Chuck Colson's body must have barely been cold when *ahem*, "writer" Frank Schaeffer put forward what must be by far the most ludicrous entry written thus far re: Mr. Colson (above) recently entering the Church Triumphant. I'm regularly pouring over articles out on the net on a daily basis and I must admit I've never come across anything that manages to be nearly so spectacularly obtuse, misinformed, bigoted and socially autistic all at the same time.
For starters, Schaeffer's pigswill masquerading as commentary is titled An Evangelical Homophobic Anti-Woman Leader Passes On, but I guess we can all be thankful for small wonders in that he didn't decide to keep his original title, Religious Right Bigot Chuck Colson Goes to His Reward. Here's an example from Schaeffer of how to lay bare your complete stupidity for all to see and yet remain unapologetically proud and blissfully unaware of what an imbecile you are making of yourself...
"Evangelical Christianity lost one of its most beloved and bigoted homophobic and misogynistic voices with the death of Charles W. 'Chuck' Colson, a Watergate felon who converted to 'evangelicalism' but never lost his taste for dirty political tricks against opponents...
Colson teamed up with far right Roman Catholic activist Professor Robert George of Princeton to launch the dirty tricks campaign to brand President Obama as “anti-religious” with Colson’s and George’s “Manhattan Declaration.” This was a trap they set for the administration that finally paid off when they talked a number of bishops into branding Obama as anti-religious because he wanted women to have access to contraception even if they worked for Roman Catholic controlled institutions.
Colson worked closely with various right wing Roman Catholic bishops to launch the current Republican Party war on women and gays in the name of “religious freedom” having become one of the chief practitioners of the evangelical/far right myths of victimhood at the hands of left wing media, colleges etc., etc. Colson was also a key figure in organizing the Prop 8 anti-gay marriage California iniatives. Colson was a key figure in calling the depriving of women of insurance coverage for contraception a religious “civil liberties” issue and provided evangelical cover for the Roman Catholic bishops’ misogynist bigotry."
Colson teamed up with far right Roman Catholic activist Professor Robert George of Princeton to launch the dirty tricks campaign to brand President Obama as “anti-religious” with Colson’s and George’s “Manhattan Declaration.” This was a trap they set for the administration that finally paid off when they talked a number of bishops into branding Obama as anti-religious because he wanted women to have access to contraception even if they worked for Roman Catholic controlled institutions.
Colson worked closely with various right wing Roman Catholic bishops to launch the current Republican Party war on women and gays in the name of “religious freedom” having become one of the chief practitioners of the evangelical/far right myths of victimhood at the hands of left wing media, colleges etc., etc. Colson was also a key figure in organizing the Prop 8 anti-gay marriage California iniatives. Colson was a key figure in calling the depriving of women of insurance coverage for contraception a religious “civil liberties” issue and provided evangelical cover for the Roman Catholic bishops’ misogynist bigotry."
If one were to define 'bigotry' as "stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own" than Mr Schaeffer obviously suffers from some sort of self identification problem and is engaging in projection here. If speaking ill of the recently deceased in terms of hurling perjoratives that simply aren't true doesn't qualify as 'stubborn and complete intolerance' of an opposing belief, than I'm afraid nothing does. I guess in Schaeffer's hard left world, the fact that nearly half of women oppose the government cramming it's ethics down the church's throat matters not a whit. One is simply a mysoginist and Schaeffer apparently can divine that it is he who is on the side of the angels and advocating for the freedom of the church to not be bullyed by the state was simply untenable for Colson.
It seems lost on Schaeffer that attaching an adjective to someone that has conclusively been shown to be eytymologically incorrect like 'homophobic' and especially to a man who cannot defend himself is a clear cut case of 'complete intolerance' (or socially challenged behavior at best).
If I could ask Schaeffer just one question, I would pose the following. Given the tremendous and indesputable impact Colson's prison ministry has had over the decades, exactly at what point does all of that, (in terms of lives changed for the better, recidivism apparently reduced and families made whole) become irrelevant? For example, what if Colson simply preferred traditional marriage as opposed to pretend, sodomy-based 'marriage' and yet was neutral of the matter of the Obama administration manufacturing crisis by attempting to tell the church how to conduct it's business and forcing it to violate millenia of tradition in an attempt to garner more votes from women? Would that be enough to let the poor guy rest in peace?
In conclusion, I would like to say that if one were to pour over years worth of entries on this site, I wouldn't be at all suprised if an example could be produced in which I was critical of someone who had recently passed on. I would only add that if ever I have done so, I did not aim derision at a person who left the world a better place than when they entered into it.
It seems lost on Schaeffer that attaching an adjective to someone that has conclusively been shown to be eytymologically incorrect like 'homophobic' and especially to a man who cannot defend himself is a clear cut case of 'complete intolerance' (or socially challenged behavior at best).
If I could ask Schaeffer just one question, I would pose the following. Given the tremendous and indesputable impact Colson's prison ministry has had over the decades, exactly at what point does all of that, (in terms of lives changed for the better, recidivism apparently reduced and families made whole) become irrelevant? For example, what if Colson simply preferred traditional marriage as opposed to pretend, sodomy-based 'marriage' and yet was neutral of the matter of the Obama administration manufacturing crisis by attempting to tell the church how to conduct it's business and forcing it to violate millenia of tradition in an attempt to garner more votes from women? Would that be enough to let the poor guy rest in peace?
In conclusion, I would like to say that if one were to pour over years worth of entries on this site, I wouldn't be at all suprised if an example could be produced in which I was critical of someone who had recently passed on. I would only add that if ever I have done so, I did not aim derision at a person who left the world a better place than when they entered into it.
2 comments:
If speaking ill of the recently deceased in terms of hurling perjoratives that simply aren't true doesn't qualify as 'stubborn and complete intolerance' of an opposing belief, than I'm afraid nothing does. —JD
I knew Colson and talked to him. there is nothing I said in the post that in one way or another I didn't say to his face or in print when he was alive and could respond. —Frank Schaeffer
I saw that also GS, but it's sort of a cop out and doesn't go anywhere near absolving Schaeffer of his particular brand of Bigotry Writ Large.
You and I have had disgreements in the past GS. But if word ever reached me that you recently assumed room tempurature, I might mention those points of disagreement, but I wouldn't hurl untrue, hateful perjoratives at you (as long as you remain civil, of course).
I've seen and heard Colson address his critics and he always did so in a gentlemanly manner. Schaeffer could actually learn from Colson in that regard.
Post a Comment