July 13, 2006

Response to a response re: Bridges For Peace

In response to a former recent commentary on a group called the Bridges For Peace (see earlier entry) one reader states: *”While I agree in principal with your larger view of the BFP group, I do disagree with your statement in regards to freedom.”
The writer makes numerous assertions that reflect a willing indoctrination to the propaganda set forth in the media rather than a studied assessment of the facts.
He sites the “abuse of personal freedoms” referring to Gitmo and adds, “…the list goes on and on.”
This is all popular rubbish disseminated by the press and others with a pointedly liberal/anti-Bush bias. The fact is, the detainees at Gitmo and elsewhere are being treated with kit gloves and frankly have been extended more consideration than the typical American citizen detained or otherwise. (cf. my previous blog regarding the treatment of Muslims by our military)
He then tips his hand and makes me question his stated allegiance to a conservative ideology. “We were lied to from the beginning in this conflict and the story has changed at least 3 times.”
Having read Bob Woodward’s book Plan of Attack, (Woodward is no Bush lackey) it is clear that Bush is a leader of consummate integrity. The reason the book disappeared from sight and sound so quickly is because the liberal public was dismayed that Woodward, with painstaking effort, confirms Bush’s veracity and that he didn’t lie to America or anyone else.

The writer continues; “Yes, Saddam was a bad man, but so are a dozen leaders in Africa, many engaged in genocide on historical levels, yet we don't even seem to notice.”
The writer has a point about the Sudan but it has nothing to do with the issue at hand concerning Iraq. Let’s stay on task.
Finally the writer says, “To blindly follow one ideology without question is worse than so called “liberals” who would protest an administration that has at every turn, ignored the will of the people, lied, and used nothing more than a constant state of fear to manipulate policy and freedoms for their purposes. Misguided?”
I have never advocated an unquestioning response to one’s leaders. Nice try but that’s a straw man. What I do advocate is a questioning mindset with verifiable answers facilitating wise and informed decisions; not self absorbed, short-sighted reactions based on fallacious information based on a world view that has at its center, personal gratification, and a road of least resistance mentality grounded in temporal pragmatism. Misguided he asks? Absolutely!
*Obviously due to the very limited time I have for my commentaries I cannot give a complete quote. To see the writer’s comment, simply scroll down to the blog re: Bridges For Peace and go to the comments at the bottom.

2 Comments:

Blogger cjwill said...

Pastor Bill,

I appreciate the response and the points made. While my response may have been rambling I still stand by my original beliefs in regards to many of the activities the current administration is engaged in. To say that myself or others for that matter are merely repeating what is printed by - and i do agree with you here - a mostly liberal media, is somewhat insulting.

I too have read Bob Woodward's book - Plan of Attack among others. While it is true he paints President Bush in a honorable light, he also highlights the decention within the President's own cabinet. Among them Colin Powell, Tommy Franks and others. Men, I am sure you would agree, are intelligent, honorable and just as committed to safe guarding America and our freedoms. You blame the liberal media for making the book disapear, yet upon it's publication, the Bush administration denied many of the accounts written as false as well.

As always I find your editorials enlightening My responses - to quote you - a questioning mindset with verifiable answers facilitating wise and informed decisions; not self absorbed, short-sighted reactions based on fallacious information based on a world view that has at its center, personal gratification, and a road of least resistance mentality grounded in temporal pragmatism -
are just that - opinions like your own formed thru reading and listening to many sources, liberal, conservative, etc.

9:45 PM  
Blogger Pastor Bill said...

I REALLY appreciate the fact that yours is a cogent, well thought out and informed response; refreshing--thank you!

I have never claimed to be above bias myself, but unlike many today, I do strive for objectivity. What is particularly difficult in these times is that it is virtually impossible--lacking omniscience--to know what information we receive is even true, and that goes for both sides--liberal and conservative. But that being said, there is a preponderance of evidence that I believe reveals the conservative voice (a generalization to be sure) to be MUCH MORE reliable more often than the proverbial "liberal" voice.

The one parting statement I leave is that I am confident that if we had the same coverage of World War II that we have today, it would have been a vastly different war--to the grave detriment of the world.

The "typical" liberal American (to generalize yet again) has such a narrowly focused worldview that unless and until the bandit is coming in through thier own window, they are unwilling for the most part to expend any energy, money, or volition to defeat a real danger. That is disturbing.

Finally, the "typical" liberal has no comprehension of the reality of evil and at their core believes that anyone can be reasoned with, anyone can be placated. One of the most profound things this President has ever said (paraphrased) was that you cannot reason with evil, it must be eliminated. That is true because it is Biblical. One thing is certain, it will all come out in the wash! (PB)

9:27 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home