- Mar 14, 2023
- 1,425
- 552
- 69
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Private
(NOTE: I am using the term "NutBar" to informally refer to a person who may
be unstable in a number of different ways, without trying to imply other terms
that may violate this sites sensibilities as to unacceptable language....)
This response by a political candidate, underlines the moral fog under
which American politicians are operating.
And, that this moral fog should not be artificially perceived as applying
only to politics.
Christians should be considering the larger moral topics, that include...
1 Is it morally acceptable for a candidate who has used the white supremecist
language of Hitler, to object to being labelled as having used the same Aryan
supremecist language that Hitler used, between the World Wars?
Is it right for Christians to call a spade, a "spade"?
2 Is it right for a political candidate to object to SOME statement by an opponent
(in order to try to make some political hay), while ignoring their own similar
statements (that could be politically damaging). Is not this a form of hypocrisy?
3 Is it right for a candidate to vociferously try to defend their freedom to say
ANYTHING in public, supposedly under the blanket coverage of "freedom of
speech", while attacking their opponents (supposed) similar freedom of speech
(because it supposedly may trigger some nutbars in America to try to engage in
criminal activity)?
This action actually asserts that a candidate may arbitrarily hold someone
personally responsible for SOME statements that they have said, while they
hold THEMSELVES not personally responsible for similar statements that they
have said in public.
The issue is whether or not an individual in America, personally has the right to adjudicate
whether or not some statement made by someone else, violates the basic legal principle
that we are ALL responsible for what we say. Anyone who claims this personal right, is
putting themselves above the fair rule of law in America (which DOES have the legal right
to adjudicate specific responsibilities, for what each of us says).
4 ***** Perhaps the most CONTENTIOUS issue that this article suggests (for
Christians to consider), is whether an individual is morally-ethically responsible for
the actions of some NutBar, if that individual speaks honestly and truthfully about
some topic or situation, and some NutBar sees or hears that language, and "goes
ballistic" and tries to carry out some illegal operation.
5 Do American Christians have a moral-ethical OUGHT, to speak clearly about
moral-ethical issues, after being careful to verify that what we say matches the
facts? Do American Christians have some moral-ethical OUGHT to suppress
honest ME evaluations, because some Americans may not like a historical
Christian worldview, and find it offensive.
Do American Christians have a moral-ethical OUGHT to speak against ridiculous
conspiracy theories, that have NOT been demonstrated with solid evidence?
---------- ----------
The promotion of a ridiculous conspiracy theory (about Immigrants eating pets in
Springfield), has resulted in multiple bomb threats to schools in Springfield.
Obviously, there are NutBars out there who believe this conspiracy theory, cannot
or do not want to try to verify it, and somehow identify with making bomb threats
as some sort of "striking a blow for truth". How can Christians support this use
of conspiracy theories?
There are Christians who still support the conspiracy theory that Trump won the
2020 presidential election, despite careful investigation that could not turn up
ANY substantial fraud. Trump and his friends, have to date filed about 60 lawsuits
charging fraud in the 2020 election. BUT none of these lawsuits could present
any relevant or accurate evidence, of fraud. How could Christians still support this
conspiracy theory? There are NutBars who (obviously) are willing to gather at the
Capital Building, and riot, and kill, and destroy property in order to show their
support for this conspiracy theory. Is it wrong for Christians to appose this
conspiracy theory lie, even though there are people who would carry out
criminal acts to show their support for this conspiracy theory?
---------- ----------
Instead of getting caught up in some assertion by some political figure or
another, Christians ought to be dealing with the basic underlying issues of
morality-ethics.
To be silent on these important underlying ME issues, is to tacitly
agree that they do not exist. And THAT, is unaceptable for Christians.
