This has also been posted at Meerkat Musings.
The title is perhaps the most eloquent means of conveying the message of this post. There is a tendency to believe that criticism of one’s arguments or behaviour, or criticism of a philosophy/faith, somehow translates into hatred of that person/belief/argument. I’ve encountered this kind of argument on many occasions, regarding various subjects, but on this occasion, we’re venturing back to a familiar face – David of Theology Archaeology. In this instance it concerns a post he’s made on his sister site (Theoarch), an accusation he’s made, the failure to substantiate that accusation, and a doubling-down of his position when challenged.
In the course of a discussion concerning which party is best-suited to running the USA, David accused me of harbouring a hatred for Christianity (I refer to his comment below).
uhm, read the history of America again. your hatred for Christianity undermines your point of view and shows you to be more biased and rights denier than you claim Mr. Trump is
For some context here, I pointed out that Trump and his Republican party seek to ensure a good America – for hetrosexual white men. They’re a party dominated by hetrosexual white men, some of whom claim to be Christians (though they appear to have a hard time practicing what they preach). This is what David and others want – a country for the hetrosexual white man, and anyone else? They need to embrace Christianity and repent of their sins (because apparently America wasn’t founded on the idea of religious freedom, despite the Constitution saying otherwise).
There are obviously many different types of people living in the USA, and the Republicans are failing to represent them. The Democrats on the other hand, aren’t trying to impose religious beliefs upon everyone, and instead recognise the importance of separating state and faith. It will come as no surprise to learn that this is not acceptable to David, with whom I have clashed before on women’s rights and LGBT rights.
Mentioning that it’s not only Christianity that should be represented apparently means I hate Christianity. I don’t hate Christianity. I am critical of organised religion in general, but that doesn’t equate to hate. When pressed on this issue, David deleted my comment (more than once), but then wrote a post around my final attempt to wrestle an explanation from him (see the first link above). My comment can be seen below.
That is twice you have deleted my comment that asked you, politely, to prove your claim regarding me being a rights denier. You should be aware that, as always, I take screenshots of these discussions to repost later. Your evasiveness will not go unnoticed or pass without remark elsewhere, complete with links and screenshots.
David responded in a very roundabout fashion.
Fourth, for that specific poster, his words deny his claims that he accepts and supports Christianity. We have known him long enough to know that he rejects the true Christianity in lieu of his own style of the faith. In other words, he wants God’s word to say what he wants it to say and not what it actually does.
David pre-supposes that I believe in God. At this point of my life, I’m not sure. However I never claimed to support and accept Christianity (which is but only interpretation of God’s Word, and has many internal factions too), so this is a strawman fallacy. Not for the first time, David has manufactured a position of mine to attack, rather than addressing what I said and asked. It remains to be seen if David will act honestly and address my actual comments, rather the fabricated argument he has invented.
Coalition of the Brave 
Have you ever considered the option that I just may be tired of your style of ‘discussion’ and do not want to continue facing that style? Given the words above, the answer is most likely not.
I checked one of your published posts and the content was all the evidence you needed but as usual, you make a mountain out of a molehill and make discussion impossible. Instead, you simply take the low road and use your assumptions, distortions etc., to attack others who have not attacked you.
Also, you bash a President that deserves your respect, even if you do not personally like him because he tries to fulfill all his campaign promises and has made more achievements in 4 years than any other president in the past 100. The democrats, in the past 4 years and beyond, have not displayed any form of leadership, created any rational or cognitive legislation opting for stupidity and idiocy instead (see California).
No one wants the latter form of leadership except those who crave power over others and want to bully their ideology into law. Your misunderstanding of the topic also leads you to defend the defenseless and attack a man who may not be perfect but gets the job done.
Plus, too many liberals, democrats, etc., go after the president and others for things they said and done more than a decade ago further in providing evidence for their inability to lead.
LikeLike
Bottom line David, if you are deceitful (as you have been in this instance) I shall call you out on it. You may be able to prevent my comments from appearing but you cannot prevent me from pointing that out, elsewhere.
This is another example of a vague allegation. Which post did I make where I suggested I hated Christianity? When will you distinguish between criticism and hate I wonder?#
Trump really hasn’t achieved all that much, beyond dividing America like never before. He has managed, through his administration’s poor response, to preside over the deaths of 200,000 Americans, and has now contracted the virus he himself suggested wasn’t a big deal. Ironic no?
His tax law changes haven’t yielded anything like what he’d hoped, his actions and statements on Charlottesville and George Floyd have fanned the flames of racial tensions, his inability to criticise a white supremacist group when pressed speaks volumes, he tear-gassed peaceful protesters near the White House to get a photo op with a Bible, his administration has split families up at the border and falsely blamed Obama’s administration for this, and the US economy is hurting badly because of the Trump administration’s response to the pandemic. At one stage, he presided over the longest government shutdown in US history, despite the Republicans controlling every branch of the government! That’s not exactly impressive or rational leadership is it David?
But I can imagine the response already. You insist we shouldn’t ‘go after’ Trump for things he’s said and done in the past. Define ‘past’, because so far, I’ve referred only to events from his presidency. You claim the Democrats wish to bully people into accepting their ideology – I see exactly that behaviour in Trump and his Republicans. They have a specific vision, whereby white, hetrosexual conservative men benefit by far the most, and everyone else gets crumbs.
LikeLike
you are not an authority to call anyone on anything. your lack of belief and your meerkat musing comment provides all the evidence you seek so stop playing dumb. it is not intelligent or even funny.
I think you should leave Mr. Trump alone like you do Biden, Obama and Clinton. your hypocrisy knows no bounds and eliminates you from having any moral objection to his actions. As someone just said yesterday, Mr. Trump has done more for the black people in 3 years than obama did in 8.
the fact that you ignore and distort information also disqualifies you from being anyone’s conscience.
LikeLike
If I’m not an authority than nor are you. If I’m a hypocrite than so are you, since you are determined to exonerate Trump and his Republican Party for their various on-going misdemeanours. If I am guilty of distorting the facts (which coming from you is frankly hilarious, not to mention another notch on your hypocrisy bow), then so are you. You wouldn’t know facts and evidence if they sat down beside you.
I’m still waiting for even the tiniest shred of evidence that I hate Christianity, which was my original question. No more vague allusions – prove it.
LikeLike