Saturday, July 21, 2007

Where is the outrage?

Where’s the outrage?

I’m amazed at the level of rhetoric that has been generated by my comments about Joe Knollenberg being a sinner in regard to his votes supporting President Bush’s fiasco in Iraq. There was a time in this country when the religious community would have condemned the war in Iraq as a moral issue. Nowadays leaders of the faith community defend the war or ignore it. It seems they are more interested in Terry Schiavo than the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis that have died in and been displaced by this unjust war. People of faith don’t seem to think that an Iraqi life is worth as much as an American life. I thought all life was precious to god. Where are the leaders of the faith community now? Where is their moral outrage at President Bush for lying this country into war and being the cause of thousands of American soldiers’ deaths and thousands of soldiers being seriously wounded? Where is the outrage from people of faith about that? Instead they have their panties in a bunch because I asked Joe Knollenberg to atone for his sin of voting to support an unjust war. The shame of it.

Let’s not be distracted from the real issue by Joe Knollenberg’s campaign manager. The real moral issue here is the loss of life being caused by Joe “Knollenbush’s” war. Why doesn’t the pro-life community rise up now and tell Joe Knollenberg to withdraw his support for the moral outrage of this administration, the war in Iraq?


Chet said...

Caught in your own rhetoric, and you still won't admit your offensive error. Rather, you distract, and I'll give you credit, you're a well-trained heel - your distraction is right back on message.

Bruce, can't you just admit it - criticizing people through religious innuendo is dumb and you were wrong.

The issue may be Iraq - but are you enough of a person to admit your went overboard?

With Liberty & Justice for all . . . said...

I'm surprised Knollenberg and Chet haven't blamed Clinton for what Bruce said. They blame him for everything else.

Bruce Fealk said...

What exactly do you consider going overboard? Is it overboard to pass a law to keep a brain dead woman alive even though she had told her husband that were she to end up in the position Terry Schiavo found herself in that he should let her die? Is it overboard for the President to come back to D.C. from vacation to sign that law?

Please, your disingenuous outrage is what is overboard and just trying to distract from the real issue.

Chet said...


You're conflating Knollenberg's behavior with your own behavior, and arguing that his positions on issues justify your hyperbolic response to them. You're justifying the means by pointing to the ends - even if you are right about issues (which I mostly disagree with you on, but believe their is room for honest disagreement). It's ironic - I disagree with you and politely point my concerns and you call me dishonest.

Secondarily, I'm not "outraged" at you, and hence can't be "disingenously" so (although I'll certify that my expressions here are always honest and not designed for anything more than to relay my observations). In the grand scheme of the universe, your action was mild - but inappropriate and worthy of mild mention. I merely observe it and take note that your tactics and mindset have taken over and your blind hatred of Knollenberg allows you to dehumanize him and attack him at every corner. If you had a bit of grace, you might recognize that you can be wrong - even mildly so in the world of politics - and admit it. But you're stubborn.

L & J, I don't blame Clinton for Bruce. What a wasted response and lack of though on your part.

Bruce Fealk said...

I don't hate Joe Knollenberg. I don't know him well enough to have any emotion about him at all. What I despise are the policies he supports and his blind support of President Bush.

And I did admit that my comment calling Knollenber "a good Catholic boy" were a bit over the top, but as far as asking him to atone for his sins, no way will I apologize for that.

Chet said...

Who are you to judge his "sins". If you're an agnostic or atheist, you wouldn't believe in sins and labeling his actions as such would contradict your beliefs. If you're a Christian, you would believe that only God judges sins, so your Judgment that he "must atone" for his sins is contradictory and blasphemous.

Knollenberg may be right or wrong in his decisions on the war, but that hardly means one must equate them to the level of "sins". You dismiss the possibility of a well-intentioned mistake - even though the stakes in the war are so high and I understand your emotion. You're doing the same religious judging in politics in the reverse direction of what you might accuse the "religious right" of doing on other issues. Maybe we should call you part of the radical "religious left"?