SFOT writes in response to a November article(link)

Thank you, SFOS, for responding to this article. So few do, out of the 100,000 visitors per year. The primary purpose of the Daily Gazelle has been to encourage discussion, but has not succeeded very well in doing so.

It would be helpful, however, if your comments addressed specifics of what you dislike about what I have written. The Editor would love to read reasoned responses from different points of view, particularly within a Christian perspective. You said:

“I’ve heard you wax poetic about maintaining unity among Christians and how the “us v. them” debate is tearing us all apart and has been for a long time, however it doesn’t look like you’re doing much of anything to help it at all, by the looks of this.”

I confess that I have noticed myself being a bit strident of late, for which I apologise. The thing about conversations between people of differing views is the need for conversation. The Editor has tried to engage people in conversation here, and at times (if you read back far enough) this has worked well. But not with American politics. I have raised questions with friends via other media, such as Facebook and email, in the desire for genuine dialogue, but this has not worked well. My questions are never answered. The responses tend to be along the lines of ad hominem attack, confusion of categories of discussion, dismissal as ‘liberal’ which apparently needs no response, and silence. I have pushed the limits of the bonds of friendship and kinship, without reasoned responses to my questions. I have come near to the point of despair, and unfortunately have shown it in being less than kind in my use of adjectives. ‘Delusional’ is not a good term for conversation. Oddly, though, it seems to have finally provoked someone to write.

With conversation in mind, let me respond to your comments:

“This is clearly a ridiculous and sweeping generalization of Americans-"

No, it is directed only to the religious right (and didn’t seem to strike the previous commenter as so sweeping). And, to whom is this so clear?

“…coming from someone who hasn’t lived there in how long?”

Does living outside the US for 29 years disqualify me for some reason? Am I tainted by living in Europe? Is there some diminution of the right to free speech when one doesn’t live in the US? Something along the lines of the Bush administration’s view that the writ of habeas corpus applies only in the US, and not in Guantanamo Bay?

“Do you even vote in the elections, anywhere, to make your voice heard in a way that actually affects the outcome of an election?”

The previous question seems to disqualify me from the right to speak for not living in the US. This one casts aspersions on my character.

I am on record elsewhere on this matter. In the past I have not voted in the US elections because I felt I did not know enough from a distance to make a decision. I should think you would appreciate this. This is no longer true, however—the internet makes finding information much easier; and being free of the daily blitz of party commercials is a bonus.

I am not a citizen of the UK, so cannot vote here.

Does you mean by this, then, that if I do not vote, for such reasons, I have no right to have my voice heard at all? If I did not vote out of apathy or laziness, I might accept this as a justified challenge. It doesn’t work in this case.

Not voting and not having any affect at all on the outcome of an election are two separate matters. And, the question of voting in an election is not pertinent to the subject at hand—which is about the sources of political influence on Christians.

To call conservative, christian (sic) Americans ‘deluded’ and to take cheap shots at Fox by calling them ‘fiction’- really….come one (sic)…..

What is cheap about what is said here? Can you answer my challenges regarding the network and its motives? Have you investigated Rupert Murdoch’s history of political involvement, and attempts to have major control of all media in any market? Can you answer my challenge regarding the religious right’s acceptance of the Fox network as ‘truth’ while turning a blind eye to the unchristian morality it advertises on its ‘news’ front page?

Can a network which regularly calls the Obama administration both socialist (meaning communist) and Nazi be taken seriously? In what way, then, is this a ‘cheap shot’? I am in dead earnest.
If any Christian thinks Fox is a defender of Christian concerns, or is an unbiased source of information, I am afraid they are deluded. I will stand by that.

This comment reveals a significant difference in point of view that I suggest you consider carefully. If you spoke of ‘American Christian’, or ‘conservative Christian’, I would not mention it. But the fundamental problem I have with the American religious right is the relation between these two words: American, and Christian. Which one do you think should be the governing noun, and which the adjective which modifies the noun? You appear to be an American who is distinguished from other Americans by being a Christian. I have stated elsewhere that I believe it vital to consider myself a Christian who happens also to be identifiable as being American, among other adjectives. When there is a conflict between what it means to be a Christian and what it means to be an American, the Christian always wins.

One of the values of living outside of the US, and living in multi-cultural communities, is that one is constantly aware of being an American. And, there is space to learn what the difference is between being an American Christian and a Christian American.

“Maybe take your own advice at the end there and test your own spirit as well- I think you like to point out where someone else is going wrong, but don’t like to take a look at yourself very often. Come to think of it - I think that verse is used just a bit out of context…..”

This comes back to ad hominem argumentation. It goes beyond my own stridency, I fear. A couple points in response: one, of course the verse is taken out of context. But not as far as you suggest. The context of 1 John is testing against false prophets and anti-christs. If the Fox network is to be considered a safe source of a worldview for Christians, then it must be tested, or it is antichrist.

Secondly, on what basis does the charge ‘[you] don’t like to take a look at yourself very often’ make any sense in this format? This is not an introspective blog, nor a confessional. Of course I like to point out where other people are wrong. That is one of the purposes of this site. The comment section is there for people to offer a reasoned rebuttal to my viewpoints, which may persuade me that I am poorly informed, or wrong. Sadly, this comment is not in this category. Please try again!