Liberty and Virtue

A person who experiences same sex attraction and who endeavors to live chastely in accordance with his religious beliefs keeps an eye out for examples of gay activists' (1) showing intolerance and hatred of traditional religious and moral beliefs and believers, (2) attempting to deny freedom of speech, assembly and religion to others, and (3) trying to cause the government to impose liberal views on sexual morality on society. Other stuff of interest to blogger may also occasionally be posted.

Gay activists do not speak for all those who experience same sex attraction!

Not all those with SSA reject traditional sexual morality!

Not all those with SSA support promiscuity!

Not all those with SSA believe the gay activist ideology of “gay pride”!

Not all those with SSA believe in making their sex drive their primary public identity!

Not all those with SSA support public indecency in “gay pride” parades!

Not all those with SSA support government promotion of homosexual activity!

Not all those with SSA support same sex marriage!

Not all those with SSA support biased teaching in public schools on homosexual matters!

Not all those with SSA demonize traditional religious believers!

Not all those with SSA wish to deny basic freedoms of speech, religion and association to those who disagree with the gay activists’ ideology and agenda!

Christian charity for persons does not require affirmation of sinful or immoral activity!

Wednesday, December 07, 2005

Mark Shea has Andrew Sullivan's Number

Greg Popcak, who is usually right all along, is wrong. Along with a number of other readers, he thinks ASCII should not be expended on Andrew. As a rule, I think he's right, but I plead special circumstances.

Last week, as my readers know, I remarked on Sullivan's incredibly cheap shot at Pope Benedict, in which he as much as said that the man was a medieval Jew hater, because he made a couple of comments about usury. This latest in a long line of low slanders is due to one thing and one thing only: Benedict's refusal to edit Catholic teaching so that Andrew can homosexuality is compatible with the Catholic faith.

My irritation at him stems from the fact that I think he's done some very good work critiquing the Bush Administration on the matter of torture. The problem is: I know as well as my readers that part of what drives Sullivan to attack Bush is his hostility over Bush's "betrayal" of gays by supporting the FMA. So every time I cite him, I can be guaranteed that any reader capable of reading will point out that Sullivan does such a sleazy job smearing the Pope, he can hardly be relied upon as an objective critic of Bush. It's hard to gainsay that.

Now, when I pointed this out, Sullivan, the 800 lb. gorilla of the blogsophere, did what he has frequently done in the past to little bloggers who dare to cross him, he posted an edited link back to my blog and sicced a bunch of his angriest, most obscene readers on me. Some of them called me an anti-semite (somehow under the mysterious impression that I had declared Jonah Goldberg a Christ-killer or something. Don't ask). Another guy amazed some of my readers by declaring that this blog is predicated on "blind faith in the Bush Administration". So you can tell that these are close readers. Others just did the usual stuff that trolls do, dropping F bombs and speculating about my sex life.

Now, the name in English for Sullivan's behavior is "bullying". He has a readership that is orders of magnitude larger than mine. And I am not the only small blogger that Sullivan has done this to. In addition, first Opinion Journal and then NRO picked up the controversy. So it seemed to me I had an obligation to challenge Sullivan on his dishonesty. Because, as I say, I'm not the first person he's done this too. Amy Welborn, for instance, has been slimed by him and then ignored when she responded with facts. So I took the temporary spike in readership and challenge Andrew to retract his slander of Benedict (he ignored it) and to point out places where he himself had admitted that his journalism was colored by his homosexuality.

My assumption is that this week, my readership has resumed roughly its original size. This being so, I think I've done my bit as the Little Guy blogger to say to the 800 Gorillas that they can't, on the one hand, blather about the blogosphere as the new Democratic Media that gives the little guy a voice while, on the other hand, acting like the most arrogant NY Times editor, twisting the words of good men like Benedict, creating like journalistic jihads against critics, and refusing to acknowledge the existence of opposing views which inconvenience them. I may not be able to get Andrew to post a link to my challenge that he retract his slander of Benedict. But I can certainly continue to blog here--and now that I'm on the radar for a few more people than last week, I can do a little bit to turn up the heat on Sullivan's dishonesty when he attacks the Catholic faith. That seems worthwhile to me.

Charles S.


Post a Comment

<< Home

<< # St. Blog's Parish ? >>