money, power, and influence. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, as long as their sense of ethics is intact. Enron is a good example of what happens when Doug's values are combined with poor ethics.

But, there are "A-" and "B+" personalities as well. It's more of a balance where the essence of our character is not defined by money, power, and influence, but rather see it as an enhancement to a balanced life. I would also point out that Doug's 3 valued characteristics, money, power, and influence are not mutually inclusive. You can make a lot of money, and have no real power or influence, and not care about them. You can have power and little money. The 3 don't necessarily go hand in hand.

The American pursuit of happiness, then, naturally includes the pursuit of wealth. In the movie, The Pursuit of Happyness, Will Smith's character seeks wealth so that he can take better care of his son, and not have to remain in a position of poverty. Reaching financial success, for him, was happiness, not because of the money, but because of the security for his family.

Again, Doug is making assumptions of what defines "happiness" for all Americans. It may be true that some character in some movie values wealth, and it may also be true that a more modest lifestyle may fit some people.

The point I'm trying to make is that "Christian conservatives" are constantly trying to define everyone else's values. In every word Doug writes, he is defining what "happiness" means for us, and by extension is disparaging those who do not live up to his expectations of what it means to be an American.

Simple question... does a wealthy businessman have more human value than a janitor?

Doug would answer, I think, in the affirmative, because the businessman somehow "worked harder" than the janitor to achieve what he defines as success.

Doug sees a uniform world of order, where we are all supposed to be essentially the same, and have the same values. I see a chaotic mishmash of all different types of people, and all I really care about is if they are happy. A brain surgeon is always going to be a brain surgeon. Some people are just wired to excel. Accepting the reality that people settle to their own natural levels does not mean that we do not endeavor to achieve more. That is a noble pursuit, but it's simply not the "measure of success" that Doug thinks it is.

As a Christian, I understand that wealth is not, and cannot be, my ultimate goal in life. After all, the greatest commandments are found in Matthew 22:34-36 which states in a nutshell that we should first love the Lord with all of our heart, soul, and mind, and then second that we should love our neighbor as we love ourselves. This is where some on the liberal left decide to mischaracterize me as a Christian and misunderstand my meanings.

I've never "mischaracterized". I understand the priority list Doug has. It goes "God" - "fellow man" (unless they are Muslim) - and then money, power, and influence. Yes, yes, I get that. That's the distorted perspective that I'm talking about.

As a Deist, I understand that "the Lord" really doesn't give a damn if I think about him or not because he doesn't have an ego the size of the universe. I understand the most important "commandment" is how we treat people, because that is what is real and around us every day.

It seems odd to me that Christians need to get their moral direction from a very old book. I didn't need to read "love thy neighbor", nor have anyone tell me. I understand that as a simple part of being human.

Is Doug's moral center so barren that he needs somebody else to define it for him?

My duty, as a Christian, is first to share the Word of God. Notice, there is nothing there about forcing anyone to become Christians. This is why I find it fascinating that the liberal left tries to compare Christianity to Islam, and then immediately uses examples of the Crusades or Spanish Inquisitions to prove their point.

I don't recall ever claiming that Christians are trying to "force" anyone into their religion. My point has always been that the structures and belief methodologies of all religions are the same. It's the "moral absolutism" that I talked about a few weeks ago.

I agree, those were horrid periods of history filled with atrocities by people claiming to be doing so in the name of the Christian God. But, understand that none of the atrocities were biblical. Those periods of Christian history were being dominated by radicals, and anytime anything is radicalized to the point that even the actions of those involved fail to recognize that they are outside the teachings of scripture, it is a bad thing. However, the Islamic Jihad is following closely the teachings of the Quran.

Islam and Christianity are exactly the same because these are formal organizations. It has nothing to do with scripture itself. I'm quite sure there is some crazy stuff in the Quran. I'm sure there is crazy stuff in the Christian bible. The text is not the issue, because the text is never the motive behind the "atrocities". It's always about the money, power, and influence of the church itself.

Notice how Doug's worship of money, power, and influence, dovetails so nicely into what is clearly the motivations of religious organizations? Doug is a staunch Christian exactly for that reason, just exactly as so many Muslims are so staunch about their religion... or Hindus.. or Jews.. and so on.

However, Doug makes a crucial point for me. He separates the acts of the Christian church from the text of the bible. That is exactly how I separate "spirituality" from organized religions, such as Christianity or Islam. People believe whatever they believe. It has always been that way, and it will always be that way. However, the evil acts are the result of the type of twisted values that Doug has.. i.e., the money, power, and influence. The hyper-valuation of those goals leads men to do very awful things, just as surely as the organizations that values those goals does very awful things.

And so.. you get the Inquisitions.. or even things such as the total raping of south and central America at the hands of the Catholics. The Catholic church doesn't care much about Christianity as such, they care about money, power, and influence.

Doug blames this type of behavior not on organizations.. but rather, "radicals". The point of my constant attacks on organized religion is that in my view, and the view of a great many other people, the "radicals" are here with us today. They have great influence in the middle east, and are gaining influence in America - at least until George Bush destroyed their movement.

The only difference between Pat Robertson and Ossama Bin Laden is that Robertson is constrained by a culture that has mostly rejected his world view. The culture that Bin Laden exists in is far less enlightened and advanced. Don't think for a second that Robertson wouldn't resort to the same sort of violence that religion has always relied on to gain money, power, and influence.

Doug would be a foot soldier in that "holy war" just as surely as there have been easily influenced and violent individuals throughout history. Doug is armed to the teeth. He is convinced that Muslims are lurking in America, waiting for the signal to begin the Jihad in our streets. His lament in Iraq is that we didn't "destroy" their cities. There is a dichotomy in Doug of claiming to follow the words of Jesus, and being psychotically violent at the same time.. which is a trait common in those that are commanded to do evil things, as men were commanded to do evil things in the name of religion for thousands of years.

It is a Christian's duty to share the Gospel, and love they neighbor, but it was never commanded that the Christian force people to accept Christianity by way of force or physical threats, nor is it Biblical to force anyone to perform Scriptural work.

I'm just quoting that for completeness.. so the proper context is offered of Doug's point of view..

However, I would again point out that what is "Biblical" is not the issue. I actually like the Beatitudes in a literary sense. If I had never seen them, I'd still have the same moral compass I was born with, so they don't have any real meaning for me beyond what I already understand.. It's like poetry.

The issue, of course, is what religion has done to the world, and what such distorted values has wrought in our society.

For example, Church organizations and charities are wonderful ways to assist the poor and show our Christian love for our neighbors, but it is not Biblical for people to be forced to provide for the poor through taxation, nor to provide so many government sponsored entitlements that the poor ceases to work towards earning their way out of poverty, instead becoming dependent upon governmental assistance.

That's just insane.

This is the United States of America. Who cares what is "Biblical"? What is "Biblical" about Democracy? What does the Bible have to do with our form of government? I've written about this many times, but the Bible doesn't talk about the core values of our society at all. There are no democracies in the bible. There is no inherent equality of men and women, black and white. Those ideals did not exist at the time men wrote that book.

Does the Bible provide taxation for law enforcement? How about defense? Maybe that's in there.. could be. What about environmental protections, or business regulation so your baby doesn't chew on a toy loaded with lead paint? Is that "Biblical"?

Again, Doug is taking a "moral absolutist" position. If it's not in the Bible, it shouldn't be in our society, right? That's just insane.

Us not-insane people realize that we can look at an idea, and make a rational judgement about it. We know that people are going to go hungry.. that children will suffer.. that the "Christian" churches will not substantially aid the poor as Jesus commanded. We know that as the wealthiest nation in the history of this planet, we can afford to take care of those that need help for the most basic of needs.

I want to know where Doug gets his claim that the people who receive entitlements from the government are doing so only because they are lazy. I want to know how he can claim that they will receive those entitlements indefinitely. I want to know how he can claim that the only reason they receive these entitlements are because they are lazy and have no intention to get on their own feet again.

I want to know why he didn't let his own son die from cancer rather than take an entitlement from the government.

I want to know exactly which "entitlements" he thinks the government should do away with. Social Security? Medi-Care? Medi-Caid? Food stamps? Training? Job search assistance? Unemployment?

As for the idea of eliminating poverty, it is not possible. Like the win/loss of games, in life naturally there are winners and losers as well. The poor will always be with is, for in Matthew 26:11, it says, "For ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always."

Classic Doug. Classic straw man argument. I never said poverty could be eliminated. I don't know anyone who has said that. Why Doug feels this constant need to argue against views that people don't have is beyond ridiculous.

I could write a book exploring why you do that Doug.

In any case, what a silly argument. Because we cannot "eliminate" poverty entirely means that, as a society, we should not share a small percentage of our profound wealth in offering humanity to people who need help?

Are you kidding me?

I don't care what Matthew said.. It doesn't take a 2000 year old book to understand that there will always be people who are "poor" in relative terms to others in society. America's poor are a lot different that the poor in Africa. It's all relative.. but I still find this "winners" and "losers" rhetoric Doug constantly uses disturbing.

As we adopt more sensible (liberal) policies, we can improve the standard of living for ALL Americans.. so there are no "losers". It's not zero sum, where one segment of society improves their position at the expense of another, as Doug insists.

This may sound like silly Obama-speak.. but we actually can bring everyone up, not just "winners". Sure, there will still be Americans that are at a lower income than average, but it is all relative.

A liberal recently attacked my defense of the wealthy in America. I do not believe it is the government's position to punish someone for reaching wealth by over-taxing such people. After all, isn't attaining financial freedom part of the pursuit of happiness? Besides, the wealthy tend to be the business owners, so why would one wish to punish financially those that provide the jobs?

I'm not "attacking" some defense of the wealthy.

I'd wager John and I pay more in taxes in a year then Doug grosses in total (and this is mostly due to John). It is silly that we would argue against our own self interest.

I'm not "attacking the wealthy". We are the wealthy. We like it too.

The issue is fairness in the tax code. Government has to be paid for, and it makes sense that those that reap more of the wealth also pay a larger percentage of the tax bill.

When people like Doug complain that the top 1 percent of taxpayers pay 34.8 percent of federal income taxes and the top 5 percent pay 54 percent, they do not bother to note that this top 1 percent possesses more than 40 percent of the national wealth and the top 5 percent more than two-thirds.

How is it "punishing" to expect those with the most wealth to pay more of the cost of running our society that they benefit so greatly from?

I want to know exactly what percentage of tax Doug thinks the wealthy should pay, how much the middle, how much the poor. He does nothing but talk in generalities about the plight of rich people, and how they are "punished". Say something specific for a change.

I want Doug to say that the taxes John and I pay should be lowered and his should be raised to offset the difference.. so instead of spending 10 grand to go to Hawaii like we did last year, we can spend 20 grand to go to Europe for a few weeks. So, instead of spending a thousand dollars to go see a concert in a limo next month, we can buy the limo and put the driver on staff.. and maybe hire the band to come play at the house.. (it's Rush again.. right up front, yay)

The reality is, a larger tax burden on the wealthy does not affect their standard of living. When the Bush tax cuts expire, we're not going to have to drive ourselves to a concert instead of having a limo take us.. We're not going to vacation in Arkansas. We're not going to have dinner at Luby's. However, if you shift the burden onto the the middle and lower class, that will substantially impact their standard of living because the net income left over is a lot smaller.

Besides.. if middle and lower income Americans have more money, they can buy more products.. create more demand for manufacturing.. which creates more jobs.. and, surprise, surprise.. puts more money in the pockets of the wealthy business owners. it's a win-win situation - again, going back to my point that it's not about "winners" and "losers", but everyone together doing better.

Doug simply disdains the poor and idolizes the wealthy because his world view is all about the competition, and poor people are "weak". Trust me, once you "win", by Doug's definition - you think, hey.. it's nice.. but it's not what truly defines happiness.

When the liberal left attacks, they usually try to attack conservatives from a personal vantage point. In a recent attack against me, bible verses were used. Specifically, In Matthew 6:24 Jesus said, “You cannot serve both God and Money.”
Hebrews 13:5 – “Keep your lives free from the love of money and be content with what you have.”
1 Timothy 6:10 – “For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil.”
Proverbs 11:28 – “Those who trust in their riches will fall, but the righteous will thrive like a green leaf.”

Based on this liberal's thinking, all Christians must remain in deep poverty, or else they are hypocrites.

Actually.. when I "attack", I use what you've written as illustrative of your twisted world-view. It's all right there for everyone to see and decide who makes a better argument. You, on the other hand, and as I've said over and over, argue against postitions nobody has - because you make them up out of thin air.

I never said that "all Christians must remain in deep poverty". I've said that your obsession with money, power, and influence, is decidely hypocritical considering your obsession with Christian theology. They are mutually exclusive.

I've said that your worship of the wealthy and disdain for the poor is decidely un-Christian. You think the rich are being "punished" - and think the poor are abusing entitlements. I'm far more Christian then you are Doug, and I'm not a Christian.

Still, I find it highly amusing that the only piece that you did quote from me, is Biblical passages.. and then argued the straw man yet again.

However, all this does is prove that people like this individual does not understand Christianity at all. All of those verses above are about keeping the right perspective. God comes first. God, to the Christian, must be more important than any wealth, possession, or whatever. If someone places the importance of wealth, power, et cetera above God, or at the same level as God, the person is attempting to serve both God and money, and that is a recipe for disaster, and is against God.

How the hell can one not understand something as simple as;

Hebrews 13:5 – “Keep your lives free from the love of money and be content with what you have.”

Most Christians, and Doug is very adept at this, are good at picking and choosing the parts of religion that suit them, and making up their own meaning of the text. That's why I have more respect for the "God Hates Fags" crowd, because they are quite literal about the Bible. It's not an interpretive document to them. They are consistent.

The vast majority of religious people simply define it the way they want. Doug's Jesus kicks ass. He's not a gay looking fairy that hung out with men exclusively. He's ripped and ready to beat the crap out of Muslims.. he loves guns.. thinks turning the other cheek is for sissys.. and the poor deserve their fate becasue they are "losers", and always will be losers.

Galatians 6:14-16 Tell those who are rich in this world not to be proud and not to trust in their money, which will soon be gone. But their trust should be in the living God, who richly gives us all we need for our enjoyment.

But, the reason the Bible spends a lot of time speaking of the rich, saying "Woe unto you that are rich. . ." is because riches and power is a difficult thing to properly manage while keeping God in the position of highest importance. We, as flawed humans, are unable to keep that balance on our own, which is why we must keep our eyes on the Lord, especially if we are in a position of wealth.

Doug isn't rich. How would he know it's difficult to manage being loaded and keeping God in the highest importance? Why does he assume we are "unable to keep that balance on our own"? Do you mean that you couldn't keep that balance on your own, Doug?

Oh yes.. that's right.. You're a moral absolutist who is sure that because you'd get all carried away with being rich that you'd neglect your God.. everyone else would as well... so that's why the Bible stresses that money sucks.

So while Doug values wealth a great deal, it's got to be God that you "keep your eyes on", whatever that means.. so instead of just money, power, and influence, we now have God, money, power, and influence.

Of course, people like the liberal I am referring to would just assume that we all remain in poverty, not defend ourselves, and allow the elitists that are the liberal left to take control of us and take away our freedom of religion (not freedom from religion as they love to argue). Constitutionally, when it comes to my Christianity, they cannot "prohibit the free exercise thereof." Ooops, did the liberals miss that part in the first amendment?

That liberal you are referring to is me.. you coward. Why are you just lecturing people instead of letting them see both sides of the argument and deciding for themselves?

I ask that rhetorically, of course.. because we both know that I shred your arguments and make you look silly. It's not that hard to do. You just don't want people to see the other side of the argument, which again is what defines your movement.

I've never said you should live in poverty. You just made that up so your argument would work.

I've never said you should never defend yourself. We all supported the war in Afghanistan after all. You just made that up so your argument would work.

I've never said we want to take away your "freedom of religion". That's just a silly scare tactic you're using. Be as crazy as you want to be, I don't care. I've made my case why I think organized religion is a bad idea. But, you just made up the argument that we want to stop you from having church services, and doing your own thing so your argument would work.

How sad for you Doug.. really.. so afraid of a liberal that you have to refer to me in some vague "annoymous liberal" way.. and ban my rebuttal arguments from your blog.. and argue against positions I don't have, while not even linking or quoting me so people could see for themselves.

I mean.. it's really pathetic.