Skip to content

Fr. Jake apologizes for high emotion at Viagraville

March 23, 2007

I’m going to link to this (and break my normal hard and fast rule of never going there, nor posting there), because, I need to demonstrate that even in the face of an apology from the evil Liberal Jake, their opposition, regarding the words he had used to describe the IRDs involvement in the death of Baptist missionaries, some of the pharisees still can’t manage Christian Charity. And we wonder why Christ was crucified?

Jake – You are a bigger person then me. Of course, I can’t even stomach that crowd, and I’d never waste my breath on the narrow minds of Sarah Hey, et al. But, I tip my hat to you.

For what it’s worth, what I see is you apologizing for using an overly emotional metaphor, but the fact remains that silence is paramount to consent – and in the eyes of the secular and Christian world, makes you as guilty as those who did the deed.

It’s nice when so many are so willing to do your dirty work for you, even with minimal incentive. So minimal in this case, that the trail will lead cold.

The IRD has enough money to cover it’s own ass. So the “proof” will always be difficult to “prove”, but it doesn’t change what the world knows.

The perpetration of this crap in Christ’s good name is galling.

Prayers for Jake, the Pharisees, and the evil over at the IRD. God knows.

8 Comments leave one →
  1. Mystical Seeker permalink
    March 23, 2007 11:56 am

    The IRD is essentially a right wing front group, having largely been by right wing political organizations. Chuck Currie has documented this in some detail in his blog, and John Shuck has also discussed it in his blog as well. So even if that specific charge turned out to be incorrect, we have to remember what kind of organization the IRD is.

  2. Göran Koch-Swahne permalink
    March 23, 2007 12:33 pm

    No it was the language; “unrepentant sinner” says a little bit more than anybody but God may know.

    The rest of us may suspect, but that goes without saying…

  3. Eileen permalink
    March 23, 2007 2:10 pm

    Goran – That could very well be.

    You are far more erudite than I am in these matters. 😉

  4. MoCat permalink
    March 23, 2007 4:01 pm

    ooooh, Eileen you brave soul! Posting a link to the Viagra Bloggers! I think they have trolls that crawl through the intertubes sniffing out links from us lefites. They’re trained to screetch at the top of their lungs when they find one so all the little Viagra Bloggers will know to come to the poor defenseless Mother Ship’s aid en masse.

    I’m just gonna run and put on my troll armor and I’ll be back to defend the fort!

  5. Göran Koch-Swahne permalink
    March 23, 2007 7:35 pm

    Trolls are Sveedis!

  6. Jake permalink
    March 24, 2007 11:19 pm

    Thanks, eileen.

    My rhetoric, “unrepentant murders,” was over the top. Emotional foolishness on my part.

    I did find the responses, and what they revealed, rather informative. Unfortunately, I went too far. The apology was sincere.

  7. Eileen permalink
    March 24, 2007 11:49 pm

    I took it as sincere.

    I’ve never experienced you to apologize when you didn’t mean it.

    The language was provocative – over the top.

    But, the IRD is an over the top sort of organization.

    The rest of the thread, at least the last I read of it, was balance by those accepting your apology at face value, accepting your apology for the wrong reason (as a retraction for your condemnation of the IRD) or just couldn’t buy that you might rethink the words you had used, and truly be repentent.

    It was informative, and interesting reading indeed. I can’t even attempt to engage there. I’m not made of strong enough stuff. Kudos from me to you.

  8. Dennis permalink
    March 25, 2007 6:16 pm

    I think it was a very informative discussion, but unfortunately we have already learned most of the lessons we need to learn about the StandFirm crowd.

    I went over there a few days ago for a conversation. I’d say that about a quarter were courteous and engaged in a serious conversation, another quarter were courteous but didn’t really engage in conversation (reverting to “talking points” and repeating the official party line), another quarter were hostile but not rude, and a quarter were serious whack jobs. About what I expected.

    You know, the strange thing is that if we knew these people personally in our home parish I’m sure we would have perfectly nice conversations with them over coffee hour. Parish forums over the whole Anglican bishops issue might be another matter, but I suspect that many of them (well maybe half to three quarters) would be just fine to know and interact with at the parish level.

    I often wonder how much influence the nature of the internet and the structure of controversies on the internet has been behind much of the late unpleasantness.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: