Hugh Hewitt: New McCarthyism

WORLD ^ | April 30, 2005 | Hugh Hewitt

[c-five]

It may be time for some liberal christians to reexamine their position. Some civil discourse would probably help that.

[This Just In]

I must admit that nomenclat's response would seem to express as much:

"anyone who lives in a rural area is a gun toting swivel head drinking corn from a jelly jar." Although this is used as a comparative example, it's an interesting choice of words to describe a group of people, wouldn't you say?

"half-assed name calling...", interesting when you consider the individual became a member just today. Also, this individual chose not to address the issue expressed in the article. There's an inconsistency and what appears to be contradiction.

[nomenclat]

The comment did, actually address the article. New McCarthyism. McCarthyism was, in essence, about singling people out, slapping a label on them, and persecuting/prosecuting them. Step one- label.
I chose the words that I did from being of rural upbringing living in an urban area and have been given this label far too many times by those who criticize rural America and all of it's ways and means without ever settting foot outside of the city. It's irksome, irritating, as you must be able to relate to, the tag seems to bug you as well. It should. To throw simplified tags onto a group accomplishes nothing, takes us further away from the notion of, "One Nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all."
After a few days of scrolling through endless blogs and message boards of many viewpoints it strikes me that there is too much oversimplification from both sides. Liberals and Conservatives both are too quick to resort to these propagandistic tactics, "McCarthyism" "Nazism" "Wing-nuts" "Crackers" make your own list, there are plenty of terms out there.
The attacks on Christianity have gone on since the birth of Christ, and historically, haven't adopting the practices and teachings of Christ been the most effective ways of dealing with the cynics and critics? When did it become Christian to judgmentally label for effect, fear-monger through semantics, or beat a war drum? What's wrong with the idea of taking the moral and ethical high ground, ask Jesus to forgive them and continue to pray in public places, to espouse our Christian values wherever and whenever we wish, (everyone else is doing it- anyone do a Buhrka count lately?) and not sink to the level of secular agitators with the pointless name calling that is doing nothing but dividing our Nation even further?
An aside- what does my registration date have to do with anything? I don't think or have a valid contribution to a discussion until an arbitrary grace period goes by? This forum appeared to have the best content (site in entirety) of the many I looked at. Sorry if joining the team is somehow offensive.

[nomenclat]

last post had incorrect to: was in response to c-five posting.

[This Just In]

I assure you that had you expressed a portion of your comments in quotations, it would have cast a different light on your post: "....gun toting swivel head....."

I, too, can personally relate to the stereotype. Although you and I agree that civil discourse is extremely lacking, as I had mentioned in a previous post, I must ask you to cite examples qualifying your statement:
"label for effect, fear monger through semantics, or beat a war drum?".

You seem to suggest that Christians are playing the hypocrites in failing to exercise the actions which they proclaim to live by; that being, "forgive them and continue to pray..." Once again, we agree that debate can and should be discussed intellectually without the ad hominem attacks. But since when does calling a duck, a duck become judgemental? Recognizing and exposing the hate filled persecution does not amount to being judgemental. Forgiveness and prayer doesn't necessarily require that Christians are not to engage in political activism.

Furthermore, the reason in which I chose to mention your new membership is not because I found you to be offensive. As a matter of fact, you can't give one example that I ever eluded to such an idea. Your second post addressed some of the impressions that I had gathered in the previous post which I viewed as an "inconsistency", and, "contradiction."

On FR, it is generally understood that when a conservative says "liberal", depending upon the context, they are addressing a specific type of "liberal." FReepers don't necessarily lump them into one, all inclusive catagory. This is the reason I pointed out the date. If you had been here longer you may have realized this fact, and responded accordingly.

As a matter of fact, I haven't read any post from fellow FReepers who felt that you shouldnt' be allowed to express you opinions, which you have.