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.