You know who else reads blogs? Hitler.
As an outspoken conservative, I make myself an easy target for people to attack politically. A lot of their favorites are things like 'fascist', 'Nazi', or any other variation to imply some sort of camaraderie with Adolf Hitler.
Now, aside from the obvious, there are reasons that this really irritates me. First of all, it's factually incorrect. Hitler was a fascist and a socialist. Even people with a basic understanding of political concepts understand that fascism and socialism imply vast government control over the citizenry. Or, if you don't have a basic understanding, you can go here, and then here to learn what they are.
That being said, I don't know of any conservatives advocating more government control in America. However, this argument doesn't mean much to the critics of conservatism, because they're not concerned with the logic of the argument. They would much rather use hyperbole to compare modern day Republicans to the SS.
My favorite argument of theirs is: 'You know who else was in favor of ? Hitler.' The reasoning behind this is incredible. Some of the more common examples are 'You know who else was patriotic? Hitler.' -- 'You know who else hated Communists? Hitler.' -- 'You know who else wanted a strong military? That's right...Hitler.'
Thus, if you're patriotic, think communism is stupid, and want a strong military...you obviously read Mein Kampf religiously and adhere to every aspect of Nazism. That's ridiculous. That's like saying 'You know who else liked peanut better and jelly sandwiches? Hitler.' or 'You know who else watched American Idol? Hitler.' By that logic, you're probably a Nazi, aren't you? You Jew-hating bastard.
Since when does the merit of anything depend on historical figures? Jesus was a carpenter. Does that mean that all carpenters are righteous people? Ronald Reagan liked jelly beans. Are all people who like jelly beans brilliant statesmen? Moses had a speech impediment. Does that mean all people with speech impediments should start a religion? Hmm...
Hitler also despised organized religion, advocated abortion, and wanted the government to be seen as the highest authority. By that logic, modern liberals are more like Hitler than conservatives, right? No. That's stupid.
The relevance of an ideology should depend on its objective merits, not the fact that some evil madman happened to have a distorted agreement with certain aspects of it.
And aside from the fact that it's factually inaccurate to consider Hitler a conservative, it's intellectually lazy. People don't have to like conservatism, but they shouldn't be able to win an argument simply by comparing us to Hitler. If it was that easy, I'd just compare every liberal to Jimmy Carter or Mao Zedong and be done with it.
posted by That guy @ 9:27 PM
12 Comments:
I'd rather compare the Republican's to the Taliban. Both groups want to lead with such fundamentalist beliefs. They want to have a great say in how everyone is allowed to live. And the Republican's DO want a controling government. The issue of gay marriage says it all. They want to control the behavior of Americans based on their fundamentalist "Christian" beliefs. And I just don't see how that has a place in the United States.
The whole premise of your argument is flawed. Republicans aren't forcing people to adhere to their beliefs by violence, intimidation, etc.
By your logic, things like murder, perjury (bearing flase witness) and theft should be legal because they're in the Bible. On the other hand, if what you said were true, it would also follow that things like adultery, not going to church, and worshiping anyone but Jesus WOULD NOT be legal under a Republican government. Last time I checked, they were.
And the whole thing about gay marriage is inaccurate as well. Even in Oregon -- a place that voted for John Kerry, a Democratic senator, and 4 out of 5 Democratic representatives -- voted to define gay marriage as between a man and a woman by a margin of 14% (57-43). I'm not a Math Major, but it seems to me that some democrats voted for it, too.
Plus by comparing Republicans to the Taliban you just proved my whole argument. You'd rather use hyperbole (extreme exaggeration) to win an argument than actual fact.
By "Republican" there, I'm meaning "American government in the hands of the Republican party". Sorry for the confusion.
There's no confusion. I know what you meant. It doesn't make your argument any more valid.
I shared your views. Defended them, even. Then I was was assigned this book. This is mostly what I'm trying to say.
[ Steeling Jesus ]
Oh, well if a book said it then it MUST be true. I mean, people NEVER distort facts for political gain, do they? No no no.
And a gay Episcopal would have absolutely NO reason to portray Christianity in a negative light, would he? Of course not.
The point is, ANY law can be construed as fundamentalist if you try hard enough. It's all a matter of interpretation.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of 'fundamentalist' Christians, either. I think they're dead wrong on any given number of issues. But to be so paranoid about them and compare them and the Republican party to the Taliban is absolutely ludicrous. You give me one example of government sanctioned killing of homosexuals, government mandated church attendance, or anything else, and I'll agree with you.
Whichever left-winged professor that assigned you that book should be proud. You did exactly what you were supposed to.
Upon a closer perusal of your paper, I made the following obervations:
1. Since when are Christians concerned with Biblical laws? And since when do they believe in the wrathful God of the Old Testament? Seems to me that if this were true, there would be less bacon and Christmas and more fasting and matzo.
2. No where in the Bible does it say that only those who 'follow' the laws are loved by God. Furthermore, I've never heard that professed as a belief of any legitimate church.
3. A 'church of love' and a 'church of law' are not mutually exclusive. As I said, the Bible makes no mention of those who follow the law as having exclusive access to God's love. Parents make rules for their children. When they break them, do they love them any less? Certainly not.
4. There is no 'Separation of Church and State' clause in the Constitution. All it says is 'Congress shall make no law in regards to a national religion'. In fact, George Washington said that the Constitution was only fit to govern a religious people.
5. The Christian Coalition represents the Republican Party no more than NARAL or the American Socialists represent the Democrats.
All that being said, Pat Robertson is a douchebag. People like him have taken 'Christianity' and bastardized it into something it was never intended to be. However, so has Bawer. Hearing him debate which view of Christianity is correct sounds to me like two people arguing if the Earth is flat or cubic. They're both wrong, and the references to the Bible by either side are laughable because it seems that neither side has bothered to READ it.
It's pretty sad that one book caused you to totally abandon your faith and gave you such an intense fear of your government. Don't get me wrong, I don't trust the government by any means. But all this alarmism, irrational fear and rhetoric isn't helpful to anyone. To be honest, it's pretty stupid. You'd probably feel a lot better if you read books that weren't so paranoia-inducing. Might I recommend something by Bill Sammon or PJ O'Rourke. Otherwise, lighten up. Geez. It'll be ok. Those evil Republicans aren't going to hurt you.
Well, the point being is that they are portrayed that way, in society, politics, and the media. So it is not outlandish for that author to jump to those conclusions, even if they may be false, as you say.
I haven't lost my beliefs. I'm just not that good at expressing them. I don't want anyone else's beliefs shoved down my throat. Or anyone's. This is a free country, after all. I may agree, but that shouldn't stop the government from allowing gay marriages, or the termination of a pregnancy, or nudity in prime time, or schoolchildren from learning evolution, or anything similar.
I'm having trouble following your logic. Just because a group of people is portrayed negatively in society, politics and the media, that should be accepted as fact or truth? On what grounds? And how does that justify writing a book full of distortions and conveying it as fact? It just doesn't make sense.
And as far as beliefs not being shoved down anyone's throat, what about the people who believe that government shouldn't sanction gay marriage, termination of pregnancy, nudity in prime time, or school-taught evolution? Isn't making those government policies forcing someone else's belief on them? Why is it that they're supposed to bow to someone else's philosophy at the expense of their own? What makes that fair, while the 'imposition' of their beliefs on others is some social injustice?
In Time Magazine, a media democrats deem conservative, Christopher Shays, a Republican senator, says that "this Republican Party of Lincoln has become a party of theocracy."
Maybe I'm not out of my mind here.
Christopher Shay's opinion of republicans is as biased as Zell Miller's opinion of Democrats.
And if you think Time Magazine is conservative, you really need to re-evaluate your political leanings. NewsMax and National Review, sure...but Time? Do you ever read Time? It's pretty down the middle to slightly liberal.
Are there some fundamentalist Christians in the Republican party? Certainly. But they're not taking over or planning to institute a 'theocracy'. Again, that's alarmist rhetoric, and it's ridiculous.
It's not that you're going out of your mind, you're just wrong.
Eh, Kyle's always calling it such. It's not blatently conservative, but it's certainly not liberal. And I've subscribed for years. How else would I have found that quote? Just trying to back myself up.
And, from what I just read on USA Today, conservatives have historically liked Shay's voting more than liberals. And anyway, it would take someone closer to the middle to unite the country. And you must agree that the country needs some of that.
Post a Comment
<< Home