Skeletons in our closet
The Southern Poverty Law Center has published its annual “The Year in Hate” in which it profiles the activities of hate and extremist groups in the United States. Distressing, though in retrospect perhaps not terribly surprising, is the inclusion of 17 “Radical Traditional Catholic” groups on the list. These groups all came to the attention of the SPLC for their anti-semitism. Beyond this, a quick tour of their websites shows some other (perhaps obvious) similarities. They are linked by a reactionary traditionalism: some are sedevacantisi, and all hold the mainstream church in disdain. Given their conservatism, it is somewhat surprising (to me) that they are suspicious of capitalism. Many are proponents of distributism and the “third way” of Belloc and Chesterton. Many are also into conspiracy theories. All of these strands come together in their fear of an international Jewish banking conspiracy, linked to the Masons, that has undermined the Church. One very amusing feature is that not only are some of them creationists, a few of them are actually geocentrists. Their slogan is “Galileo was wrong, the Church was right.”
I don’t think we need make too big a deal about these groups, which seem to be a small, sad fringe of the Church. But we do need to acknowledge their existence and work to isolate them (or at least their ideas). “Why consider the speck in your brother’s eye, when you ignore the beam in your own?”
I agree that we shouldn’t overemphasize the importance of such groups. On the other hand, it is important to ask, ‘Are such groups growing or shrinking?’
As a columnist for The Remnant, I say shame on you for taking the SPLC at face value. There are, to be sure, nutty trads out there, and I have had my share of run-ins with them. But I am not about to run to the SPLC to get my information on them, or to spread slanders.
John,
I think you are right in saying the SPLC is sometimes too quick to label someone anti-Semitic and one must be cautious and examine the claims for each group, and not have the over-arching generality they seem to have. It reminds me of the problems we face when dealing with Islam: people condemn Muslims with way too broad a scope, and, often without being told the methodology being used to make such claims. Often, there is a kind of “guilt by association” going on.
On the other hand, as you admit, there are some groups which cause problems, and have helped lead to this “guilt by association.” So, my thought is: there is a valid reason to be concerned that some groups might have such a problem, and some of them should be in this list, but also, this list might be inaccurate and use things such as criticism of Israel as being “anti-Semitic.” In this way, it is right to issue a caution and point out the attribution of each individual group might not be accurate.
Still, I do see, within the broad spectrum of things, a rise in the problems being discussed by theSPLC, even if their methodology and attribution can be bad. This is what makes the issue difficult to deal with, but I think you are right in decrying false attributions by them. On the other hand, you should be able to understand why someone without knowledge of all the groups might take the SPLC at face value if they looked at some of them and saw some of the problems being described at those.
Does the SPLC provide examples of antisemitism for each group on the list? ‘Cause just giving a list, implying “Take our word for it,” isn’t helpful or productive. I too urge doubt and suspicion.
I’m glad to see the SPLC called into question here, and I say this as someone who used to respect the organization. Now, it stands as a sad reminder of the dangers of “professional activism.”
Can you point me to an example of where the SPLC falsely labeled a group as a “hate” group who was in fact not involved in any activities that would merit such a claim?
Gisher, I have provided that example: The Remnant. I have never seen any kind of “hate” preached there. Now it is up to you to prove them right. I have my own personal experience with them, and it does not bear out the charge.
But I will share my experience with them, which may shed some light on this. Last year, I was invited by the Roman Forum (which is allied with The Remnant) to go to Italy to deliver an address. I didn’t think it would work out at all, since most RadTrads give me heartburn; indeed, an anonymous letter to the Remnant denounced me as a heretic even before I got there. But what the heck, for 10 days in Italy on somebody else’s nickel, I couldn’t pass it by. So I gave an address that I was sure would offend everybody and send me packing. What I found was an intelligent and liberal (in the old sense) group of people open to real discussion. Far from being offended, they have invited me back for this year’s meeting (I will be speaking on the subject of Zombies, and I want to say right now that I am agin em, and am willing to deny them any civil rights whatsoever–how’s that for hate speech?) I found nothing that would justify SPLCs charges, and if you have found some such, I wish you would share it with us.
Respectfully John, when I clicked on your link it took me to a post of yours. When I clicked on the other link it took me to a post by Michael J. Matt “The Rise of Militant Christophobia” which had Mike talking about the event you reference. The only link in the article was to a post over at humanevents.com which had Matthew Vadum talking at length about the story as well.
Now your post which had the lovely picture of Obama mocking him as a king may or may not have had a bias. Maybe you actually love Obama and just thought the photo was cute. Regardless, that post was your words and your take and the only link out was to humanevents.com
I wasn’t born yesterday and humanevents.com is not far away from what I call a blog. It is also obviously not hiding the fact that it is a conservative “publication”.
Further it offers no links out, and no evidence that can be substantiated.
This to me is like asking me to accept the wolf’s word that he did not eat the chickens.
Before I started clerking for evil people with money I took journalism in college. The old who, what, where when stuff. I studied Edward r Murrow and Walter Crankshaft (said lovingly) and I know that biased men who are journalists can leave their bias at the door and report facts. I have seen these men do it with my own eyes.
Conversely, I also know of a fella named Hearst, and I know what the word yellow means when it is inserted next to the word journalism.
I am Catholic, but my suspending disbelief stops when I walk out the door of the church. I know that since uncle Walter retired, journalism rolled over and died. Trouble is, I am still alive and know what it is, and you have not given me facts I can cross check.
Further, I am about sick to the gills of people pointing me at biased junk today, unsubstantiated biased junk, and I would appreciate if everyone who sees this comment would realize they seem to have a bias, and do not know what journalism is to save their lives.
If everyone wants to live in the delusion that they have the truth, the only person I want to HEAR it from is my Pope. He can tell me he has the truth and currently, I will accept it. Everybody else, needs to bring proof. Tons of it, and I need to be able to cross check it.
If you don’t have it, you ain’t got it and I am going to let you know it.
If I understand your complaint, if Matt defends himself against the SPLC, it is an obvious example of bias. Well, I suppose it is; certainly it shows a bias against slander. But did you have a substantive complaint, or do you just believe that no one should speak in their own defense when confronted by the SPLC.
As for the picture of King Obama, so what? If one supports a monarchy, one has to imagine the possibility of a monarch you don’t like, and for most readers of the Remnant, I suspect that Obama fits the bill.
ISTM that you have a very low threshold for “hate speech,” at least for others.
No John, on the links you provided no case was made about SPLC attacking anyone that was supported. I don’t care if someone is defending themselves, without a link to the original attack upon them there is no proof they were attacked. For all I know as reader I could be looking at delusional rants.
If there were links to the original attack by SPLC then I could cross check. There were none.
Correction:
I should also add since it was not clear in my comment that when I was talking about the post with the link out to humanevents.com that I was talking about Michael J. Matt’s post, not your post. Your post just had the cute little picture of Obama and no link out.
The SPLC has been subjected to much critique regarding their sometimes casual flinging of the “hate group” term, for example:
SPLC: The wolf who cried ‘hate’
You can read my comment below to Mark Harden. You sir sent me to the right wing mouthpiece of the Washington times that up until just recently was owned by Sun Myung Moon for God’s sake. Times editor Francis Coombs Himself has some entirely questionable ties to hate groups. Note I said “questionable”. This is not a credible source. Again read my comment below on that matter.
As for the Family Research Council and the Mississippi-based American Family Association, I myself have read “sourced” releases from them that were clearly not true and clearly fomenting hate towards gays.
Our Church condemns gay behavior but in our Social Doctrine calls for us to show nothing but compassion and love toward the humans that are gay. Both of the organizations mentioned in the article do the exact opposite, and deserve the remarks made about them by the SPLC.
Get your sources accurate, non-biased, and also find your ideology in the Church, not from right wing websites sir.
Here is a less tendentious analysis of the SPLC’s tendency to exaggerate “hate” groups:
http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2010/09/southern-poverty-law-center-completes.html
No offense Mark but you sent me to a right wing blog. If you want me to buy an argument you can point me to a credible source that is neither right or left leaning, and preferably the original source. Most certainly not a blog.
I give no blog the time of day. This is one of the problems today in this country both sides view anything that comes from a produce stand that spews their worldview as credible. I am not either right or left myself and I have a higher standard.
That said I did read through a bit and click through a bit and the Patriot movement does in fact have a record of hate and violence that is in fact well known. From what I see the SPLC may be playing a bit of an association game with Palin, but frankly I have heard many of her speeches myself including the “Good America” speech and she drifts well across the line of hatred and bigotry on a regular basis without apology.
This is politics today. Guilt by association. I do not like it at all from either side. But I saw nothing to discredit SPLC or the work that they have done.
Personally my senses are as offended by the comments of Sarah Palin as they are of those from Alan Grayson. As far as I am concerned the SPLC should have labeled both politicians as a “hate group” themselves. I also think both the far right and the far left in this country are one sandwich short of a picnic.
You want to form a credible argument against the SPLC that shows they are way beyond the bounds, well then send me a credible source. You might want to first find one.
Gisher
I do think they get many things right, but sometimes they are too quick, and too broad in their sweeps, and fine distinctions are often lost. As an example, look to this case, where an animal rights group had to defend the animal rights movement from charges by the SPLC:
http://www.friendsofanimals.org/programs/animal-rights/foa-response-splc.html
Now, thankfully, the SPLC response (which they post http://www.friendsofanimals.org/programs/animal-rights/southern-poverty-law-center-response-again.html ) is helpful, but nonetheless, the whole fiasco shows some of their methodological problems. I say this, not to distract from the work they try to do, but to make sure it is double-checked as well, because people do make mistakes — and sometimes misread others through a poor hermeneutical lens.
I just blasted people for sending me to a blog Henry and you just sent me to one. Further in the blog post there are no links out to validate any of the charges in the posts.
But in the letter (supposedly sent back from SPLC–and I have zero proof of that) which is posted on the blog, (and I ask why Priscilla Feral could not have placed a photocopy up), nonetheless, in the letter the SPLC states they stand by their position. There is no retraction nor should there be, and that is presuming the letter is real. If it is then Feral obviously has trouble seeing straight on this one.
I am hoping this is not some kind of a joke Henry because I do not use blog posts as verifiable sources and this case right here is a darn good example of why nobody should.
No proof, total subjectivity, and bad methods and tactics.
Gisher
I didn’t give a blog, but an organizations’ website. The organization, btw, later had Mark give a keynote speech in 2005, causing some animal rights activists to be angry. It is an interesting story, but it also shows how there was a change, one which acknowledged distinctions and differences.
The SPLC is run by humans and what you complain about criticism of the SPLC can be said to be the issue people have with some of their reports: too much subjectivity.
As I have said, there is value to their work, but we must be cautious with them as with any group.
Agreed Henry, however I read everything you sent me and found nothing but subjectivity rolling around over there. Much like Vox, a bunch of people talking past each other and not to each other:)
But your point is well taken, and now if you will excuse me, I have to check out the Remnant link and see what has them all uppity over there.
I suspect ETWN is worse than some of these groups. But since it is not “traditional”, it doesn’t fit the stereotype.
I don’t understand. Are you saying that EWTN regularly peddles in hate? Or are you saying that SPLC’s profiles are patently foolish and silly?
Shame? Not so far. My past experience with the SPLC has taught me that they tend to exaggerate but are more often right than not. I am afraid I cannot put much credence in the Washington Times column which was more anti-liberal vitriol than anything else; the conservative blogger raises some interesting points, but I don’t think he manages to discredit them.
With regards to the Remnant: a more extensive discussion of them by the SPLC can be found here. A response by the Remnant to this article is here. I found one of the articles cited by the SPLC, a piece by Mark Alessio. I am not sure if I would call it anti-Semitic, but definitely vituperative. I have not read the Remnant in 25 years, and today I have not done much more than skim through the online archives. Overall, one thing which did strike was its denials of Catholic anti-Semitism.
I totally resent their description of Sugenis as the most extreme writer for the Remanant. I claim that title for myself, and won’t share the glory with anyone else. For proof-positive of my claim, see, http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2010-0915-medaille-monarchy.htm
Great essay!
Alas, I do not find nostalgia for the ancien regime to be extreme, especially when compared to the anti-Semitism produced by Sungenis. See the quote in my response to Thaddeus below, or this one: “Christianity is certainly not inherently violent, but unfortunately, Judaism tends to be, because real Judaism considers all non-Jews goyim that are less than animals, and this precipitates a loathing and violence against non-Jews.” (Found here.
For what it’s worth, here is an original investigation into the Legion of St. Louis.
Thank you. This seems to parallel the accusations brought by the SPLC.
Okay, I think I see the pattern here. If people defend themselves against SPLC slanders, it is evidence of their guilt, because there blogs are “biased.” But hence any attacks on them are, in Gisher’s mythology, “objective,” just Walter Crankshaft (spare me). Okay, I just need to know the ground rules at Vox Nova. I think I’ve got it now.
Incorrect on your behalf John. If you click on the link Christopher provides it does go to a blog, but it eventually links to what you CAN verify as being one of John Sharpe’s own sites where I personally found “ISLAM: The Hidden Truth” on sale. One read of the summary clearly reveals a book that is riddled with hate and while I could not find in just a cursory search any such items on Jews hate books on Muslims isn’t a good start on the site at all. Right off the bat you are greeted with extreme right wing fringe hatred which probably would look normal to one if they themselves were of the same mentality.
In other words, links are provided from this “blog” to substantiate what the blog is saying about John Sharpe using John Sharpe’s own site to validate it.
In addition John I have been being very, very kind to you sir. I did not scrutinize your own blog when I clicked over I merely looked to see if you used footnotes, bookmarks, or links out to substantiate your posts. The only thing I noticed, and only because you could not miss it, was your photo of Obama.
You have not been pounded on by me and if you doubt that ask a guy named SB or even better, Darwincatholic, who you can find on this site, one of them on this thread.
I mention this to you because I suspect that if I took the time to thoroughly scan your blog, I would find some things you wrote on there that would not allow you to maintain much distance at all from some of these very hate groups the SPLC is going after.
I also mention this because you are giving off the air of one who is being unfairly treated and to that I will say again, I have not thoroughly parsed your blog, and you really do not want me to.
So far, I have been extremely kind to you sir, and I would like to keep it that way.
On SPLC:
http://www.citybeat.com/cincinnati/article-5468-burning-down-the-church-of-tolerance.html
http://isteve.blogspot.com/2010/08/house-that-poverty-built.html
Your citibeat link (really? citibeat?) is to a story that references a supposed “upcoming November story in Harper’s Magazine”. I stop right there SB. If you can find the original source either on the web or in hard copy form (in which case I will give you my mail address) sure let me know.
I do not except hearsay ever and neither should you, and that is exactly what you have linked to. Frankly I am getting really tired already that nobody seems to know what “source means”. I am also not about to click on your isteve.blogspot.com and you should read some of my comments on this threads about blogs. Blogs are pure junk as news sources SB. I don’t care if it HuffPo or Drudge. Junk.
Suit yourself. My suggestion though is that you read more and type less, especially given that you seem to know no relevant information.
In closing, you pointed me to a blog as proof of your supposition. When I got to the blog there was only an opinion.
An opinion is not proof. I suggest you look up the meaning of the words opinion, fact, and proof.
Are you really unaware that you’re commenting on a blog right now? Are you unaware that lots of blogs link to and quote other sources of news?
I am commenting on a blog right now and it is the only blog I comment on. I am catholic and this allows me to communicate with other Catholics like you who in turn, insult me, but yet as you have done so often, never manage to back up your proof with facts.
My opinions are just like yours—opinions– except I do much less assuming about you, and I provide facts to back up my opinions.
SB I visit one blog VN. I come here to hear the thoughts of other Catholics, and to share mine with them.
When I state something on this blog to be a “fact” I always point to a “source” that verifies my fact. I do not point to a blog, unless that blog has posted on it “conclusive proof” of a fact.
It is very rare that I point to a blog to prove a point as most blogs only have other peoples opinions posted on them.
You have pointed me to blogs in this post to validate what you have posted on VN. Those blogs only had opinions or hearsay posted on them.
Opinions and hearsay do not constitute proof. If you claim here that SPLC said something, point me to the SPLC site to the specific press release or page where it was said. Or even a video with the head of SPLC making a statement, not an edited video taken out of context.
Do not point me to a site where someone else tells me what SPLC said or did.
I can tell you right now that Ronald Reagan said Santa Claus is a transvestite. I might even find a blog where someone else says that they heard Reagan say that. But I cannot point to Ronald Reagan’s own website or say, the library of congress that has an audio tape of Reagan actually saying it.
Therefor, I do not have proof, I do not have facts that I can support. That is what you have done to me in this thread.
Verifiable sources. You did not provide them and now you have chastised me because I pointed this out. That is how discourse ends, and that means both of us lose.
Share with me SB and it will benefit both of us because we both can learn from each other. But bring me facts SB. We grow with the truth but we die with the lies.
If you spent 1/4 the time reading that you spend commenting, you’d know plenty about SPLC on your own.
For example, the iSteve blog linked to a Montgomery Advertiser photo gallery of Morris Dees’ fabulously expensive home. That 60-photo gallery is available here: http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/gallery?Avis=DS&Dato=20100325&Kategori=LIFESTYLE04&Lopenr=3250804&Ref=PH
Dees has been able to afford such a lavish lifestyle because of all the millions raked in for his Southern POVERTY Law Center.
If you looked just a bit further, you’d have already found the Harper’s article (text available here: http://www.americanpatrol.com/SPLC/ChurchofMorrisDees001100.html )
Or this:
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/11/hbc-90001573
The post you link to here is a letter no photocopy either and just a letter from a supposed Stephen Bright. It supposedly represents his view. What is different from any typical blog post? So what, it is somebody’s view. I want facts, I want a link to a fact I can verify. I am frankly getting very tired of people not knowing what a fact is and linking out to junk. How pathetic we are in this country that we do not know what “source” or “fact” means anymore. We truly are sliding into the toilet.
BTW, here is the Remnant’s response to SPLC: http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/archive-2007-0215-rise_of_militant_christophob.htm
Is vox-nova part of the Southern Poverty Law Center now?
And vox-nova is now into scapegoating too? Yes, let’s decontaminate ourselves from these “extremists” who threaten the solidarity of our scapegoating community. Sungenis must be victimized!
No, Vox-Nova is not into scapegoating. But anti-Semitism is a serious sin, and if there are those who go by the name of Catholic and spout this kind of dangerous nonsense, then we, as Catholic, need to be aware of this. While the debate rages above about the Remnant, most of the other groups on this list have not been mentioned. As for Sungenis, I do not intend to victimize him, but anyone who can write “it is no secret to the well-informed that it is the goal of world politics and finance, which is run in large part by wealthy Jews behind the scenes, to secure the Middle East for Israel” (see here for the quote) is in my mind propagating anti-Semitic conspiracy theories.
David, the influence of the Jews on Middle Eastern policy is hardly a secret. Questioning our support of Israel is hardly an instance of “anti-semitism.”
John, are you really defending a blatantly anti-Semitic remark? It is one thing to argue (as I believe) that the policies of the United States are biased in favor of Israel. It is another thing to assert that “the Jews” control “world politics and finance” “behind the scenes.” This is a classic anti-Semitic conspiracy theory. And you conveniently are overlooking the quote I posted above, called Judaism “inherently violent.” Or the following quote, from the same source: “But when they [the Jews] come into power, as they did in the communist regime under Lenin and Trotsky, they can be some of the most ruthless people on the face of the earth.” Again, a classic anti-Semitic diatribe.
The SPLC has accused the Remnant of anti-Semitism in part because of its association with Sungenis. By the piece you (and I) linked to, this relationship was dissolved some years ago, and all the material written by Sungenis was removed from the Remnant website. However, the editor vehemently denies that this was because he (Sugenis) was anti-Semitic. So my question (since you presumably have better access to Remnant archives than I do): did similar comments by Sungenis appear in the Remnant?
I don’t know Sugenis, or his work. I can tell you that when the Jews came to power in Israel, they became some of the most ruthless people on the earth, and if you care to label that as anti-semitism, go ahead. Many Jews (rather than THE Jews) were aligned with the Bolsheviks for a lot of complex reasons. Those who identify the Jews and Bolsheviks are wrong, and they may even be motivated in their errors by anti-semitism. But on its face, it is not a “classic anti-semitic diatribe” but an exaggeration that is at least rooted in some real history.
Moreover, there is a certain attitude towards goyim on the part of the Jews which the goyim have every right to resent. It just so happens that I have some experience in these matters, at least derivatively. My grandmother was Jewish and my father was raised as a Christian among Jews. I am in no position to discount his experiences, or to label him a liar when I wasn’t there to witness the events. So for me, the Jewish attitude towards the goyisherkopf is a matter of family history, and all the more bitter because if one mentions it, one is automatically an anti-semite, just as mentioning the shameful treatment of Christians and Muslims in Israel gets the same label. The point here is that the political correctness goes one direction only, but this only makes the problem worse.
John, if you want to defend the Remnant against charges of anti-Semitism, why do keep defending Sungenis? He was not talking about Israelis: he was talking about Judaism itself as being inherently violent. Such gross stereotyping is anti-Semitic, as are his comments about “THE Jews” being the driving force behind the Bolshevik revolution. I am amused by this, because on equally strong (i.e. weak or fabricated) evidence, Jack Chick argued that Bolshevism was a Catholic conspiracy.
Your second paragraph really strikes me as an exercise in stereotyping. Did your father get abused by his Jewish neighbors? I wasn’t there, and I’ll take your word for it as I have no reason at all (despite your references to political correctness) to deny it. Does this mean that categorically “the Jews” (meaning all Jews) have a “certain attitude” toward goyim? Hardly. Indeed, without more context, it is hard to see what general conclusions can be drawn from this (sad) event.
Returning to the subject of the Remnant, Sungenis and anti-Semitism, which was the reason for your original intervention on this thread: His presence has been scrubbed from the Remnant website (except for one article attacking Pope John Paul II for his dealings with the Jews) but I found several references to an article by him in the September 30, 2005 issue of the Remnant, entitled “The New World Order and the Zionist Connection.” I cannot find the original article; I found one quote from it dealing with an Israeli telephone company that purportedly has access to every phone call made in America. The person quoting it read this in the most conspiratorial terms possible. And a broader search on “Sungenis” “Jews” and “New World Order” turned up all manner of damning quotes from other things he has written that establish firmly (in my mind) that Sungenis subscribes to a series of outlandish conspiracy theories centered on “the Jews”. Here is another quote: “Having virtual control of the U.S. media, the Jews spread their philosophy far and wide. The three major television networks, which started to promote anti-Christian morality beginning around the late 1960s, were begun by Jews.” (Found here.) So if his article in the Remnant contained similar views, then I think that the SPLC had legitimate reasons for calling it anti-Semitic. (Given the actual article, I would be happy to read it and refine my views, but the circumstantial evidence is pretty compelling to me at this point.)
You have charged me with that which I not only did not say, but in fact said the opposite. When someone has a different experience, they are told to shut-up by the self-righteous and keep it to themselves, or risk slander in a court that hears of one side only. I did not intervene for Sugenis, knowing nothing of his work; it did say that what you said is not in and of itself anti-semitic, and those who have personally faced contempt from the Jews for being Christian know that there is another story. And since when is Zionism beyond critique, or the persecution of Muslims and Christians in the Holy Land considered unholy?
If SPLC is your source, then good day to you sir, and good day to Vox Nova.
To everyone that I have replied to in this thread that posted links to merely opinions and not facts, I can say honestly that you have developed habits that cause you to stray from the truth. You are not alone, and as most of you appear to be conservative politically, I can tell you that liberals do the exact same thing.
There is always one truth, and sometimes the truth is not pleasant. What both sides tend to do is seek words that validate their opinions. Your job is to seek proof to validate the truth, not to seek the words of another that validate what you think the truth should be.
When you seek truth you are on the pathway to God. I am very proud of our Church because our Church is one of the few that has undertaken the sometimes painful journey to the truth. It has not always been pleasant for our Church to do so, but it has, and in doing so, set an example for all of us to follow. This is exactly what Christ himself did over 2000 years ago.
Oddly enough, our Church is now doing what good science does, and what good journalism is supposed to do. Too many of us have strayed from the truth and that is a major reason why there is so much divisiveness today.
The truth is we all have more in common than most acknowledge but many do not see this because they have allowed themselves to blinded to the truth. So you instantly slap a label on your brother, “well he’s a liberal”, or “he’s a conservative”, and you have filed him away where you cannot hear him speak.
Our Church tells us to love one another but in a world where we fall back to validating our opinions rather than seeking the truth, we wind up hating and not trusting our own brothers and sisters. Our Church has the truth and it instructs us how to treat each other.
Seek the truth and follow the example of our own Church. Bring me lies disguised as truths, and the distance will grow between our hearts. Bring me the truth and I will welcome it, and I will welcome you as my brothers in Christ.
gisher,
The standard you are setting out right here – are you holding SPLC to it?
Gisher said: “There is always one truth —“
May I quote from a regular contributer in this arena:
“ — while the pursuit of truth requires making presuppositions – there’s no way of pursuing truth from nowhere – these presuppositions may be an aid to the exploration or they may be an obstacle. Or they may be both. If we pursue the truth earnestly and responsibly, then no presupposition should achieve an untouchable status, a position where we hold it as unquestionable and beyond critique and contestation. To do so is to cease the pursuit of truth, and at most to pursue a particular way of thinking about it.”
Kyle R. Cupp, http://vox-nova.com/2011/01/21/remarks-on-the-willingness-to-dissent/#more-15323