Oh, it wasn't a big deal; I was in some ways just bemused at how the discussion got sidetracked into whether "Catholic Charities" deserved to be recognized by the government as a religious non-profit simply because they had the word "Catholic" in their name, particularly when the person most acidly arguing for that governmental support had a moment earlier been arguing that it's perfectly okay for the government to make an arbitrary distinction between religion and non-religion in the case of the Unitarians. (My response would be that the decision can't be arbitrary in either case, and in the Catholic Charities case, it wasn't. As it turns out, the Texas tax office also agreed when they re-reviewed this and granted the UU church's exception after all.)
The 'cruelly mocking liberals' refers more to an exchange in someone else's journal, when he held up the result of some sort of LJ-ish quiz that terribly mocked people it deemed to be of the neocon ilk and slammed their patriotism and expressed high moral outrage. I asked an admittedly leading question, essentially, "So if you saw the same thing that was viciously attacking the patriotism of liberals chiefly because the cartoonist disagreed with them, that would be just as bad, right?" and was somewhat shocked to get the answer back, point-blank, "Wrong," followed by a diatribe about how liberalism is the source of all evil in today's society and how, if I didn't see that, I should just "go away." It will perhaps not be surprising that it's the journal of the person who started the argument about the church.
At any rate, I can understand a lot of conservative arguments (even when I don't agree with them), but I simply can't understand that mindset.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
momijizukamori
Re: I'm sorry
Date: 2004-06-23 11:22 (UTC)The 'cruelly mocking liberals' refers more to an exchange in someone else's journal, when he held up the result of some sort of LJ-ish quiz that terribly mocked people it deemed to be of the neocon ilk and slammed their patriotism and expressed high moral outrage. I asked an admittedly leading question, essentially, "So if you saw the same thing that was viciously attacking the patriotism of liberals chiefly because the cartoonist disagreed with them, that would be just as bad, right?" and was somewhat shocked to get the answer back, point-blank, "Wrong," followed by a diatribe about how liberalism is the source of all evil in today's society and how, if I didn't see that, I should just "go away." It will perhaps not be surprising that it's the journal of the person who started the argument about the church.
At any rate, I can understand a lot of conservative arguments (even when I don't agree with them), but I simply can't understand that mindset.