Uncivil Discourse

So I experienced some cyberhatred because of the post I wrote on Josh Hamilton, which over 600 people read, far exceeding the number of any single post I've ever written. Most of the feedback was positive, but there were a few twisted comments written by those who thought I was pushing some sort of political agenda. One guy threw a nonsensical fit because the words "Christian" and "Christianity" appeared in the post, which was about redemption, one of the central themes of Christianity.

Here is his comment:

Why would you believe and insinuate that the only ones critical of Hamilton's story are hypocritical Christians? Perhaps you've missed the numerous times that Hamilton himself has credited God for turning his life around?

It's been my lifelong experience that those most critical among us are NOT Christians, and that instead Christians are among the most CRITICIZED.

Your use of scare quotes around the word Christianity probably gives me my answer, but I'll ask anyway.

And for the record, I'm a devout Christian who is very proud of Josh Hamilton.

My initial reaction was confusion, and I wrote this:

Wow, really tampa red. Where the heck do you get "the only ones critical of Hamilton's story are hypocritical Christians?" Perhaps you missed the word "SOME?" My god, take a chill pill. I'm not attacking Christianity. But you've certainly proved the point about how there is a paranoid hysteria about Christianity being under attack.

After thinking about it some more and trying to understand how the heck someone could twist a post about redemption into something anti-Christian, I sent him a private message:

I wanted to send you a private message because you completely misread everything I wrote. Seriously, go back and read it again, because I don't know where you get off thinking I've made some stab at the Christian religion.

I'll respond to each of your lines:

Why would you believe and insinuate that the only ones critical of Hamilton's story are hypocritical Christians? Perhaps you've missed the numerous times that Hamilton himself has credited God for turning his life around? This is what the post said:

"Secondly, people like the above commenter who fail to see how effective these stories are have obviously never had a close friend or family member with an addiction. They like to pretend from their couches that they have some sort of control over the circumstances of life, that it was their choice as 18 year olds to not have fat bank accounts and fame that is ripe for trouble, that it can't happen to them, whether they be the drug users or someone close to them. I'm willing to bet some of these people even call themselves "Christians," though they fail to understand the reason for Christianity's existence: redemption."

Notice the use of the word "some." How dare you tell me I said that the ONLY ones who are critical are hypocritical Christians. I was talking about those people who think they can do no wrong, who believe they have no need to be redeemed. The second part of that line doesn't have anything to do with the first point, either - Josh Hamilton being a Christian has nothing to do with people who criticize his story. And you totally missed this:

It's as if Josh stole his soul back from Mephistopheles.

I am assuming that you do not know who Mephistopheles is, that you don't know the story of Dr. Faust selling his soul to the demon Mephistopheles, and that by writing this sentence I was saying he escaped the devil?

It's been my lifelong experience that those most critical among us are NOT Christians, and that instead Christians are among the most CRITICIZED. Yawn. Same old, same old. If people go around preaching one thing and acting another then yeah, there's going to be criticism. But people who are hysterical over Christianity "under attack" are so blinded by their paranoia that they fail to see the difference between criticizing one's behavior and criticizing a religion. Do you criticize politicians for saying one thing and doing another? It's not any different.

Your use of scare quotes around the word Christianity probably gives me my answer, but I'll ask anyway. A little grammar 101 - quotes are often used to point out a specific term in a sentence. You wouldn't have been up in arms if I had said, "...the book was called "Don Quixote" or "the player was nicknamed "Donkey." Besides, there were no quotes around the word "Christianity." They were around "Christians." Big difference. How can one call himself a "Christian" if he does not act like one?

And for the record, I'm a devout Christian who is very proud of Josh Hamilton. What's your point? Obviously you consider yourself a Christian if you got all up in arms about seeing the word "Christianity." (And yeah, that's the grammar thing again.) Being a Christian, one would think that you would be in agreement with this post and it's focus on redemption. But no, seems like you have these preconceived notions in your head about who is allowed to talk about your religion and who is not and so you automatically go on the attack. You don't know my religious beliefs - you just assume that I am knocking Christianity. What's even more bizarre about this is how I am talking about the very nature of Christianity being redemption and how redemption is a beautiful thing, and you still manage to twist it into something anti-Christian. And you managed to miss the comment above yours from the minister and the biblical quotes above that.

By the way, here's my response on my blog to your comment: "Wow, really tampa red. Where the heck do you get "the only ones critical of Hamilton's story are hypocritical Christians?" Perhaps you missed the word "SOME?" My god, take a chill pill. I'm not attacking Christianity. But you've certainly proved the point about how there is a paranoid hysteria about Christianity being under attack."

Next time you want to criticize someone and be hyper-judgmental, you might want to make sure you understand what you are reading first. Yeah, I'm angry - I really don't appreciate hateful comments being directed at me.

He responded:

But you've certainly proved the point about how there is a paranoid hysteria about Christianity being under attack.
I was perfectly willing to have a discussion with you until I read that line. Never mind.

Given that there was nothing to discuss, as he had missed the point of the post - a post I wrote so I knew what the heck it was about! - I wrote back:

Sorry you can't deal with reality.

The guy showed his true nature in his response:

LOL! You watch entirely too much Rosie O’Donnell and, believe it or not, Footloose was just a movie..

Funny how I was critical towards hate-filled talk show hosts (This is a country that goes up in arms when it thinks Christianity is "under attack," yet it fails to understand the very basic concepts of what it supposedly believes in. It is reflected in how much money we spend on prisons instead of schools, in how hate-filled radio talk shows are so popular, and how our political campaigns are run.), and the guy says that I listen to them? Dude, use your freaking head. The guy is so blinded by his ideology that he has to twist a post about a recovering drug addict into one that fits his political agenda.

I willing to bet, judging from his assumption that everything with the word "Christian" that doesn't have some sort of Bible quote after it is an attack on Christianity, that this guy thinks that America is a Christian nation (and by Christian nation, I mean something resembling a theocracy.) These types of people understand nothing about America. They like to spout off this fantasy about the founders being Christian (their version of Christianity, not the founders' beliefs) when all they have to do is read the writings of Jefferson, Franklin, and others to understand that the founders were Deists who believed religion should be separated from government affairs. When people object to religion being preached in classrooms or courtrooms, it is not because they are anti-Christian, it is because they are pro-American. If people would take school seriously, if they wouldn't say "history is boring," then such ignorance wouldn't be running rampant in our country. How many of those people who say "America is a Christian country" have read the Federalist Papers (and not just once in high school, but enough to talk intelligently about them right now), for example? This stuff is not useless knowledge, people. It's necessary reading for you to critically think about issues and give informed opinions and contribute to rational discourse rather than just spewing partisan or religious rubbish. (And by "religious rubbish," I'm not saying religion is rubbish, I'm saying blindly following religion without thinking about it is rubbish.)

I also received this comment:

"This is a country that goes up in arms when it thinks Christianity is "under attack," yet it fails to understand the very basic concepts of what it supposedly believes in."

So, you're saying it's political conservatives who are against Hamilton? Way to lump all of the people you don't like on one team.

To which I responded:

"This is a country that goes up in arms when it thinks Christianity is "under attack," yet it fails to understand the very basic concepts of what it supposedly believes in."

So, you're saying it's political conservatives who are against Hamilton? Way to lump all of the people you don't like on one team.

Where the heck do you get conservative out of that????? You ignore the next sentence completely (and ignore the entire point of the post, really): This is a country that goes up in arms when it thinks Christianity is "under attack," yet it fails to understand the very basic concepts of what it supposedly believes in. It is reflected in how much money we spend on prisons instead of schools, in how hate-filled radio talk shows are so popular, and how our political campaigns are run.

Last time I checked, there were both liberal and conservative talk shows and left and right political candidates. Oh, and you know what? There are liberal Christians, too.

I really don't appreciate you twisting my words to fit your political agenda.

I'm just amazed at how a couple of people managed to twist a post about a recovering drug addict into unthinking partisan bullshit.

The firing of Imus is a step in the right direction towards civil political discourse in this country. I hope it is the beginning of the end for hatemongers in the media, so people will stop spewing out vitriolic garbage that mimics what they've heard on talk radio or read in the partisan blogosphere. I for one am tired of the political garbage (and no, I didn't put the word "conservative" in front of that, but apparently you have to qualify everything for people to understand. We really need to fix our schools!) It's why I stopped posting real articles here for awhile, why I no longer read more than the headlines about political candidates, and why most of America doesn't give a crap about their own government. One day in the next century when climate change has ravished our food supply and the NRA has successfully scared everyone into carrying arms, this kind of divisive hatred is going to start another civil war. Farfetched? How long can a person be called stupid or one of the numerous favorite terms of the Coulterites before he begins to fight back?
___